Constitutional Law II Reviewer - ADDU (2017)

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 2
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II YRASUEGI v. PAL 599 SCRA 467 (2008)

Atty. Thomas Kristino B. Caharian This involved an overweight flight attendant. Yrasuegi was a
I-Manresa 2017-2018 flight attendant for PAL, under such there are weight standards
as continuing qualification for employment. Yrasuegi was
I. DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL PROTECTION frequently reminded by the PAL for he was around 250 lbs. at
AS LIMITATIONS ON POLICE POWER, that time. He was constantly reminded by PAL. For five years,
EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION PAL gave him chance, but Yrasuegi was dismissed.
A. FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES ON CONSTITUTIONAL He filed a case for illegal dismissal. He said here your violating
LAW AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS the right under Article III, Section 1, under the equal protection
clause. He was discriminated for his weight. The court said, you
Constitution can only use the bill of rights against the state, the Philippine
It limits the power of the constitution and to establish the Airlines is not a part of the state, it is a private entity. Thus,
powers of the three branches of the government and the limits the provision invoked cannot apply to PAL.
of what they can and cannot do, especially to the rights of the
individual. B. BASIC PRINCIPLES ON THE FUNDAMENTAL POWERS
OF THE STATE, THEIR CHARACTERISTICS, SIMILARITIES
Bill of Rights: Protection Against Abuse of Power AND DISTINCTIONS, AND THEIR LIMITATIONS
It can only be invoked against the state, its officers and its
agent. You cannot raise it against a private individual. Like in Inherent Powers of the State
the case of People v. Domantay, wherein he was charged with The totality of governmental power is contained in three great
rape with homicide and while he was in jail, he confessed to a powers: police power, power of eminent domain, and power of
reporter, it was overheard by the police, the testimony was used taxation. These belong to the very essence of government and
by the police. It was used as evidence; the interview was used. without them no government can exist. They are inherent
The Supreme Court stated that such is not covered by the bill powers and they belong to the government as much as spirit
or rights, he could not invoke such against the reporter. and mind belong to the essence of man.
• The bill of rights is superior than property rights.
• It has no retroactive effect. Police Power
It is the power of the government to regulate behaviors and
MANILA PRINCE HOTEL v. GSIS 267 SCRA 408 (1997) enforce order within its territory, often framed in terms of public
GSIS wanted to sell 51% of share of Manila Prince Hotel welfare, security, health, and safety. The exercise of police
Corporation and that there were two bids, the Filipino Company power can be in the form of making laws, compelling obedience
and a Malaysian Firm. It was awarded to the latter, the Filipino to those laws through physical means with the aim of removing
firm used the constitution invoking the Filipino-first policy, liberty, legal sanctions, or other forms of coercion and
stating that national economy and patrimony shall be given inducements.
preferential choice to Filipinos. The court ruled that such
provision is self-executing. Power of Taxation
It is the power to impose and collect taxes and charges on
The Manila Hotel was considered as a part of national individuals, goods, services, and other to support the operation
patrimony for such is a part of Philippine history for eight of the government.
decades as center of political activity like the Japanese
occupation and infamous coup d’etat. Rule is that generally, the Power of Eminent Domain
provisions of the constitution are self-executing subject to the Eminent domain is the right or power of a sovereign state to
exceptions like Article II. appropriate private property to uses to promote public welfare.
It is an indispensable attribute of sovereignty; a power
PAMATONG v. COMELEC 427 SCRA 96 (2004) grounded in the primary duty of government to serve the
Elly Pamatong constantly filed as candidate for President. He common need and advance the general welfare.
ran for President, but when filed for the CoC he was declared
by COMELEC as nuisance candidate. He was not able to prove Similarities of the Inherent Powers
that he had a machinery to conduct a national campaign. 1. They are inherent and maybe exercised without need
of express constitutional grant.
He invokes a provision under Article II, Section 26 alleging that 2. They are not only necessary but indispensable, the
there should equal access to opportunities in public service. cannot continue or be effective unless it is able to
Wherein he should be given such access and opportunity to run exercise them.
for public office. The equal access provision cannot be used as 3. They are methods by which the state interferes with
basis for rights, it falls under Article II and they are generally private rights.
considered not self-executing. The exception of Article II on 4. They all presuppose an equivalent compensation for
being nonself-executing is Section 16 on ecology as the private rights interfered with.
enunciated in the case of Oposa v. Factoran. 5. They are generally exercised by legislature.
From the discussions of Atty. Thomas Kristino B. Caharian and Constitutional Law Annotations by Fr. Joaquin Bernas (2009) aaaaaa
ANG TIBAY v. CIR 69 PHIL. 635 (1940)

Inherent Powers, Distinguished The seven cardinal primary requirements for procedural due
Powers Police Taxation Eminent process under administrative proceedings as follows:
Power Domain 1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to
Extent of Regulates Affects only Affects present one’s case and submit evidence in support
Power liberty and property only thereof;
property rights property 2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
rights 3. The decision must have something to support itself;
Purpose Property Property Property 4. The evidence must be substantial. Substantial
taken is taken is for taken is evidence means such reasonable evidence as a
destroyed public use for public reasonable mind accept as adequate to support a
use conclusion;
Compensation General Protection Value of 5. The decision must be based on the evidence
welfare, and public the presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the
security improvements property record and disclosed to the parties affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on
Hierarchy of Rights its own independent consideration of the law and
The Constitution gives to property the same degree and quality facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the
of protection that it gives to life and liberty. Even thought the views of a subordinate;
right to property is being considered inferior to life and liberty, 7. The Board or body should, in all controversial
it has an intimate relation with such. questions, render its decision in such manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various issues
C. DUE PROCESS IN GENERAL involved, and the reason for the decision rendered.
ARTICLE III, SECTION 1 Administrative proceedings need not actual formal type of
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property hearing, the administrative proceedings need not have a
without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied judicial type setting.
the equal protection of the laws.
Publication of Laws
Due Process, Defined Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the
Due process is a law which hears before it condemns, which completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or
proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after trial. in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless
it is otherwise provided (EO 200).
Due process of law does not necessarily mean a judicial
proceeding in the regular courts. The guarantee of due process, CASES
viewed in its procedural aspect, requires no form of procedure.
It implies that due notice to the individual, the opportunity to PEOPLE v. SITON 600 SCRA 476 (2009)
defend himself must be resolved in fairness. It means essentially There were police officers conducting surveillance on vagrants
a fair and imported trust and reasonable opportunity for the and prostitutes wandering in the wee hours of the night, they
preparation of defense. were arrested for they were allegedly in violation of the Anti-
Vagrancy Law. They challenged it because it was discriminating.
Two Kinds of Due Process
1. Substantive Due Process – deals with the substance Article 202 (2) does not violate the equal protection clause;
and intrinsic validity of the law or the act. neither does it discriminate against the poor and the
unemployed. Offenders of public order laws are punished not
2. Procedural Due Process – this deals with the for their status, as for being poor or unemployed, but for
procedure which must be followed. It is required conducting themselves under such circumstances as to
under several instances like judicial or administrative. endanger the public peace or cause alarm and apprehension in
the community. Being poor or unemployed is not a license or a
Instances where Due Process is Not Necessary justification to act indecently or to engage in immoral conduct.
1. Abatement of a nuisance
2. Preventive Suspension Vagrancy must not be so lightly treated as to be considered
3. Provisional (inaudible) constitutionally offensive. It is a public order crime which
4. Contempt punishes persons for conducting themselves, at a certain place
and time which orderly society finds unusual, under such
The nuisance contemplated can be nuisance per se or nuisance conditions that are repugnant and outrageous to the common
per accidens which the former refers when something is standards and norms of decency and morality in a just, civilized
nuisance, and the latter is based on circumstances like time, and ordered society, as would engender a justifiable concern
place and occasion. for the safety and well-being of members of the community.
Cases Discussing Administrative Due Process GARCILLANO v. COMMITEES 575 SCRA 170
There was a question that the rules of the Senate were not
DLSU v. CA 541 SCRA 22 (2007) published in the newspaper of general circulation. Senate
This involves a frat war, the students involved, the De La Salle alleged that it was not changes since 1995, 2005 and 2006. It
ruled that they should be expelled. While the hearing was going was not revised. The constitutional is clear, the rules must be
on, they alleged that they were not accorded procedural due published every session of the rules and regulation to comply
process. Here the Supreme Court laid down guidelines the with due process requirement.
procedural guidelines involving investigation of students
found to be violating rules of school discipline: SURIGAO ELECTRIC v. ERC 632 SCRA 96 (2010)
1. The students must be informed in writing of the nature ERC ordered the SURNECO to reimburse P18M by the law.
and cause of any accusation against them; SURNECO alleged that they were denied of due process.
2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against However, there was already a hearing.
them and with the assistance of counsel, if desired;
3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them; Rule in Administrative Proceedings
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their Administrative due process simply requires an opportunity to
own behalf; and explain one’s side or to seek reconsideration of the action or
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the ruling complained of. It means being given the opportunity to
investigating committee or official designated by the be heard before judgment, and for this purpose, a formal trial-
school authorities to hear and decide the case. type hearing is not even essential.
Where a party was afforded an opportunity to participate in the It is enough that the parties are given a fair and reasonable
proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain of chance to demonstrate their respective positions and to
deprivation of due process. present evidence in support thereof.
Administrative Due Process Vague Laws

Notice and hearing is the bulwark of administrative due If the provisions of the law are vague it is void, it does not give
process, the right to which is among the primary rights that the people the clear guide to follow as to not violate it.
must be respected even in administrative proceedings. The
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or SOUTHERN v. ANTI-TERRORISM 632 SCRA 146 (2010)
as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to The petitions the constitutionality of RA 6372 or the Human
explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of Security Act. The definition of the word terrorism was
the action or ruling complained of. So long as the party is given questioned as being vague or overbreadth in nature. Petitioners
the opportunity to advocate her cause or defend her interest in assail the law for being intrinsically vague and broad and as
due course, it cannot be said that there was denial of due such violates due process by depriving notice.
process.
Vagueness Doctrine
Meaning of “To be Heard” in Administrative Proceedings It is vague when the statute lacks comprehensible standards
A formal trial-type hearing is not, always and in all instances, that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
essential to due process—it is enough that the parties are given meaning and differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the
a fair and reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides Constitution in that:
of the controversy and to present supporting evidence on which (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons,
a fair decision can be based. “To be heard” does not only mean especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the
presentation of testimonial evidence in court—one may also be conduct to avoid.
heard through pleadings and where the opportunity to be heard (2) it leaves law enforces unbridled discretion in
through pleadings is accorded, no denial of due process. carrying out its provisions and become arbitrary.
ADMU v. CAPULONG 222 SCRA 644 (2003) Overbreadth Doctrine

The students from the fraternity, the right to procedural due It decrees that a governmental purpose to control or prevent
process was violated for they were not accorded with the rules activities constitutionally subject to state regulations may not
of the disciplinary board. They alleged that they were not given be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
the right to cross examine. thereby invade area of protected freedoms.
• It assumes that individuals will understand what a
When it comes to the disciplining of students, there is no right statute prohibits and will refrain from that behaviors
to cross-examine the witness. They alleged that they were not even though some of it are protected.
furnished of the rules, but the court presumed that they knew
the rules because they are already law students. The court ruled A facial challenge can be made to a vague statue and to one
that there was no violation of the due process, because of the which is overbroad because of the possible ‘chilling effect upon
finding that as law students they had the capacity and time to protected speech.’ The vagueness doctrine and overbreadth
have read the rules. doctrine are facial challenges
A Facial Challenge from As Applied Challenge WHITE LIGHT v, CITY OF MANILA 576 SCRA 416 (2009)
As-Applied Challenge Facial Challenge On December 3, 1992, City Mayor Lim signed into law
Considers only extant fact Examination of an entire Ordinance No. 7774 entitled An Ordinance Prohibiting Short-
affecting real litigants. law, pinpointing its flaws, Time Admission, Short-Time Admission Rates, and Wash-Up
and defects, not only based Rate Schemes in Hotels, Motels, Lodging Houses, Pension
on its actual operation, but Houses and Similar Establishments in the City of Manila. Malate
on the prediction that its Tourist and Development Corporation prayed for the
very existence may cause declaration of such to be invalid and unconstitutional.
others not before the court
to refrain from Requisites of a Valid Ordinance
constitutionally protected It must not only be within the corporate powers of the local
speech or activities. government unit to enact and pass according to the procedure
Applicable criminal statute Only applicable to free prescribed by law, it has substantive requirements:
speech cases 1. Must not contravene the Constitution or any statute
2. Must not be unfair or oppressive
The two tests invoked does not apply to this case for it is a penal 3. Must not be partial or discriminatory
statute. Criminal statues have a general in terrorem effect 4. Must not prohibit but may regulate trade
resulting from their very existence. If facial challenge is allowed 5. Must be general and consistent with public policy
under such reason, the State may as well be prevented from 6. Must not be unreasonable
enacting penal laws. Overbreadth and vagueness doctrines
then have special application only to free speech cases. They In the case: The ordinance prohibits two specific and distinct
are inapt for penal statues. business practices, namely wash rate admission and renting out
a room more than twice a day. The ban is rooted in the police
D. DUE PROCESS AND POLICE POWER power conferred to local governments under the general
welfare clause.
Police Power
Police power is the most essential and the least limitable of the The apparent goal of the Ordinance is to minimize if not
three inherent powers of the state. It is the power to prescribe eliminate the use of the covered establishment for illicit sex,
regulations, and to promote the following six grounds: prostitution, drug use and like. These goals, fall under the police
1. Public health power of the state. Yet these ends do not justify the means for
2. Morals the means must align with the constitution.
3. Education
4. Good Order Due Process and Police Power
5. Safety Police power, traditionally awesome as it may be, is now
6. General welfare of the people. confronted with a more rigorous level of analysis before it can
be upheld. The due process clause has acquired potency for it
Two Tests of Determining Valid Use of Police Power dynamic application to such cases.
1. Lawful Subject – the interests of the public in general • The Bill of Rights does not shelter gravitas alone,
as distinguished from those of a certain class and indeed these trivial, yet fundamental freedoms are
those enumerated in the six grounds mentioned. part of the liberty protected by the constitution.
2. Lawful Means – the means employed are reasonably
necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose. In the case: It cannot be denied that the reason is the
3. Must Not be Unduly Oppressive – as enunciated by curtailment of sexual behavior. But it cannot be denied the
Father Bernas, the use of police power should not be legitimate sexual behavior between consenting adults are also
unduly oppressive constitutionally protected. There are also other reasons.
Who Exercises Police Power A reasonable relation between purposes of the measure and
Generally, the legislature but also, upon valid delegation to the the means employed for its accomplished must exist so as
following bodies of the government: not to arbitrarily invade such private and constitutionally
1. President protected rights. Individual rights may be adversely affected only
2. Administrative bodies to the extent that may fairly be required by the legitimate
3. Law-making bodies of LGUs demands of the public interest or public welfare.
Limits when Exercised by a Delegate Held: The Ordinance needlessly restrains the operation of the
1. Express grant by law businesses of the petitioners as well as restricting the rights of
2. Must be within the territorial limits – for LGUs except their patrons without sufficient justification. It rashly equates
when exercised to protect water supply; and wash rates and renting out a room more than twice a day with
3. Must not be contrary to law. immorality. Hence, Ordinance No. 7774 is declared to be
unconstitutional.
SOLICITOR GENERAL v. AYALA 600 SCRA 617 (2009) ROXAS & CO. v. DAMBA NFSW 607 SCRA 33 (2009)
The Senate Committee wanted these malls to provide parking This involves agrarian reform on a hacienda in Batangas. The
spaces for free. Is the action a valid action of police power? land was covered by CARL. They questioned the Agrarian
Reform Law whether or not it was a valid exercise of police
Police power is the power of promoting public welfare by power. Is that not taking of property? The court held that such
restraining and regulating the use of liberty and property. It is was valid police power and eminent domain.
usually exerted to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of
the property of the owner. The power to regulate does not The CARL, being a general welfare legislation, embodies the
include the power to prohibit. Constitution’s priority and commitment to further social justice.
• It does not involve the taking and confiscation of the As an exercise of both police power as it prescribes retention
private property for protecting peace and order and limits for landowners, and of eminent domain as it provides
of promoting general welfare. for the compulsory acquisition of private agricultural lands for
redistribution, the CARL remains consistent with this
Power of Eminent Domain is present when there is a taking commitment. Private rights must “yield to the irresistible
or confiscation of private property for public use. It enables the demands of the public interest on the time-honored
State to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use justification… that the welfare of the people is the supreme law.”
upon payment of just compensation to the owner.
• It normally results in the taking or appropriation of the This kind of expropriation is intended for the benefit not only
title to and possession of the expropriated property. of a particular community or of a small segment of the
population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our
In the case: Title to and possession of parking facilities remain society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted
with the respondents, the prohibition against their collection owner. The effective implementation of the CARL, and
of parking fees from the public for the use of such, is ultimately the constitutional mandate for social justice, relies on
already tantamount to a taking or confiscation of their a balance brought forth by “a more equitable distribution and
properties. ownership of land, with due regard to the rights of landowners
to just compensation and to the ecological needs of the
The State is not only requiring that respondents devote a nation,” to achieve the objective of providing “farmers and
portion of the latter’s properties for use as parking spaces but farmworkers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and
is also mandating them for free public access. Such is already improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity
an excessive intrusion into the property rights of the of agricultural lands.
respondents. Not only they are being deprived of the right to
use a portion of their properties as they wish, they are further CHEVRON v. BCDA 630 SCRA 519 (2010)
prohibited from profiting from its use or even just recovering The Clark Development Corporation was in valid exercise of
the expenses for the maintenance of such facilities. police power when it imposed royalty fees. We hold that the
subject royalty fee was imposed primarily for regulatory
BSP MB v. ANTONIO-VALENZUELA 602 SCRA 698 (2009) purposes, and not for the generation of income or profits as
This involves the “Close now, hear later” policy of banks. They petitioner claims.
have a report examination required to be submitted to the BSP
if there were anomalies, the BSP would order the close the bank The Policy Guidelines was issued, first and foremost, to ensure
to protect the depositors and consumers. The bank filed this the safety, security, and good condition of the petroleum fuel
case for this is a violation to due process for there was no industry within the CSEZ. The questioned royalty fees form part
hearing or explanation of their side. of the regulatory framework to ensure free flow or movement
of petroleum fuel to and from the CSEZ. The fact that
It is well-settled that the closure of a bank may be considered respondents have the exclusive right to distribute and market
as an exercise of police power. The action of the MB on this petroleum products within CSEZ pursuant to its JVA with SBMA
matter is final and executory. Such exercise may nonetheless be and CSBTI does not diminish the regulatory purpose of the
subject to judicial inquiry and can be set aside if found to be in royalty fee for fuel products supplied by petitioner to its client
excess of jurisdiction or with such grave abuse of discretion as at the CSEZ.
to amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
ESPINA v. ZAMORA 631 SCRA 17 (2010)
Under the law, the sanction of closure could be imposed upon The control and regulation of trade in the interest of the public
a bank by the BSP even without notice and hearing. The welfare is of course an exercise of the police power of the State.
apparent lack of procedural due process would not result in the A person’s right to property, whether he is a Filipino citizen or
invalidity of action by the MB. foreign national, cannot be taken without due process of law.
This “close now, hear later” scheme is grounded on practical In denying the petition assailing the validity of such Act for
and legal considerations to prevent unwarranted dissipation violation of the foreigner’s right to substantive due process of
of the bank’s assets, a valid exercise of police power to protect law, the Supreme Court held that the law constituted a valid
the depositors, creditors, stockholders, and the general public. exercise of police power.
E. DUE PROCESS AND EMINENT DOMAIN NAPOCOR v. GUTIERREZ 193 SCRA 1 (1991)
NPC erected transmission lines passing through the property of
ARTICLE III, SECTION 9 Gutierrez. They asked for a right of way, NPC prohibited
Private property shall not be taken for public use without Gutierrez to plant anything above three meters. Gutierrez asked
just compensation. for just compensation for there was an impairment of the use
of property. NPC stated only for rentals, Gutierrez asked for the
Power of Eminent Domain payment in full of the property.
It is the power of the State to forcibly take private property for
public use upon payment of just compensation. It is usually for There was taking in the sense that it impaired the ordinary use,
public use of the State. It is inherent even without constitutional so that the owner is entitled to the full amount of the property
grant, for it is essential for the existence of the government. used for public purposes.
Difference from Expropriation The Requisite of Public Use

Eminent domain is the power to take, while expropriation is the Generally, like roads and schools, property taken must be for
procedure of taking. public use. And even if the expropriated property does not
directly benefit and be made available to the public, as long as
Two Situations Where the Government Forced to Exercise it results to indirect advantage or benefit of the public welfare.
1. When the property owner does not want to sell, then
the government has to exercise the power. SUMULONG v. GUERRERO 154 SCRA 461 (1987)
2. When the owner wants to sell but does not agree to
The NHA wanted to use the property of Sumulong for
the price thus the government exercises such power.
socialized housing for lower and middle class. Sumulong
questioned that only the lower and middle class can only benefit
Who May Exercise Power
and only selected them for it was not “public use”.
Generally, the congress but may be delegated to President, the
bodies of local government units and public corporations.
The court held that socialized housing is within the context
of public use. Whatever will result to indirect public benefit or
Requisites of Exercise of Eminent Domain
welfare is also public welfare. It will benefit for it will help safety,
1. Necessity – must be of public character
welfare and environment. It lessens the incidence of violence
2. Private Property – capable of ownership.
and for better held. Socialized housing falls within the meaning
3. Taking
of public use.
4. Public use – benefit for the public
5. Just Compensation
Matters Subject to Judicial Review for Eminent Domain
1. Amount of just compensation
Concept of “Taking”
2. The choice of the property
Taking does not always to be physical deprivation of the owner
3. Whether expropriation is necessary
from his or her property there are four possible instances:
1. Actual deprivation or dispossession
Two Stages of Exercise of Power of Eminent Domain
2. Practical destruction or material impairment of value
1. The Court has to determine if the government or the
3. Deprived of the ordinary use of property
city has the right to expropriate.
4. Deprived of jurisdiction, supervision or control
2. Determination of just compensation.
Requisites of Taking
SOLICITOR GENERAL v. AYALA 600 SCRA 617 (2009)
1. Expropriator must enter private property
Title to and possession of parking facilities remain with the
2. Entry must not be for a momentary period only
respondents, the prohibition against their collection of
3. Entry must be under a warrant or color of authority
parking fees from the public for the use of such, is already
4. Property must be devoted for public use or otherwise,
tantamount to a taking or confiscation of their properties.
informally appropriated or injuriously affected.
Requiring them to provide free parking is already taking their
5. Entry must be such a way as to oust the owner as to
property without the payment of just compensation. They
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property.
cannot validly exercise the power of eminent domain against
the malls in the case.
US v. VDA. DE CASTELLVI 58 SCRA 336 (1974)
Phillippine Air Force rented property in 1947, renewable yearly.
The State is not only requiring that respondents devote a
In 1956, Castellvi refused to renew. In 1959, the government
portion of the latter’s properties for use as parking spaces but
instituted an expropriation action for public use. Real property
is also mandating them for free public access. Such is already
value appreciates, so there was disagreement to the price. Out
an excessive intrusion into the property rights of the
of these three dates, when did the government take property.
respondents. Not only the are being deprived of the right to
The rental was not for ousting him for beneficial enjoyment.
use a portion of their properties as they wish, they are further
Only in 1959 when all the elements were present, because the
prohibited from profiting from its use or even just recovering
entrance is now to oust Castellvi from benefit of property.
the expenses for the maintenance of such facilities.
Q. Who shall determine the amount of just compensation? Q. Is the doctrine of laches applicable to expropriation actions?
ORTEGA v. CITY OF CEBU 602 SCRA 601 (2009) ILOILO v. CONTRERAS-BESANA 612 SCRA 458 (2010)
Ortega were owners of property. The mayor wanted to The government of the City of Iloilo filed a complaint for
expropriate thus a case for expropriation. There were questions expropriation against the property of Javellana. They wanted to
about the amount of just compensation. When it comes to use the property and erected De La Paz National High School,
eminent domain, there are two parts: the property was used for such purpose. The problem was for
1. Determination of the authority of plaintiff to exercise 16 years, the owner of the property had not received property.
eminent domain and propriety of its exercise; and When she asked the bank, there no payment made.
2. Determination by the court of just compensation.
She filed a case for recovery of possession to take back the
The determination of just compensation is always a judicial property, the court commiserates with the respondent. The
function. The mayor or appraisal committee can recommend, non-payment of just compensation does not entitled the
the final say is deemed a judicial function. landowner with the recovery of the expropriated property.
Concededly, Javellana also slept on his rights because he did
Q. What action should you file if property was expropriated by not bother to check with the bank if the deposit was actually
the government and not paid just compensation? made by the City of Iloilo. She is only entitled to compensation.
EUSEBIO v. LUIS 603 SCRA 576 (2009) F. EQUAL PROTECTION

The property was taken but there was no payment made. Can
the party ask the government to vacate the property? They ARTICLE III, SECTION 1
were owners of the property taken by the government for the No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
municipal road. The appraisal committee provided amount, but without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied
the equal protection of the laws.
negotiations went on. The government already used it for 16
years. The owner filed a case for recovery of possession, since
Equal Protection Clause
there was no payment made.
This is also known as the principle of non-discrimination. It does
not really demand absolute equality, what it merely requires
The action is not recovery of possession, but only the recovery
that persons shall be treated alike under same circumstances
of the payment of just compensation. The party cannot ask
and conditions. It prohibits two things:
for the government to leave the property. Once it is used by the
1. Giving favors.
government, the case must be of collection.
2. Setting someone at a disadvantage.
REPUBLIC v. MENDOZA 627 SCRA 443 (2010)
Not all things always similarly situated, not all times you can use
Where the owner agrees voluntarily to the taking of his
the equal protection clause. It prohibits, unfair or discriminatory
property by the government for public use, he thereby waives
actions and policies against individuals.
his right to the institution of a formal expropriation proceeding
covering such property.
Requisites for Valid Classification
If these four requisites are met, then the act or policy is not in
Failure for a long time of the owner to question the lack of
violation of the equal protection, absent one – a violation.
expropriation proceedings covering a property that the
1. There must be substantial distinction.
government had taken constitutes a waiver of his right to gain
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law.
back possession.
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only,
applies indefinitely as long as the problem sought to
Mendoza’s remedy is only an action for the payment of just
be corrected continues to exist.
compensation, not ejectment. Consequently, the Republic
4. It must be applied equally to all members of the same
should be deemed entitled to possession pending the
class (People v. Cayat, 1939).
Mendoza’s formal transfer of ownership to it upon payment of
just compensation.
1. Substantial Distinction
It must not be superficial, it must be substantial. Sex, physical
Q. Is the action for expropriation only against the owners?
condition and situation. There is a need to look difference.
REPUBLIC v. MANGOTARA 624 SCRA 360 (2010)

2. It Must Be Germane to the Purpose of the Law
The filed an expropriation case not against the owners, but the It must be connected with the means to the implementation of
occupants. The case shall proceed, the defendants in an the purpose and the point of the law.
expropriation case are not limited to the owners of the
property condemned. They include all other persons, owning, 3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only, applies
occupying or claiming to own the property. When property is indefinitely as long as the problem sought to be corrected
taken by eminent domain, the owner is not an indispensable continues to exist.
party to the proceeding.
ICHONG v. FERNANDEZ 101 PHIL. 1155 (1957) Marine Resources (Article XII, Section 2)
There was a law prohibiting alien to take part in business. The All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and
foreigners questioned such law using the equal protection other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or
timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned
clause, stating the discrimination. The court stated that there is
by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural
a substantial difference between aliens and Filipinos. resources shall not be alienated. The exploration, development, and
utilization of natural resources shall be under the full control and
The alien's interest in this country being merely transient and supervision of the State. The State may directly undertake such
temporary, it would indeed be ill-advised to continue entrusting activities, or it may enter into co-production, joint venture, or
the very important function of retail distribution to his hands. production-sharing agreements with Filipino citizens, or corporations
There was dominance (in this time) of alien retailers. This or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by
applied to all aliens regardless of nationality. such citizens. Such agreements may be for a period not exceeding
twenty-five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and
under such terms and conditions as may be provided by law. In cases
Broadly speaking, the power of the legislature to make of water rights for irrigation, water supply fisheries, or industrial uses
distinctions and classifications among persons is not curtailed other than the development of water power, beneficial use may be the
or denied by the equal protection of the laws clause. measure and limit of the grant.
The legislative power admits of a wide scope of discretion, and The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic
a law can be violative of the constitutional limitation only when waters, territorial sea, and exclusive economic zone, and reserve its use
the classification is without reasonable basis. and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens.
The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural

ORMOC SUGAR v. TREASURER 22 SCRA 603 (1968) resources by Filipino citizens, as well as cooperative fish farming, with
There was an ordinance in Ormoc that imposed a tax specifically priority to subsistence fishermen and fish- workers in rivers, lakes, bays,
on Ormoc Sugar Company. At that time, it was the only sugar and lagoons.
company in that place. This is a violation of the equal
protection clause, it imposes tax only on such sugar company, The President may enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for large-
it cannot impose tax on future companies. There is a possibility
scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals, petroleum,
to put up a new sugar company. This did not requirement the
and other mineral oils according to the general terms and conditions
third requirement of not being limited to certain conditions. provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic growth
and general welfare of the country. In such agreements, the State shall
4. It must be applied equally to all members of same class promote the development and use of local scientific and technical
resources.
PASEI v. DRILON 163 SCRA 386 (1988)
The President shall notify the Congress of every contract entered into
There was an order from DOLE which prohibited temporarily
in accordance with this provision, within thirty days from its execution.
the sending of all female domestic workers abroad. It was
challenged as violative of equal protection clause for being
Nationalization (Article XII, Section 10)
singled out of female domestic workers. The court held that
The Congress shall, upon recommendation of the economic and
there is a valid classification and a substantial distinction. Since planning agency, when the national interest dictates, reserve to citizens
it is the female who experience the various abuses abroad. of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per
centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens, or such higher
Domestic helpers live with their employers, it is in these house percentage as Congress may prescribe, certain areas of investments.
abuses occur. The ban is germane to the purpose, it is to The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation
protect. It applies to female domestic workers as long as there and operation of enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos.
are female domestic workers.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony, the State shall give preference to qualified
1. Economic Equality Filipinos.
Free Access (Article III, Section 11)
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals
and priorities.
Legal Aid (Article VIII, Section 5[5])
Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of Social Justice (Article XIII, Sections 1-2)
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the Section 1. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of
admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance measures that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human
to the under-privileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and dignity, reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for
uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, the common good.
increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special
courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless To this end, the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use, and
disapproved by the Supreme Court. disposition of property and its increments.
Section 2. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment The tiredness of the retiree for government work is present, and
to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and what is emphatically significant is that the retired employee has
self-reliance. already declared himself tired and unavailable for the same
government work, but, which, by a change of mind, he would
Protection to Labor (Article XIII, Section 3)
like to assume again. It is for this very reason that inequality will
The State shall afford full protection to labor, local and overseas,
organized and unorganized, and promote full employment and
neither result from the application of the challenged provision.
equality of employment opportunities for all.
In fine, it bears reiteration that the equal protection clause
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization, does not forbid all legal classification. What is proscribes is
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted a classification which is arbitrary and unreasonable. That
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. They shall constitutional guarantee is not violated by a reasonable
be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, and a classification based upon substantial distinctions.
living wage. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may be provided by law
QUINTO v. COMELEC 606 SCRA 258 (2009)
The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between 2009 Case: The whole issue there was that, if you are an elective
workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in official and you file a COC you are not deemed resigned upon
settling disputes, including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual filing. Also, as appointive, filing an COC, you are deemed
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. resigned. In this case, the SC said this is a violation of the equal
protection for there was a discrimination between appointive
The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers,
and elective official.
recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production
and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns to investments, and
to expansion and growth. 2010 Case: SC overturned its previous ruling; the court now
states that there is a substantial distinction. When you are an
2. Political Equality elective official, you cannot be deemed resigned because you
Discrimination (Article IX-C, Section 10) are elected by your constituents. In appointive official, there is
Bona fide candidates for any public office shall be free from any form always succession of office available.
of harassment and discrimination.
ANG LADLAD v. COMELEC 618 SCRA 32 (2011)
Social Justice (Article XIII, Section 1) The Ladlad Group’s registration was denied under moral
The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measures
ground, claiming that being gay is a criminal act. They were
that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity,
denied by the COMELEC. Laws of general application shall apply
reduce social, economic, and political inequalities, and remove cultural
inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the with equal force to LGBTs, and they deserve to participate in the
common good. party-list as they are an underrepresented and marginalized
sector and in compliance with the international obligation to
DUMLAO v. COMELEC 95 SCRA 392 (1980) promote human rights. The principle of non-discrimination
Dumlao questioned BP 52 for being discriminatory. Dumlao should be recognized. Ang Ladlad could run.
was a governor who was 65 years old. The law states that any
retired provincial, city or municipal official who received 3. Social Equality
payment retirements and shall be 65 years of age, he shall no
longer be qualified to run from the same elective local position TRILLANES v. PIMENTEL 556 SCRA 471 (2008)
to which he was previously instituted. Dumlao alleged that it While Trillanes was in jail, he ran and won. He filed a motion for
was insidiously against him, it was based on pure arbitrary he wanted to attend Senate hearing despite a coup d’etat. He
grounds. Assails the constitutionality for being violative of the alleges that it would be a violation of the equal protection
equal protection clause. clause comparing himself against Jalosjos who a rapist was
involving rights of moral turpitude.
The constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws is
subject to rational classification. If the groupings are based on The distinctions cited by petitioner were not elemental in the
reasonable and real differentiations, one class can be treated pronouncement in Jalosjos that election to Congress is not a
and regulated differently from another class. reasonable classification in criminal law enforcement as the
functions and duties of the office are not substantial
For purposes of public service, employees 65 years of age, have distinctions which lift one from the class of prisoners
been validly classified differently from younger employees. interrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of
Employees attaining that age are subject to compulsory movement.
retirement, while those of younger ages are not so compulsorily
retriable. In the case of a 65-year old elective local official, who Just because you are elected as Senator, this is not considered
has retired from a provincial, city or municipal office, there is as substantial distinction because both are capital offenses and
reason to disqualify him from running for the same office from that both are imprisoned. Thus, the Jalosjos ruling applies
which he had retired, as provided for in the challenged squarely to Pimentel for he cannot claim such position as being
provision. The need for new blood assumes relevance. substantial ground.
BIRAOGO v. PHIL TRUTH 637 SCRA 78 (2010) II. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE
Executive Order No. 1 created the Philippine Truth Commission
for the investigation reported cases of graft and corruption only A. ARRESTS, SEARCHES, SEIZURES AND
during the previous administration. The assailed order is PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
violative of EO 1, it did not apply equally to all class. It should
be struck down. ARTICLE III, SECTION 2
The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
Applying these precepts to this case, Executive Order No. 1 houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
should be struck down as violative of the equal protection searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
clause. The clear mandate of the envisioned truth commission
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause
is to investigate and find out the truth "concerning the reported to be determined personally by the judge after
cases of graft and corruption during the previous administration" examination under oath or affirmation of the
only. The intent to single out the previous administration is complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
plain, patent and manifest. Mention of it has been made in at particularly describing the place to be searched and the
least three portions of the questioned executive order. persons or things to be seized.
BOCEA v. TEVES 661 SCRA 589 (2011) ARTICLE III, SECTION 3

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence
This concerns the Attrition Act of 2005, there was this law that
shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court,
gave the Bureau of Customs and BIR certain incentives and or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as
rewards if they reach their targets. This was challenged for prescribed by law.
being violative of the equal protection clause.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
Equal protection simply provides that all persons or things preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose
similarly situated should be treated in a similar manner, both as in any proceeding.
to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The purpose
of the equal protection clause is to secure every person within 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR SEARCH WARRANTS
a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary The right to one house is a preferred, all persons are included
discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a not only Filipino including aliens. The police cannot just barge
statute or by its improper execution through the state’s duly in it applies to both natural and juridical persons.
constituted authorities.
Personal Right
In other words, the concept of equal justice under the law The person entitled is the only person that can invoke it. If you
requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw are entitled to that right, then you are the only one that can
distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are invoke such right.
irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objective.
Two Situations of Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
The equal protection clause recognizes a valid classification, 1. There was a warrant, but it is not validly obtained or
that is, a classification that has a reasonable foundation or not validly served.
rational basis and not arbitrary. With respect to RA [No.] 9335, 2. If there is no warrant and does not fall to any of the
its expressed public policy is the optimization of the revenue- exceptions.
generation capability and collection of the BIR and the BOC.
GENERAL RULE: No warrant, no search.
Since the subject of the law is the revenue-generation capability
and collection of the BIR and the BOC, the incentives and/or Consent
sanctions provided in the law should logically pertain to the said It cannot be lightly inferred, but it must be proved with clear
agencies. Moreover, the law concerns only the BIR and the BOC and convincing evidence. The consent must be unequivocally,
because they have the common distinct primary function of specific and intelligently given. Silence does not mean consent.
generating revenues for the national government through the
collection of taxes, customs duties, fees and charges. Requirements for a Valid Search Warrant
The following are considered to be grounds for a valid search
Both the BIR and the BOC are bureaus under the DOF. They warrant under People v. Chua, 2003.
principally perform the special function of being the (1) it must be issued upon "probable cause";
instrumentalities through which the State exercises one of its (2) probable cause must be determined personally by the
great inherent functions — taxation. Indubitably, such judge; not by any other person
substantial distinction is germane and intimately related to the (3) such judge must examine under oath or affirmation
purpose of the law. Hence, the classification and treatment the complainant and the witnesses he may produce;
accorded to the BIR and the BOC under RA 9335 fully satisfy the and
demands of equal protection. (4) the warrant must particularly describe the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Probable Cause, Defined Requirements for Search Warrant (Atty. Montejo)

Probable cause is meant such set of facts and circumstances 1. There must be an application in writing and under
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to oath;
believe that the offense charged in the Information, or any 2. There is probable cause to be determined personally,
offense included therein, has been committed by the person by the judge;
sought to be arrested. 3. After examination under oath and affirmation of the
witnesses which the judge must personally conduct,
In determining probable cause, the average man weighs facts there must have to be searching questions and
and circumstances without resorting to the calibrations of the answers;
rules of evidence of which he has no technical knowledge. He 4. The search warrant must be issued in connection with
relies on common sense. one specific offense;
5. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be
A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence searched;
showing that more likely than not a crime has been committed 6. It must also particularly describe the thing or things to
and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause be seized.
demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less than
evidence which would justify conviction. Q. What constitutes consent to qualify a valid waiver of the
right against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Unless it is shown that the questioned acts were done in a
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment evidencing a IN RE: MORALES 571 SCRA 361 (2008)
clear case of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or There were two anonymous letters leading to an administrative
excess of jurisdiction, this Court will not interfere in the findings complaint stating that he was spending his office time for
of probable cause determined by the Ombudsman. (Kalalo v. private interest and including office supplies. Morales was a
Ombudsman, 2010). branch clerk and was charged for graft and corruption.
NOTE: The officers cannot go beyond what is stated in the The NBI conducted a spot-on investigation. The team was
warrant to be seized or not to be seized. They should be guided able to access his personal computer and printed two
with what is stated in the search warrant. documents from the personal computer. Morales invoked
constitutional protection under Article III, Section 2. The
Search Warrant Warrant of Arrest question was whether the pleadings found in the personal
Valid only for ten days from It does not have a lifetime, computer was valid.
the date of its issuance and there is no expiration.
not from the date of its However, there must be There was no valid search. Consent to a search is not to be lightly
receipt. report ten days from its inferred and must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. It
issuance whether or not the must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal search;
arrest warrant has been that is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently
searched. given and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.
It generally happens in a It can be issued at any time The burden of proving, by clear and positive testimony that the
daytime search unless the due to the mobile nature. It necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and
court is convinced that the is not necessary to cite the voluntarily given lies with the State. Acquiescence in the loss
search be conducted at name of person but of fundamental rights is not to be presumed and courts
night. particularly describe him. indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver of
Search requirements It is not necessary that the fundamental constitutional rights.
requires two witnesses in judge should personally
the search to assist in the examine the complainant Three Requisites of Valid Waiver of Rights
search in the absence of and his witnesses. He would Against Unreasonable Searches
immediate family member simply personally review the 1. The right exists;
or the owner himself. initial determination of the 2. That the person involved had knowledge, either actual
prosecutor to see if it is or constructive, of the existence of such right;
supported by substantial 3. The said person had an actual intention to relinquish
evidence; here merely the right.
determines the probability
of the certainty of the guilt What is missing is a showing that Atty. Morales had an actual
of the accused and, in so intention to relinquish his right.
doing, he need not conduct
a de novo hearing. The Court cannot use the evidence obtained from his personal
Need not be technically John Doe warrant valid if computer against him for it violated his constitutional right.
accurate or precise. there is descriptie personae.
Q. What are factors of validity of issuance of search warrants?

Q. What are the objects which may be confiscated
during the search and seizure? PEOPLE v. TUAN 628 SCRA 226 (2010)
Constitutional Requirement of Definiteness: A description of
PEOPLE v. NUÑEZ 591 SCRA 394 (2009) the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the
The police conducted search in the appellant’s room, SPO1 warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the
Ilagan found thirty-one (31) packets of shabu, lighters, place intended and distinguish it from others. A designation or
improvised burners, tooters, and aluminum foil with shabu description that points out the place to be searched to the
residue and a lady’s wallet containing P4,610 inside appellant’s exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the
dresser. peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of
definiteness.
The group also confiscated a component, camera, electric planer,
grinder, drill, jigsaw, electric tester, and assorted carpentry tools In the case: The address and description of the place was
on suspicion that they were acquired in exchange for shabu. They specific enough, there was only one house in such address
issued receipt. Thus, we are here constrained to point out an consisting of a structure and two floors with several rooms.
irregularity in the search conducted.
Held: The Court upholds the validity of the Search Warrant for
Certainly, the lady’s wallet, cash, grinder, camera, component, accused-appellants house issued by Judge Cortes, and any
speakers, electric planer, jigsaw, electric tester, saws, hammer, items seized because of the search conducted may be
drill, and bolo were not encompassed by the word paraphernalia presented as evidence against such.
as they bear no relation to the use or manufacture of drugs.
Factors on the Validity of Issuance of Search Warrants
In seizing the said items then, the police officers exercised their Pursuant to Section 4 and 5 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules
own discretion and determined for themselves which items in of Criminal Procedure, the following are the factors:
appellant’s residence they believed were “proceeds of the 1. It must be issued upon probable cause.
crime” or “means of committing the offense.” This is, in our 2. The probable cause must be determined by the judge
view, impermissible. himself and not by the applicant or any other person.
3. In the determination of the probable cause, the judge
Objects Which May be Confiscated During the Search must examine, under oath or affirmation, the
1. Subject of the offense complainant and witnesses as the latter may produce
2. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of 4. The warrant issued must particularly describe the
the offense or place to be searched and person or things to be
3. Used or intended to be used as the means of seized.
committing.
Q. What was the basis of the judge in finding probable cause
Q. What if the articles described in the article was not found? Is for the issuance of search warrants?
there anything wrong if search was made done in the full and
plain view of the community? PEOPLE v. MAMARIL 632 SCRA 369 (2010)
The police officers bring affidavits to the judge and examine the
DEL ROSARIO v. DONATO SR. 614 SCRA 332 (2010)
witnesses they may produce. There is no general formula for
Judicially ordered search that fails to yield the described the determination of probable, it is on the judge to determine
illicit article does not render court’s order unlawful. In the it is on a case to case basis.
case, the Del Rosarios did not allege that respondents NBI
agents violated their right by fabricating testimonies to If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which
convince the RTC to issue the search warrant. Their allegation the application is based or that there is probable cause to
that the NBI agents used an unlawfully obtained search warrant believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which
is a mere conclusion of law. Statements of mere conclusions must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules.
of law expose the complaint to a motion to dismission on
ground of failure to state a cause of action. There is no general formula or fixed rule for the determination
of probable cause since the same must be decided in light of
On the allegation that search warrant implemented was done in the conditions obtaining in given situations and its existence
full and plain view of community – there was nothing wrong. depends to a large degree upon the findings or opinion of the
There is nothing inherently wrong with search warrant being judge conducting the examination. It is presumed that a
enforced in full view of the neighbors. In fact, when the judicial function has been regularly performed, absent a
respondent or his representative is not present during the showing to the contrary. This determination is always a
search, the rules require that it be done in the presence of two judicial function, no person can issue a warrant of arrest
residents in the same locality. This is to safeguard persons from only the judge.
possible abuses that may occur if searches were done.
Q. Can you use items seized as evidence in different offense? Q. When can there be extensive search without warrant?
TAN v. SY TIONG GUE 638 SCRA 601 ANIAG v. COMELEC 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
There were to cases filed here the first case was for robbery, There was a COMELEC Gun Ban, the Sergeant at Arms
what was robbed were cash, checks and television. A search requested the return of the firearms. His driver was tasked to
warrant granted. This case was dismissed for the complaint was return of such firearms. About 30 minutes later, it was flagged
withdrawn. What was then filed was for qualified theft. They down, and the firearms was found. The gun was neatly packed
wanted to involved the seized items arising out of the robbery in gun cases and placed inside a bag at the back of the car.
case. The search is only for one specific crime.
There was no valid search. The gun was put it in case in a black
Since the search warrant was for the crime of robbery, it cannot bag that was put in a trunk, there is no way that it could have
be used for qualified theft, since the information for robbery been known without violating any of his constitutional right.
was already withdrawn. You cannot use the items seized as
evidence in any other offense except in that which the Extensive Search without Warrant
search warrant was issued. Even if both arise from the same Could only be resorted to if the officers had reasonable or
incident. probable cause to believe before the search that either the
motorist was a law offender or that they would find evidence
Furthermore, even if an Information for Qualified Theft be later pertaining to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to be
filed on the basis of the same incident subject matter of the searched. Also acknowledged case is if there was a prior
dismissed case of robbery, petitioner cannot include the seized confidential information corroborated by other attendant
items as part of the evidence therein. Contrary to petitioner’s matters.
contention, he cannot use the items seized as evidence in any
other offense except in that in which the subject search In the case, there was no evidence to show that police had
warrants were issued. confidential reports to have them reasonably believe that
certain motorists are engaged in gunrunning, firearm transport,
Q. Should the seized properties be owned by the person to etc. There was also no indication that Arellano’s behavior or the
whom the search warrant was directed? package triggered suspicion. As such, the policemen
unreasonably intruded into petitioner’s privacy and the security
TY v. DE JEMIL 638 SCRA 671 (2010)
of his property, in violation of Sec. 2, Art. III, of the Constitution.
The law does not require that the property to be seized should
be owned by the person against whom the search warrants is Q. Is a vehicle speeding away after being flagged down in a
directed. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence, and it checkpoint sufficient basis for probable cause?
is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is
directed has control or possession of the property sought to be EPIE v. ULAT-MARREDO 518 SCRA 641 (2007)
seized. Petitioners cannot deny that the seized LPG cylinders
Where the vehicle was flagged down but it did not stop, forcing
were in the possession of Omni, found as they were inside the
the police to chase, there exists probable cause to justify a
Omni compound.
reasonable belief on the part of the law enforcers that the
vehicle contained objects which were instruments of some
2. Valid Instances of Warrantless Searches and Seizures
offense.
In these recognized exceptions, there are practical instances
where procuring a search warrant would no longer be
2:30 pm of Sep. 6, 1998, a confidential informer disclosed to
necessary. However, what is common to these ten exceptions
SPO2 Ngina that the passenger jeepney with plate no AYB 117
is there presence of probable cause.
loaded with pine lumber. The lumber covered by assorted
vegetables. A PNP roadblock was placed to intercept the
A. Search of Moving Vehicles
jeepney.
It is by reason of the very nature of a moving vehicle because
of its capacity to move away. It may be difficult to secure a
A search in the vehicle disclosed several pieces of pine lumber,
warrant because it is mobile. Not only that, even if there was
they could not produce required DENR permit to cut and
opportunity to secure a warrant, it may happen that after the
transport the same
warrant has been secured, the vehicle has already been moved
outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court
A vehicle speed away after noticing a check point and even after
having been flagged down by a police officer, in an apparent
allowable. “Technically” because it is also not correct to assume
attempt to desuade the police officer from inspecting the vehicle.
that just because a vehicle is moving or movable, that the state
There exists a probable cause.
agents can easily flag down any vehicle and conduct a search
for no apparent reason like they don’t like your vehicle because
This a valid instance of a warrantless search because of the
it’s more expensive than the police car. They cannot do that
existence of sufficient probable cause that is the speeding away
ordinarily.
after being flagged and an informer’s tip that was given to the
police officers.
PEOPLE v. TUASON 532 SCRA 152 (2007) Q. Can there be a valid warrantless search for a violator of
In this case there was a confidential information stating the traffic rules? What is meant by arrest?
plate number of the car, it matched the description of the car,
there was a gun tucked in the waist, the shabu was in the driver LUZ v. PEOPLE 667 SCRA 421 (2012)
seat, the police officers had a probable cause. Petitioner could not have been “under arrest” since there was
no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to deprive him of his
B. Search Incident to a Valid Arrest liberty or take him into custody. The period in the police station
There must always be a valid arrest. If there is none the is can be characterized as waiting time and convenience
incidental and articles seizures are inadmissible and invalid. because Alteza himself testified that they were almost in front
of the substation. There was no intention to take into custody
Two Conditions
1. There must have to be a valid arrest, with or without It appears that according to the City Ordinance which petitioner
warrant. admittedly violated, the penalty is only a fine. Under the Rules
2. The search incident to a valid arrest must limited in of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the
time and space. information was filed for an offense penalized only by a fine. It
can be stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless
Immediate Control Rule arrest be made for such an offence.
That’s why it is limited in time – immediately after the arrest
and limited in space – only within the person of the person There being no valid arrest, the warrantless search that
arrested and within the immediate environment where he has resulted from it was likewise illegal. Petitioner never
effective control. The search be contemporaneous with arrest. consented to the search either. He was merely told to take out
No considerable lapse of time. the contents of his pockets. Burden of proof is on the
prosecution.
The reason is primarily to protect the arresting and searching
officer of his safety because the person arrested may have AMBRE v. PEOPLE 678 SCRA 552 (2012)
concealed some weapons which he may use to evade or escape The arrest of the accused falls under exceptions. Ambre was
an arrest. It is also for the arresting officer to secure whatever caught by the police officers in the act of using shabu and can
evidence that may be taken from the person of the person thus be lawfully arrested without a warrant. She was seen
arrested or within the immediate environment. sniffing the shabu from an aluminum foil being held by Castro.
Q. Supposing that another address was shown to have the Further, she argues that there was no lawful intrusion of the
contraband stated in the search warrant can there be a valid Sultan residence, but this argument is specious since lawful
search? intrusion is not an element of an arrest in flagrante delicto.
DEL CASTILLO v. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 450 (2012) Since there was lawful arrest, then the subsequent search and
By the above provisions, the police officers, as well as seizure was likewise lawful. There is also presumption of
the barangay tanods were acting as agents of a person in regularity in the performance of official duties on the part of
authority during the conduct of the search. Thus, the search the police. There are also the urine samples taken from the
conducted was unreasonable and the confiscated items are three accused which tested positive for shabu.
inadmissible in evidence. While it is not necessary that the
property to be searched be owned by the person against whom C. Plain View Doctrine
the search warrant is issued, there must be sufficient showing When it comes to plain view, it is as if there was no search at
that the property is under petitioner’s control or possession. all. In their plain view, the illicit article was then present at sight
of the police officer or authority.
The records are void of any evidence to show that petitioner
owns the nipa hut in question nor was it established that he Requisites for Plain View Doctrine to be Valid
used the said structure as a shop. The RTC, as well as the CA, 1. There must be a justification for the prior intrusion
merely presumed that petitioner used the said structure due to 2. The evidence must be inadvertently discovered;
the presence of electrical materials, the petitioner being an 3. The illegality of the thing is immediately apparent.
electrician by profession. This is not a valid search, they had a
search warrant, what was described was a house but what was Again, the reason is because the illegality of the evidence must
shown was it is in another address. be immediately apparent. When it involves guns and drugs,
then that requisite is complied with.
The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge
of the existence and presence of the drugs in the place under That cannot be determined by the seizing officer because that
his control and dominion and the character of the drugs. With is a question of fact. Unlike in guns and drugs, there may be
the prosecution’s failure to prove that the nipa hut was under hardly any discussion if it is illegal. This is because there’s a
petitioner’s control and dominion, there casts a reasonable simple question, “are you permitted to hold or possess this
doubt as to his guilt. firearm?” If not, it is illegal.
ABENES v. COURT OF APPEALS 515 SCRA 690 (2007) POSADAS v. COURT OF APPEALS 188 SCRA 288 (1990)
There was a gun tucked in his waist during the COMELEC gun This happened in Davao City, the police officers conducted at
ban at the checkpoint. The three requisites for plain view 10PM conducted a surveillance operation at Magallanes. The
doctrine was present in this case. police officers while in surveillance. They noticed a person
carrying a buri bag acting suspiciously. The police officers
ESQUILLO v. PEOPLE 629 SCRA 370 (2010) approached him. Upon identifying he tried to flee. They chased
As PO1 Cruzin alighted from the private vehicle that brought him, when he was found there was an unregistered firearm,
him and PO2 Aguas to the target area, he glanced in the ammunition and smoke grenade.
direction of petitioner who was standing three meters away and
seen placing inside a yellow cigarette case what appeared to be This was a valid stop and frisk, there is no question that there is
a small heat-sealed transparent plastic sachet containing white probable cause. There is sufficient justification. The fleeing itself
substance. It was three meters away and illegality is apparent. is enough basis probable case.
PEOPLE v. MARTINEZ 632 SCRA 791 (2010) PEOPLE v. MENGOTE 210 SCRA 14 (1992)
This was not a valid search in plain view. They received some tip There was a telephone call stating that there were three
and police went to the place, the house was covered, they suspicious looking persons in Tondo, Manila. The police officers
peeped in the house to see the alleged pot session. After that, conducted a surveillance. They saw two men looking side to
they went in and arrested the individuals. It was not a valid side, one of them is holding his hand to his abdomen. They
search in plain view. approached the persons, these persons ran away, they chased
them, and it was shown that there was unlicensed firearm.
They did not see an actual pot session for they have to uncover
the covering of the house. The tip was not sufficient because However, the search was illegal, the accused was merely
they did not get his name or his written statement. There was looking side to side and holding abdomen. These are not
no probable cause. sinister acts. The determination is on a case to case basis. You
look at the attendant circumstances. The time element here was
D. Stop and Frisk crucial. In the previous case it was nighttime, in this case was
The “Stop-And-Frisk Situation” is allowed to be conducted during 10AM in a crowded street in Tondo.
because the searching or the frisking officer is not certain
whether there is criminal activity going on. He is suspicious MANALILI v. COURT OF APPEALS 280 SCRA 400 (1998)
because of the circumstances. This happened in a cemetery, the police were conducting
surveillance in Caloocan City. They saw this person, who has like
This is one of the recognized exceptions. The stop and frisk to drunk, walking wobbly and have red eyes. They went to him, he
be valid, the search must be based from probable by acting tried to resist, then he fled. They arrested him, inside his wallet
suspiciously for the probability of concealing any illicit articles marijuana.
in possession of the individual.
This place was a popular handout place for drug users. The
He is therefore allowed to frisk a person in that situation for apprehending officer also has a background as part of the
possible concealed weapon which he may use against the Narcotics Unit. Such suspicious behavior is characteristics of
police officer and to secure what is necessary in order that the drug users who were high. As such, there is justified reason to
police officer may investigate further any possible criminal search the person. There was a valid stop and frisk.
activity.
ESQUILLO v. PEOPLE 629 SCRA 370 (2010)
If in the conduct of the frisking, there is an illegal item or There was an informant’s tip. There was a notorious snatcher
contraband found upon the person of the person frisked, that named Ryan. There were surveillance operations. When they
may be used against him. saw the person with the matching description, they even this
person putting a heat sealed transparent sachet inside a
Terry Rule, Concept cigarette case. They went to him and approached, however, he
This is just simply the Stop and Frisk doctrine. It is based on the fled, and the police officers pursued him.
case of Terry v. Ohio, “when an officer is justified in believing
that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is It was a valid stop and frisk, it gave several purposes in the stop
investigating at close range is presently dangerous to the and frisk doctrine. This is the recognition that the police officer
officer, or to others,” he may conduct a limited prospective may in appropriate circumstances may approach a person for
search for concealed weapons. the investigation for possible criminal behavior. This works for
the safety and general protection of people and the public.
The purpose of this limited search is not to discover evidence
of crime, but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation There may be even weapons and firearms for the safety of the
without risk of violence. There must always be probable cause. police officers to be able to prevent any other crime to protect
The officer can only frisk you only if you are acting suspiciously. the interest of people and the public. In this case, there was
valid stop and frisk rule.
E. Express Waiver F. Search of Warehouse in Violation of Customs and

Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a right. This applies Tariff Code or to Enforce Customs Laws
to the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and
seizures. However, there are limitations for a waiver. Rule: Pursuant to the Tariff and Customs, they can conduct to
search as long as its pursuant to the Code there is no more need
Requisites for a Valid Express Waiver for a search warrant, and such it is a recognized exception.
1. The person must possess such right;
2. He must have the knowledge if the existence of such Exception: The only exception here is when it involves a
rights; and dwelling place. If the contraband or smuggled goods are kept
3. He has the intention to relinquish such right. in a dwelling place, there must have to be a warrant secured.
Your legal loophole, if you are a smuggler, you build a big
Mere silence does not constitute express waiver. Silence does house and keep all your contraband and smuggled items inside
not mean consent. It must be made voluntarily, knowingly and your house. Not in a bonded warehouse where P6.4B worth of
intelligently.
shabu may be taken even without a warrant.
Common to three cases discussed below, there is only express BUREAU OF CUSTOMS v OGARIO 329 SCRA 289 (2000)
waiver when the requisites are shown. It must be given The District Collector of Cebu Bartolome issued a warrant of
voluntarily, intelligently and knowingly. Silence does not mean seizure and detention against 25,000 bags of rice from Palawan
consent, and when consent is given, the search must be and boarded in a ship to Cebu in MV Alberto. The consignee
pursuant to the consent given. here, went to the Trial Court to have the warrant of seizure be
quashed.
VEROY v. LAYAGUE 210 SCRA 92 (1992)
Petitioners aver that while they concede that Captain Obrero It is not within the jurisdiction of the RTC to rule in the validity
had permission from Ma. Luisa Veroy to break open the door of the seizure and forfeiture. The collector of Customs has the
of their residence, it was merely for the purpose of ascertaining jurisdiction to review such matter. Therefore, as long as they
there at the presence of the alleged "rebel" soldiers. The have followed the procedure, search warrant is not needed.
permission did not include any authority to conduct a room to
room search once inside the house. Q. What if a warrant order was declared invalid subsequently
after an arrest? Does operative fact apply?
The items taken were, therefore, products of an illegal search,
violative of their constitutional rights. As such, they are RIETA v. PEOPLE 436 SCRA 237 (2004)
inadmissible in evidence against them. The reason was that it They conducted surveillance operations in the gulf of Manila.
was being used as hideout and as recruitment center. The They received a tip that a truck has illegal cigarettes. In 4AM, a
search, even when there is a valid waiver must have to be truck went out of the warehouse with the matching description
conducted pursuant to the terms of the consent given. You do and plate number, when they saw the truck. They immediately
not search for rebels in the drawers. The consent was for the went to truck. The tailing Toyota Corolla upon seeing the arrival
rebels. of the authorities turned around and attempted to leave.
PEOPLE v. NUEVAS 516 SCRA 463 (1993) Pursuant to the Arrest and Seizure Order was declared invalid
Police informants in Olongapo gave a tip and description of for lack of publication. But pursuant to the operative fact
Nuevas. When they went to place to surveillance, he matched doctrine at the time of the arrest, the arrest was considered
the descriptions. Upon being called, knowing that he has valid. Furthermore, the search and seizure of goods was in
nowhere to go, he surrendered his bag stating it contained illicit violation of the customs laws which is an exception to the
articles. However, when he himself open the bag, he implicated search and seizure limitations by the Constitution.
two other persons to exculpate himself from criminal liability.
Q. What are the requirements when for search done for
Nuevas led them to the two, the police opened the bags and violation of the Tariff and Customs Code?
there were illicit articles in violation of RA 9165. There was a
valid waiver as to Nuevas. There was no valid waiver as to two SALVADOR v. PEOPLE 463 SCRA 489 (2005)
other persons he pointed. Nuevas willingly submitted and in They were mechanics at Philippine Airlines. Surveillance was
fact opened. There was waiver only on his part. made for there were reports of the smuggling of watches and
jewelries. They saw three mechanics entered after ascertaining
PEOPLE v. DEQUINA 640 SCRA 111 (2011) that there were no longer persons around.
Two women brought two travelling bag and police officers
found them. When they were fleeing the bag that they are They were intercepted by police intelligence and that they were
carrying dropped, the zipper opened, and the illicit articles was arrested. This was challenged by the petitioners stating that
found in the bag. Thus, it was clear from then on that the seizure there was no search warrant for the search and seizure.
of the illicit articles were valid because the bag opened itself However, the court stated that this was a valid search for it
and giving it on plain view the apparent illegality of the objects. was in violation of the Tariff and Customs Code.
The following are the requirements for searches done due to PEOPLE v. MENDOZA 301 SCRA 66 (1999)
violations of the Tariff and Customs Code: There was a birthday party, a certain Octavio left to go home,
1. It must be conducted by persons exercising authority Octavio went home, they heard gunshots, and went into the
under the Customs law. (It should be Customs police room. Went they went inside they saw a dead body and found
or police that are deputized by Bureau of Customs). a .35 caliber gun. Octavio told to hand it over, Eusebio (victim’s
2. There must be probable cause. (A mere report is father) told that Octavio was the one who killed the victim. But
sufficient to constitute probable cause). the court held that it cannot be inadmissible because the gun
3. It must be limited to persons, vehicles and warehouses was found by a private person not a government officer.
except for dwelling house.
4. Only dutiable goods must be seized. PEOPLE v. BONGCAWARAN 384 SCRA 525 (2002)
Shabu was found inside a vessel (boat), the person who
G. Exigency searched and found it was the vessel security personnel. He
It is the urgent need or demand, it is an extraordinary type of countered invoking search warrant. The vessel security
situation like in the case of People v. De Gracia. personnel are not a government official, he was a private
employee of the vessel company. The search was not
PEOPLE v. DE GRACIA 233 SCRA 716 (1994) performing as a police officers. Security personnel is a private
This was during the height of the coup attempt. The Euro Car employee and bill of rights cannot be invoked against them.
Sales Office was being used by the NPA as communication post.
There was surveillance, all of the sudden, five people emerged I. Airport Security
from the office and fired at the police. They have no choice but With the increased concern on hijacking and terrorism,
to raid the office. They were charged for illegal possession and passengers intending to board an aircraft would have to pass
many other offenses like rebellion and attempted homicide. through metal detectors, they are routinely subject to x-rays.
Should these procedures suggest presence of suspicious
This was a search during an exigent circumstance, there was substance and objects, there is little question that such searches
a coup d’etat. The courts were closed, the trial judge himself are reasonable. This is a recognized exception as part of airport
manifested that on December 5 of the year, the court was security procedure.
closed. They cannot get a warrant. Under such urgency and
exigent situation, a search warrant can be dispensed. This was J. Jail Safety
allowed as a recognized exception.
PEOPLE v. CONDE 356 SCRA 525 (2002)
H. Search and Seizure by Private Persons This Members of BJMP, they were asked to empty their
This just embodies the basic rule of the Bill of Rights that it can belonging. This is a recognized exception, it is part of standard
only be invoked against the state. operating procedure to safeguard the safety of the detainees
and the overall security.
PEOPLE v. MARTI 193 SCRA 57 (1991)
This involves a couple who wanted to send a certain baggage, 3. Constitutionality of Checkpoints and
the package was checked containing marijuana, it was checked “Areal Target Zones”
by the security officer of the forwarding company. They tried to
challenge the search for there was no search warrant. The one VALMONTE v. DE VILLA 185 SCRA 665 (1990)
who searched was not a government official for he was a private There were several checkpoints on Valenzuela, there were worry
person. about the “harassment”, they countered that it was a security
measure. For that it was part of the price we pay. Second case:
WATEROUS DRUG CORP v. NLRC 280 SCRA 735 (1997) Checkpoints are allowed, but not all checkpoints are valid, there
This involves a pharmacist who overpriced medicines and other is possibility of abuse of police officials when searching.
things. Catolico was hired and he was frequently warned by the
Waterous Drug for he was making “direct orders on the account Guidelines
of the other pharmacist” she was negotiating with suppliers and 1. The location of the checkpoint must be fixed.
overpricing them. She herself was contacting the suppliers not 2. The location must be determined by responsible
through the pharmacy. She was dismissed from employment. police officers.
3. It must be manned by one officer (there is even the
Illegal overpricing was through a checked amount of P640, it identification of the officer-in-charge in the
was put inside an envelope, this envelope containing the check checkpoint.
containing the overprice She countered that it has no search 4. This must only be limited to a visual search.
warrant, it was sealed and was given as a Christmas gift.
When Visual Search can be Extensive Search
This checked was already opened, even if it was not opened If there is a checkpoint, if there is an informant’s tip, a matching
already, assuming for the sake of argument, the one who description, there is now probable cause, this is the only time
opened it was a co-worker and was not an officer of the that the officers at a checkpoint they can check through an
government. You cannot use the bill of rights. extensive search.
GAANAN v. IAC 145 SCA 112 (1986)

We cannot avoid checkpoints for it is necessary for the The parties are client and counsel. Gaanan and Laconico was a
prevention of crimes, they can conduct reasonable searches, client in a complaint for direct assault. When he filed for a case,
they can even conduct extensive searches provided that there there was a request for amicable settlement in lieu of filing of
is a probable cause. The police officers must have a reasonable the charge, however he requested his lawyer to listen to the
ground to belief that one is an offender before there is an conversation through an extension line. There was a recording
extensive search. of the conversation and was presented in court to give evidence
of the extortion of the money. The phone extension was a
PEOPLE v. EXALA 221 SCRA 494 (1993) violation but not a violation of RA 4200.
The police asked the people in the car, here Exala, tried to
conduct a visual search. There were bags inside, the police The law refers to a "tap" of a wire or cable or the use of a "device
officers asked what was inside the bags, no one answered, kept or arrangement" for the purpose of secretly overhearing,
quiet and they turned fidgety. The bags were ordered opened intercepting, or recording the communication. There must be
and it contained two kilos of marijuana. Is the search valid? either a physical interruption through a wiretap or the
deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to
As a rule, checkpoints are only for visual search, however, there overhear, intercept, or record the spoken words.
are circumstances that warrants extensive search. The police
asked in nighttime, there was a justification for a more extensive An extension telephone cannot be placed in the same category
search for when they asked what was inside the bag, no one as a dictaphone, dictagraph or the other devices enumerated in
was able to answer and they all turned fidgety. There is Section 1 of RA No. 4200 as the use thereof cannot be
probable cause in this case. They were acting suspiciously. considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line.
GUANZON v. DE VILLA 181 SCRA 623 (1990) 5. What May be Seized

This talks about “areal target zones”, there is no actual crime,
like areas of saturated crimes, these are critical areas back then Rule 126, Section 3
where subversions where hiding. They conducted saturation Personal property to be seized. — A search warrant may be
drives they did not have any warrants and they become to hurt issued for the search and seizure of personal property:
half naked men for being suspected of subversion. (a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of
The police measures are not per se illegal, the problem is the the offense; or
manner which the police action is executed. The SC cannot (c) Used or intended to be used as the means of
categorize for it is not a trier of facts. committing an offense.
ABENES v. COURT OF APPEALS 515 SCRA 690 (2007) 6. Remedies in Cases of Violation
There was a Tamaraw FX passing through driven by a Brgy.
Captain with a gun tucked in his waist, he passed through a A. Exclusionary Rule
checkpoint during a time where there was a COMELEC Gun Ban.
Not all checkpoints are all illegal, so warranted by exigencies of ARTICLE III, SECTION 3 (2)
public order. The checkpoint was in pursuance to the Gun Ban, (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose
thus, those who intend to bring gun violates such ban.
in any proceeding.
4. Wire Tapping
Fruits of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
This is called the fruits of the poisonous tree doctrine. That
REPUBLIC ACT 4200
whatever evidence was obtained through an unconstitutional
When you wiretap, you actually tap a wire or cable to intercept
search or seizure is inadmissible as evidence.
whatever communication was made. Part of the Committee
report was to amended RA 4200. This law literally covers only STONEHILL v. DIOKNO 20 SCRA 383 (1967)
actual, literal wiretap, to illegally record a particular
As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not
conversation. This law applies for the application of the warrant allege any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It
for allowable recording so that the recording can be used as would be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict
evidence in court. Otherwise, it will be inadmissible. anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs
Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code," as
It does not cover, however, any interceptive conversations
alleged in the aforementioned applications without reference
because RA 4200 literally requires actual, physical wiretap. to any determinate provision of said laws.
NOTE: RA 10175 penalizes Illegal Interception but only to
Indeed, the non-exclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the
non-public transmission of computer data to, from or within a
letter, but also, to the spirit of the constitutional injunction
computer system including electromagnetic transmissions.
against unreasonable searches and seizures. To be sure, if the
applicant for a search warrant has competent evidence to 7. REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime by WARRANTS OF ARRESTS
the party against whom the warrant is intended, then there is
no reason why the applicant should not comply with the General Rule: When there is no warrant, no arrest.
requirements of the fundamental law.
Rule 112, Section 6
Upon the other hand, if he has no such competent evidence, Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or
then it is not possible for the Judge to find that there is information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution
probable cause, and, hence, no justification for the issuance of of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may
the warrant. immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
fails to establish probable cause.
The only possible explanation (not justification) for its issuance
is the necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or
crime. But, then, this fishing expedition is indicative of the a commitment order if the accused has already been arrested
absence of evidence to establish a probable cause. pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the
preliminary investigation or when the complaint or information
Q. If you fail to object the admissibility of the evidence, is that was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule.
considered as a waiver?
In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge
PASTRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS 281 SCRA 254 (1997) may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within
There were two brothers who reported to the judge that their five (5) days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the
father has an illegal firearm, the judge did not issue a written court within thirty (30) days from the filing of the complaint of
deposition to issue to search warrant. This is technically a information.
problematic search warrant. All the firearms were presented,
knowing the illegality of the search warrant. 8. When Arrest May be Made without a Warrant
Although this is a ground for quashing a search warrant in this RULE 113, SECTION 5
case, petitioner did nothing to this end. He did not move to Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a
private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
quash the information before the trial court. Nor did he object
to the presentation of the evidence obtained as being the (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
product of an illegal search. committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense;
At any rate, objections to the legality of the search warrant and
to the admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby were This exception is also known as the in flagrante delicto
deemed waived when no objection to the legality of the search exception, which is to help prevent crimes that are being
warrant was raised during the trial of the case nor to the committed.
admissibility of the evidence obtained through said warrant.
Petitioner thus waived any objection based on the illegality of (b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
the search. probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and
B. Civil Action for Damages
Article 32 of the Civil Code which renders any public officer or This exception is also known as the freshly committed
employee or private individual liable for damages for violation exception, the act already happened but the peace officer has
of the constitutional rights and liberties of another. This states personal knowledge of the crime that has just been committed.
of an officer or employee or person directly or indirectly What constitutes “has just been committed?”
responsible for such violation.
GO v. COURT OF APPEALS 206 SCRA 138 (1992)
The person indirectly responsible also has to answer for the
Rolito Go shot Maguan, a student, he was able to escape, but
damages caused by the injury. By this it embodies the
there were persons in the background who saw Rolito Go. He
accountability of the public officials such that the constitution
went into hiding, six days after Go saw in news report for he
acquires a greater meaning to supervise his subordinates. You
was being hunted for murder. He went to the police station, and
can file for damages to a superior officer of the police officer
a witness saw him there and revealed him, he was arrested then
committing the violation (Aberca v. Ver, 1988).
and there without a warrant.
C. Criminal Cases under Revised Penal Code

The arrest was not valid. The Supreme Court said it was not
1. Article 128 – Violation of Domicile
freshly committed, six days had already lapsed since the offense,
2. Article 129 – Search Warrant Maliciously Obtained and Abuse
this is now what is being contemplated of being freshly
in the Service of those Legally Obtained
committed in this situation the warrant of arrest is wanting.
3. Article 130 – Searching Domicile Without Witnesses
Q. What is then the yardstick for freshly committed rule? In this case, this is an arrest without a warrant. This is allowed,
this falls under the first exception, the in flagrante delicto
As of now the yardstick is 18 hours since the commission of the exception. The warrantless arrest is therein valid for it falls
act, any time after that shall not fall under the freshly committed under Rule 113, Section 5(a) and thus valid.
rule, and as such, there can be no warrantless arrest for there
must now be a warrant of arrest. PEOPLE v. UYBOCO 640 SCRA 146 (2011)
This involves the kidnapping and serious illegal detention case,
Elements of Freshly Committed Exception (Hot Pursuit) this involved the 5-year-old boy. Kidnapping is a continuing
1. An offense has just been committed (18 hours) offense. This can be arrested without a warrantless arrest.
2. The person making the arrest has probable cause
based on his personal knowledge of the facts Police officers were able to witness the pay-off which effectively
indicating that the person to be arrested has consummates the crime of kidnapping. They all saw appellant
committed it (People v. Uyboco, 2011). take the money from the car trunk of Jepson. Such knowledge
was then relayed to the other police officers stationed in Fort
Personal Knowledge of the Facts, Explained Bonifacio where appellant was expected to pass by.
While the law enforcers may not actually witness the execution
of acts constituting the offense, they must have direct It is sufficient for the arresting team that they were monitoring
knowledge or view of the crime right after its commission. They the pay-off for a number of hours long enough for them to be
should know for a fact that a crime was committed. And they informed that it was indeed appellant, who was the kidnapper.
must also perceive acts exhibited by the person to be arrested, This is equivalent to personal knowledge based on
indicating that he perpetrated the crime. probable cause.
Again, mere intelligence information that the suspect B. Exceptions to the Strict Enforcement Rule
committed the crime will not suffice. The arresting officers
themselves must have personal knowledge of facts showing 1. Illegal Possessions of Guns or Drugs
that the suspect performed the criminal act. Personal
knowledge means actual belief or reasonable grounds of PEOPLE v. PEÑAFLORIDA 551 SCRA 111 (2008)
suspicion, based on actual facts, that the person to be arrested The police were tipped off at around 1:00 p.m. that appellant
is probably guilty of committing the crime (People v. Doria). was transporting marijuana to Huyon-huyon. Certainly, they
had no time to secure an arrest warrant as appellant was
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has already in transit and already committing a crime. The arrest
escaped from a penal establishment or place where was affected after appellant was caught in flagrante delicto.
he is serving final judgment or is temporarily
confined while his case is pending or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to He was seen riding his bicycle and carrying with him the
another. contraband, hence, demonstrating that a crime was then
already being committed. Under the circumstances, the police
Escapees had probable cause to believe that appellant was committing a
You no longer need a warrant because an escapee is already crime. Thus, the warrantless arrest is justified.
arrest, this even applies to a detainee, by the very fact that they
are already arrested before. PEOPLE v. SEMBRANO 628 SCRA 328 (2010)
For illegal possession of regulated or prohibited drugs, the
A. Strict Enforcement of Rule prosecution must establish the following elements:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or object,
LUMANOG v. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 42 (2010) which is identified to be a prohibited drug;
Six days after the murder, he was arrested without a warrant. (2) such possession is not authorized by law; and
Six days after the killing is too long, is definitely more than (3) the accused freely and consciously possessed drug.
enough to secure an arrest warrant. Yet the police opted to
arrest Joel and other accused, claiming under hot pursuit. Six All elements were established. Incident to his lawful arrest
days is too long for hot pursuit. resulting from the buy-bust operation, appellant was likewise
found to have in his possession 0.27 gram of methamphetamine
PEOPLE v. ARANETA 634 SCRA 475 (2010) hydrochloride, or shabu, the same kind of dangerous drug he
was caught selling in flagrante delicto. There is nothing on
Usually in buy-bust operation, when there are tips from the
record to show that he had legal authority to possess the same.
public, the police will conduct surveillance and conduct a test
buy where there is a confirmatory test. In test buy it is
Mere possession of a regulated drug per se constitutes prima
forwarded to the crime lab, if it tested positive then buy-bust
facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to
operation commences. Over a period of time, they gain the
convict an accused absent a satisfactory explanation of such
trust of the offender. The police who is not in uniform, he will
possession the onus probandi is shifted to the accused, to
carry with him the marked money to use to buy the illicit drug.
explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi.
C. Waiver of Illegality of Arrest IN RE: SABIO 504 SCRA 704 (2006)

If there is any question as to the illegality of arrest, you have to One provision of EO 1 creating the PCGG, that the PCGG cannot
immediately raised prior to the enter of the plea in be forced to testify to any tribunal. Sabio, the head, refused to
arraignment proceedings. Prior to such one has to question, attend the Senate hearing for they are excused to attend the
failure to object to the illegality of arrest be raised prior to the hearing. The right of privacy bows down if there is a compelling
enter to plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. state interest. The alleged anomalies in the Philcomsat
procurement were compelling reason for the Senate to extract
D. Effects of Declaration of Illegality of Arrest information from the officers of PCGG.
PEOPLE v. BIYOC 532 SCRA 528 (2007) SJS v. DANGEROUS DRUG BOARD 570 SCRA 410 (2008)
This involves the rape by a father of his 11-year-old daughter This involves the mandatory drug test for candidates for public
who was saw by the elder sister who reported to the mother officer, students and employee was allegedly violating the right
whom went to the police station, which the police arrested the of privacy. This is allowed. The schools have the right to impose
father. This was made 24 hours without a warrant. policies and regulations for enrollment. For employees, it can
be a condition for employment.
However, the father when he was arraigned, did not raise the
illegality of the arrest. In another vein, appellant claims that his This is a random mandatory drug test. The drug test prescribed
arrest was illegal because a warrantless arrest was affected even under Sec. 36(c), (d), and (f) of RA 9165 for secondary and
before the statement of the private complainant was taken. tertiary level students and public and private employees, while
mandatory, is a random and suspicionless arrangement. The
Objections to the legality of arrests must, however, be made objective is to stamp out illegal drug and safeguard in the
prior to the entry of plea at arraignment; otherwise, they are process the wellbeing of [the] citizenry, particularly the youth,
waived. Appellant failed to question the illegality of his arrest from the harmful effects of dangerous drugs.
before entering his plea, hence, deemed to have waived.
We find the situation entirely different in the case of persons
9. Immunity from Arrest of Members of Congress charged before the public prosecutor’s office with criminal
offenses punishable with six (6) years and one (1) day
Article VI, Section 11 imprisonment.
A Senator or Member of the House of Representatives shall, in
all offenses punishable by not more than six years The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are
imprisonment, be privileged from arrest while the Congress is randomness and suspicionless. In the case of persons charged
in session. No Member shall be questioned nor be held liable with a crime before the prosecutor’s office, a mandatory drug
in any other place for any speech or debate in the Congress or testing can never be random or suspicionless.
in any committee thereof.
The ideas of randomness and being suspicionless are
10. Privacy antithetical to their being made defendants in a criminal
We have the right of privacy, the right to be left alone, there is complaint. They are not randomly picked; neither are they
no actual provision but found all throughout the bill of rights. beyond suspicion. When persons suspected of committing a
crime are charged, they are singled out and are impleaded
OPLE v. TORRES 293 SCRA 201 (1998) against their will.
This case involves the National ID System for it was alleged to
have violated the right to privacy. This was struck down. The The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled
right to privacy is one of the most threatened rights of man before the prosecutor’s office and peaceably submitting
living in a mass society. The threats emanate from various themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not
sources governments, journalists, employers, social scientist. necessarily consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right
to privacy.
In the case at bar, the threat comes from the executive branch
of government which by issuing A.O. No. 308 pressures the To impose mandatory drug testing on the accused is a blatant
people to surrender their privacy by giving information about attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal
themselves on the pretext that it will facilitate delivery of basic prosecution, contrary to the stated objectives of RA 9165. Drug
services. Given the record-keeping power of the computer, only testing in this case would violate a person’s right to privacy
the indifferent fail to perceive the danger that A.O. No. 308 guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. III of the Constitution. Worse still,
gives the government the power to compile a devastating the accused persons are veritably forced to incriminate
dossier against unsuspecting citizens. themselves.
In a way, the threat is that because of its record-keeping, the The zones of privacy are found in the Constitution, there is no
society will have lost its benign capacity to forget." We close really direct provisions specifically dealing with the right of
with the statement that the right to privacy was not engraved privacy in the constitution. But this right is protected herein and
in our Constitution for flattery. as such must be upheld.
11. Privacy of Communications and Correspondence III. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
ARTICLE III, SECTION 3 ARTICLE III, SECTION 4

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech,
shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people
or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as peaceably to assemble and petition the government for
prescribed by law. redress of grievances.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the

A. PHILOSOPHIC BASIS OF GUARANTEE
preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding. 1. For the discovery of political truth.
2. For self-government.
3. For individual perfection.
ZULUETA v. COURT OF APPEALS 253 SCRA 699 (1996)
This was a peculiar case wherein the wife suspected that his
B. PRIOR RESTRAINT AND SUBSEQUENT PUNISHMENT
husband doctor was going home in the wee hours in the
The first prohibition of the constitutional prohibition is thus a
morning. There was a locked cabinet in the house, she
prohibition of prior restraint. Prior restraint means official
suspected and broke open the cabinet, there she found letters
governmental restriction on the press or other forms of
and correspondence and his paramour. There are pictures.
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. Its
most blatant form is a system of licensing administered by an
There was a case for legal separation using such evidence. The
executive officer. Like movie censorship and license taxes.
husband seeks to have this evidence excluded for being in
violation of Article III, Section 3(1). The court applied the
However, the mere prohibition of government interference
exclusionary and did not allow the wife, for it violate the
before words are spoken or published would be an inadequate
husband’s right to the privacy.
protection of the freedom of expression if the government can
punish without restraint after publication.
COMMENT: It goes against the principle of Bill of Rights
because the bill of rights can only be invoked against the State.
General Rule: All governmental measures are with the
presumption of the constitutionality. The burden of proof is one
IN RE: ALEJANO 468 SCRA 188 (2005)
the one alleging its unconstitutionality.
The members of the ISAFP team read the letters for the soldiers.
The military officers question such for being violative of right of Exception: Prior restraint. Here, the government has the
privacy of correspondence. They replied that (1) it is not sealed burden of proof showing constitutionality.
and that (2) they are not confidential information.
Exception to the Exception: Prior restraint has no
The opening and reading of the detainee’s letters in the present presumption of unconstitutionality when:
case did not violate the detainees right to privacy of 1. In times of war, the government can prevent the
communication. The letters were not in a sealed envelope. The publication about location and time of its troops.
inspection of the folded letters is a valid measure as it serves 2. When the COMELEC has the capacity regulation of
the same purpose as the opening of sealed letters for the media in time for election purposes.
inspection of contraband. 3. Obscene publications
4. In cases of content-neutral restrictions.
The letters alleged to have been read by the ISAFP authorities
were not confidential letters between the detainees and their Hence, the guarantee of the freedom of expression also mean
lawyers. The petitioner who received the letters from detainees a limitation on the power of the state to impose subsequent
Trillanes and Maestrecampo was merely acting as the punishment.
detainee’s personal courier and not as their counsel when
he received the letters for mailing. CHAVEZ v. GONZALES 545 SCRA 441 (2008)
This involves the taped conversations between Garcillano and
In the present case, since the letters were not confidential
GMA, the broadcasting networks had possession of the taped
communication between the detainees and their lawyers,
conversations of allegedly rigging the elections. There are
the officials of the ISAFP Detention Center could read the
taped conversations, they wanted to stop airing of recording.
letters.
DOJ warned the media that anyone who do such would be
NOTE: If the letters are marked confidential communication
made liable under RA 4200, the NTC also issued a
between the detainees and their lawyers, the detention officials
memorandum giving a fair warning to observe Anti-
should not read the letters but only open the envelopes for
Wiretapping Law, they were further warned that doing such
inspection in the presence of the detainees. Whatever is
would be a ground for revocation of the license. The TV
discussed between the lawyer and the client it is a privileged
broadcaster questioned such issuances as violation of their
communication. This cannot be violated.
freedom of expression and speech.
Distinction of Prior Restraints, Application of Tests Prior restraint is more severe restriction to freedom of
The cast of restriction determines the test by which the expression rather than subsequent punishment. Although
challenged act is assayed with, such as the following: subsequent punishment deters acts. The airing of the Hello
1. Content-neutral regulation which is merely Garci tapes does not fall under the four exceptions. It is a
concerned with incidents of the speech, or one that protected expression and it does not fall under such four
merely controls the time, place or manner, and under exceptions.
well-defined standard.
2. Content-based restraint the restriction is based on It is essentially a political expression because it exposes the
the subject matter of the of the utterance or speech. presidential candidate that had allegedly improper
conversation with an officer after the closing of the elections.
Content-neutral Regulation: Immediate Approach Test The public had the right to know.
Only a substantial government interest is required for its
validity. Because regulations of this type are not designed to NEWSOUND BROADCASTING v. DY 583 SCRA 333 (2009)
suppress any particular message, they are not subject to the This involves the Bombo Radyo station in Isabela, they
strictest form of judicial scrutiny but an intermediate approach. completed requirements for permits, they were able to operate,
Examples include date, time and route of rally. It enjoys the after some years, when they tried to renew for their permits all
presumption of constitutionality. of a sudden, the permit was not given. They should have had
given land zoning papers. Here comes Bombo Radyo stating
Content-based Regulation: Clear and Present Danger Rule that they had been operating for years.
It bears a heavy burden of presumption of invalidity. Only
when the challenged act has overcome the clear and present Apparently, they were attempting to expose the anomalies of
danger rule will it pass constitutional muster, with the the Dy family. They were not given permits to perform to
government having the burden of overcoming the presumed functions. They held as defense the freedom of the press.
unconstitutionality. It will only pass if it is justified by a
compelling reason. We can identify the bare acts of closing the radio stations or
preventing their operations as an act of prior restraint against
The government must show the type of harm the speech speech, expression or of the press. While any system of prior
sought to be restrained would bring about, especially the restraint comes to court bearing a heavy burden against its
gravity and imminence of the threatened harm, otherwise the constitutionality, not all prior restraints on speech are invalid.
restraint shall be invalid. The prior restraint cannot be based on
hypothetical fear it must be clear and present. A government The act of an LGU requiring a business of proof that the
action which restricts freedom of speech which is content- property from which it operates has been zoned for commercial
based is given the strictest scrutiny. use can be argued, when applied to a radio station, as content-
neutral since such a regulation would presumably apply to any
In the case: The issuances need to go under the clear and other radio station or business enterprise within the LGU.
present danger rule because they are content-based
restrictions focused solely on one subject which is the taped However, the circumstances of this case dictate that we view
conversations of Garcillano and GMA. the action of the respondents as a content-based restraint. All
those circumstances lead us to believe that the steps employed
The government has the burden to prove constitutionality. It by respondents to ultimately shut down petitioner’s radio station
appears that the great evil which government wants to prevent were ultimately content-based.
is the airing of a tape recording in alleged violation of the anti-
wiretapping law. It was only in the beginning of 2002, after the election of
respondent Ceasar Dy as mayor of Cauayan, that the local
The court ruled that not every violation of a law will justify government started to impose these new requirements
straitjacketing the exercise of freedom of speech and of the substantiating. Bombo Radyo was aggressive in exposing the
press. The totality of the injurious effects of the violation to widespread election irregularities. Respondents efforts to close
private and public interest must be calibrated in light of the radio station clearly intensified immediately before the May
preferred status accorded by the Constitution and by related 2004 elections, where a former employee of DZNC Bombo
international covenants protecting freedom of speech and of Radyo, Grace Padaca, was mounting a credible and ultimately
the press. There is no showing that the feared violation of the successful challenge against Isabela governor, who happened
anti-wiretapping law clearly endangers the national security. to be the brother of respondent Dy. It also bears notice that the
requirements required of petitioners by the Cauayan City
Exception When Expression be Subject to Prior Restraint government are frankly beyond the pale and not conventionally
1. Pornography adopted by local governments throughout the Philippines.
2. False or misleading advertisement
3. Advocacy of imminent lawless action Content-based laws are generally treated as more suspect than
4. Danger to national security content-neutral laws because of judicial concern with
All other exceptions are not subject to prior restraint. discrimination in the regulation of expression.
SORIANO v. LAGUARDIA 615 SCRA 254 (2010) ANG LADLAD v. COMELEC 618 SCRA 32 (2010)
Petitioner Eliseo F. Soriano, the host of Ang Dating Daan made The prevention of this party-list registration is the clear
undesirable remarks in one episode of his program which led prevention of freedom of expression despite the completion of
to the filing of some member of the INC. The remarks were: their requirements.
Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling; Gago ka C. Content-Based Restrictions

talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di
ba. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang doon 1. Some Tests of Validity of Content-Based Restrictions
yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang
itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Dangerous Tendency
Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. When the legislative body has determined generally that
Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito. utterances of a certain kind involve such danger of substantive
evil that they may be punished, the question whether any
Because of this, he was given a three-month suspension by the specific utterance coming within the prohibited class is likely, in
MTRCB. This was challenged by Eliseo Soriano. He invoked the and of itself, to bring about the substantive evil is not open to
right of freedom of speech and expression. The Supreme Court consideration. In such cases the general provision of the statute
gave the balancing of interest test. may be constitutionally applied to the specific utterance if its
natural and probable effect was to bring about the substantive
As a standard of limitation on free speech and press, however, evil that the legislative body might prohibit. (Abandoned)
the clear and present danger test is not a magic incantation that
wipes out all problems and does away with analysis and Clear-and-Present Danger
judgment in the testing of the legitimacy of claims to free The question in every case is whether the words are used in
speech and which compels a court to release a defendant from such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear
liability the moment the doctrine is invoked, absent proof of and present danger that they will bring about the substantive
imminent catastrophic disaster. evil that the state has a right to prevent.
In enunciating standard premised on a judicial balancing of the Balancing of Interest

conflicting social values and individual interests competing for The court must undertake the delicate and difficult task of
ascendancy in legislation which restricts expression, the weighing the circumstances and appraising the substantiality of
court laid the basis for what has been called the balancing-of- the reasons advanced in support of the regulation of the free
interests test. Briefly stated, the balancing test requires a enjoyment of rights.
court to take conscious and detailed consideration of the
interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type Direct Indictment
of situation. The guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a
state to forbid or prescribe the advocacy of the use of force or
If, on balance, it appears that the public interest served by of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to
restrictive legislation is of such nature that it outweighs the inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to
abridgment of freedom, then the court will find the legislation incite or produce such action.
valid. In short, the balance-of-interests theory rests on the basis
that constitutional freedoms are not absolute, not even those Grave-but-improbable Danger
stated in the free speech and expression clause, and that they Whether the gravity of the evil, discounted by its improbability,
may be abridged to some extent to serve appropriate and justifies such an invasion of speech necessary to avoid danger.
important interests.
(a) Freedom of Expression and National Security
In this setting, the assertion by petitioner of his enjoyment of
his freedom of speech is ranged against the duty of the (b) Freedom of Expression and Criticism of Official
government to protect and promote the development and Conduct
welfare of the youth. The test of Actual Malice as shown in the Revised Penal Code,
Articles 353-354 and 361-362 as compared with Act No. 2928
After a careful examination of the factual milieu and the and Com. Act No. 382
arguments raised by petitioner in support of his claim to free
speech, the Court rules that the governments interest to If you are a public official, the actions of one is an open book
protect and promote the interests and welfare of the as being a public figure. If the criticism of the official by reason
children adequately buttresses the reasonable curtailment of his official functions it is acceptable. If the official is being
and valid restraint on petitioners prayer to continue as criticized of his private dealings, this is now protected by law,
program host of Ang Dating Daan during the suspension especially when it is libelous. There is a need to distinguish
period. The right of freedom of speech between the right of when criticism of public official is held acceptable and when
welfare of the youth. Thus, this is a situation where the court such is unacceptable as to warrant the curtailment of the
balances the interest. freedom of expression being abused.
SOLIVEN v. MAKASIAR 167 SCRA 393 (1988) TULFO v. PEOPLE 565 SCRA 283 (2008)
Max Soliven is one of the writers for Philippine Star, in one of Atty. Carlos So was criticized for being corrupt by Tulfo, but he
his columns, he stated Cory would always frequently hide under just got it from an anonymous, wherein he merely relied on that
her bed for she was a scared President. This statement was source. It must be based on fair and true reports.
made after the coup attempt.
Breaking down the provision further, looking at the terms fair
Cases were filed, alleging that there was actual malice. The and true, Tulfo’s articles do not meet the standard. Fair is
court held however that this was valid, the meaning of the defined as having the qualities of impartiality and honesty. True
statement was alluding that she was unsure of what to do. is defined as conformable to fact; correct; exact; actual; genuine;
Moreso, that the criticism was due to her official functions as honest. Tulfo failed to satisfy these requirements, as he did not
the President of the Philippines. do research before making his allegations, and it has been
shown that these allegations were baseless. The articles are not
Q. When can a private person be considered a public figure as fair and true reports, but merely wild accusations.
to allow criticism of official functions?
(c) Freedom of Expression and the Right of Privacy
BORJAL v. COURT OF APPEALS 301 SCRA 1 (1999)
Here Borjal made an article in a column, that there was this AYER PRODUCTIONS v. CAPULONG 160 SCRA 861 (1988)
certain person who was one of the heroes of EDSA that This involves the filming of documentary of the EDSA I. There
organized rallies but asks for a large fee as an event organizer. was a public figure, Sen. Enrile, who does not want to be part
He was not named. of the documentary. It was a public event. He was a public
figure and he made a comment about the event. Should he be
Francisco Wenceslao, a private individual, a civil engineer, the excluded for his claim for the right to privacy.
head and president of the First National Conference on Land
Transportation which had wide media coverage. They were Here the court used the balancing of interest, if there is a clash
trying to address the traffic of Manila. This was all around the of certain rights this test is used. Considering first petitioners'
news 24/7. Borjal criticized Wenceslao prompting the latter claim to freedom of speech and of expression the Court would
field a case. The libel case was dismissed for it was a blind item. once more stress that this freedom includes the freedom to film
and produce motion pictures and to exhibit such motion
Wenceslao was a private citizen, he was not a public official, but pictures in theaters or to diffuse them through television.
he was criticized on his function as an event organizer who asks
for high fees. The SC ruled that Wenceslao is deemed to be a Right of privacy of Enrile was alleged. The balancing of
public figure because he is a person who by his interests principle "requires a court to take conscious and
accomplishment, fame, mode of living, or professional calling detailed consideration of the interplay of interests observable
which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings. in given situation or type of situation"
The first National Conference was infused with public interest LAGUNSAD v. VDA DE GONZALES 92 SCRA 476 (1979)
and had wide media coverage and drew public attention not Here the filmmakers entered into a contract with the heirs of
only to the conference but also to the personalities behind it. Moises Padilla. Now the filmmakers would not want to pay. The
Wenceslao, as the executive director of such consequently filmmakers invoked the right of freedom of expression. This is
assumed the status of a public figure. As long as it is fair and a different story; the life of Moises Padilla is private matter and
impartial matter of public interest. you entered into a contract with the heirs. This becomes a civil
obligation.
VASQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS 314 SCRA 460 (2000)
Brgy. Captain Olmedo filed a case of libel against Vasquez for PHIL. JOURNALISTS v. THEONEN 477 SCRA 482 (2005)
he was titled as a landgrabber alleging that the statements cast Here, they published in a newspaper that a Swiss National
aspersion on him and damaged his reputation. always shoots is neighbor’s pets. And here, this published
article, this source was written by Angara addressed to the
The defamatory statement is made against a public official with Immigration Department. It was shown to be untrue. The paper
respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and admitted that the report came just from a source.
the truth of the allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled
to an acquittal even though he does not prove that the The freedom of expression and of the press is not absolute, the
imputation was published with good motives and for justifiable article is not a privileged communication. There is no
ends. If it towards the public functions. constitutional value in false statements of facts. Knowingly
false statements were made in reckless disregard of truth
It would, above all, infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed and does not enjoy the constitutional protection.
freedom of expression. Such a rule would deter citizens from
performing their duties as members of a self-governing Responsible journalism calls for validating such facts before
community. Without free speech and assembly, discussions of publishing to the public. It must be fair and be true as it to be
our most abiding concerns as a nation would be stifled. protected by the constitution.
(d) Freedom of Expression and the Administration of (f) Assembly and Petition
Justice; Contempt of Court Under BP 880, there are certain guidelines before one can
conduct assembly or thickets in public places.
Are the people free to disagree with the decisions of the • If you are the applicant, you should inform the
Supreme Court? We are free to disagree. The Court stated that licensing authority of the date, place and time where
it must be fair criticism, made in good faith, couched in respectful the assembly will take place.
language, directed to the merits, must not downgrade the court • It should be filed ahead of time to appraise and to
nor insult any of its members. determine if there is clear and present danger.
• The decision must be transmitted to the applicant as
IN RE: PUBLISHED 385 SCRA 285 (2002) soon as possible.
Atty. De Vera was charged with contempt. There was a bribe in
favor of the Justices in the amount of P500M, for there was Exception to the Permit Application for Assembly
favor decision of Estrada in the Plunder Case. There was actually (1) private property, only consent of the owner and;
no proof to that. Such right does not cover statements that (2) freedom park, established by; and
undermines court’s authorities. Hurling of statements and (3) government-owned and regulated educational
unwarranted attacks against court is not free speech for it institutions.
affects integrity and public respect for the courts.
DELA CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS 305 SCRA 303 (1999)
IN THE MATTER – MACASAET 561 SCRA 395 (2008) Teaches had a union due to them not being receive fair wages,
Here, he printed in the Malaya newspaper that there was a lady so they went on strike, they went out of their classes and
Supreme Court Justice who received P10M in bribe money conducted a strike. They are public school teachers, which are
which was delivered her office in 2 boxes thus deciding a case government employees. They allege that they are exercising the
in his favor. There was no truth to this claim, he used the freedom of expression of disgust to the government.
freedom of expression as defense. He was charged with indirect
contempt by influencing the outcome of the case. the mass actions of staged by Metro Manila public school
teachers "amounted to a strike in every sense of the term,
(e) Symbolic Expression constituting as they did, a concerted and unauthorized
stoppage of or absence from work which it was said teachers'
TEXAS v. JOHNSON 491 US 109 S. Ct. 2533 (1989) sworn duty to perform, carried out for economic reasons.
This is the flag-burning case. In this case, the US Supreme
Court, it is acceptable in their country for it is an acceptable Government Employees Have No Right to Strike
form of expression under their law. But the public-school teachers in the case of the 1990 mass
actions did not exercise their constitutional rights within
The Government may not prohibit the verbal or nonverbal reasonable limits. On the contrary, they committed acts
expression of an idea merely because society finds the idea prejudicial to the best interest of the service by staging the
offensive or disagreeable, even where our flag is involved. Nor mass protests on regular school days, abandoning their classes
may a State foster its own view of the flag by prohibiting and refusing to go back even after ordered to do so. This was
expressive conduct relating to it, since the Government may not done during school days and school hours.
permit designated symbols to be used to communicate a
limited set of messages. Moreover, this Court will not create an Had the teachers availed of their free time — recess, after
exception to these principles protected by the First Amendment classes, weekends or holidays — to dramatize their
for the American flag alone. grievances and to dialogue with the proper authorities
within the bounds of law, no one — not the DECS, the CSC
REPUBLIC ACT 8491: Flag and Heraldic Code of Philippines or even the Supreme Court — could have held them liable for
SECTION 4. The flag of the Philippines shall be blue, white and their participation in the mass actions.
red with an eight-rayed golden-yellow sun and three five-
D. Content Neutral Restrictions
pointed stars, as consecrated and honored by the people.
SECTION 10. The flag, if flown from a flagpole, shall have its O’Brien Test
blue field on top in time of peace and the red field on top in A government regulation is sufficiently justified:
time of war; if in a hanging position, the blue field shall be to 1. If it is within the constitutional power of the
the right (left of the observer) in time of peace, and the red field government;
to the right (left of the observer) in time of war. 2. If it furthers and important or substantial government
interest;
SECTION 14. A flag worn out through wear and tear shall not 3. If the government interest is unrelated to the
be thrown away. It shall be solemnly burned to avoid misuse suppression of free expression, and
or desecration. The flag shall be replaced immediately when it 4. If the incidental restriction on alleged freedom of
begins to show signs of wear and tear. The flagpole staff must expression is no greater than is essential to the
be straight and slightly tapering at the top. furtherance of that interest.
1. Regulation of Political Campaign or Election Activity 2. Freedom of Assembly

There are certain limits for political campaign, but for certain
limits of the time of presentation of candidates. BAYAN v. ERMITA 488 SCRA 226 (2006)
Petitioners contended that BP 880 is clearly a violation of the
OSMEÑA v. COMELEC 288 SCRA 447 (1998) Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and
than is necessary to achieve its purpose of promoting equality Political Rights and other human rights treaties of which the
of opportunity in the use of mass media for political advertising. Philippines is a signatory. They argue that BP 880 requires a
The restriction on speech is limited both as to time and as to permit before one can stage a public assembly regardless of
scope. the presence or absence of a clear and present danger.
The law's concern is not with the message or content of the ad It also curtails the choice of venue and is thus repugnant to the
but with ensuring media equality between candidates. There is freedom of expression clause as the time and place of a public
no total ban on political ads, much less restriction on the assembly form part of the message which the expression is
content of the speech. sought. Furthermore, it is not content-neutral as it does not
apply to mass actions in support of the government.
Instead of leaving candidates to advertise freely in the mass
media, the law provides for allocation, by the COMELEC, of print The words “lawful cause,” “opinion,” “protesting or influencing”
space and air time to give all candidates equal time and space suggest the exposition of some cause not espoused by the
for the purpose of ensuring "free, orderly, honest, peaceful, and government. Also, the phrase “maximum tolerance” shows that
credible elections." the law applies to assemblies against the government because
they are being tolerated. As a content-based legislation, it
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC 323 SCRA 811 (2000) cannot pass the strict scrutiny test.
This case concerns about the exit polls, ABS-CBN wanted to
conduct exit polls, wherein randomly selected voters whom However, it must be remembered that the right, while
they have voted for, immediately after they have officially cast sacrosanct, is not absolute. It may be regulated that it shall not
their ballots. Out from that they make their own survey. The be injurious to the equal enjoyment of others having equal
COMELEC did not want this. The survey of ABS-CBN might rights, nor injurious to the rights of the community or society.
affect the integrity of the COMELEC’s official survey.
B.P. No 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but
ABS-CBN alleged that it was merely exercising freedom of the a restriction that simply regulates the time, place and
press. The Court of allowed the conduct of exit polls, the manner of the assemblies. B.P. No. 880 thus readily shows that
arguments of the COMELEC are merely speculative, it was not it refers to all kinds of public assemblies that would use public
shown that would affect the results of the election. places. The reference to “lawful cause” does not make it
content-based because assemblies really have to be for
SWS v. COMELEC 357 SCRA 497 (2001) lawful causes, otherwise they would not be “peaceable”
Under the Fair Elections Act or RA 9006. Surveys affecting and entitled to protection. Neither the words “opinion,”
national candidates shall not be published fifteen (15) days “protesting,” and “influencing” in of grievances come from the
before an election and surveys affecting local candidates shall wording of the Constitution, so its use cannot be avoided.
not be published seven (7) days before an election. This was Finally, maximum tolerance is for the protection and benefit
challenged before the Supreme Court. of all rallyist and is independent of the content of the
expression in the rally. BP 880 is constitutional.
This is a content-neutral restriction, they used the O’Brien
Test to determine the validity of this provision of the law. It did IBP v. ATIENZA 613 SCRA 518 (2010)
not pass the last requirements. It suppresses a whole class of IBP filed with the Office of the City Mayor of Manila a letter
expression. By prohibiting the publication of election survey application for a permit to rally at Mendiola Bridge, it was
results because of the possibility that such publication might granted but indicated Plaza Miranda as their venue. The rally
undermine the integrity of the election, it actually suppresses a continued even if they were barred from proceeding. Cadiz was
whole class of expression, while allowing the expression of charged for violating the Public Assembly Act in staging a rally
opinion concerning the same subject matter by newspaper at a venue not indicated in the permit.
columnists, radio and TV commentators, armchair theorists, and
other opinion makers. Petitioners assert that the partial grant of the application runs
contrary to the Pubic Assembly Act and violates their
It is invalid because (1) it imposes a prior restraint on the constitutional right to freedom of expression and public
freedom of expression, (2) it is a direct and total suppression of assembly. It was shown that Atienza gravely abused
a category of expression even though such suppression is only discretion when he did not immediately inform the IBP who
for a limited period, and (3) the governmental interest sought should have been heard first on the matter of his perceived
to be promoted can be achieved by means other than the imminent and grave danger of a substantial evil that warrants
suppression of freedom of expression. It is unconstitutional. the changing of venue. There was no grave or imminent danger
present and there was no sufficient explanation.
3. Freedom of Association and the 4. Movie Censorship

Right to Strike in Public Sector State regulation for radio and TV is different from printed
media, they have different standards because print media is not
ARTICLE III, SECTION 8 easily accessible. MTRCB is one of the regulatory bodies of TV
The right of the people, including those employed in the broadcast coverage. They handle censorship and ratings.
public and private sectors, to form unions, associations,
or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be GONZALES v. KALAW KATIGBAK 137 SCRA 356 (1985)
abridged.
There was this movie “Kapit sa Patalim” was given an X rating
ARTICLE IX-B, SECTION 2 (5) by the MTRCB. The producer and the makers noticed that the
The right to self-organization shall not be denied to MTRCB cut scenes for being lewd for film. Apparently, the
government employees. movie was about people engaging sex in public. There is
evident lewdness. Can the MTRCB give such rating?
ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 3 (2)
The State shall promote the principle of shared
The MTRCB can give such rating, however they cannot cut the
responsibility between workers and employers and the
preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes, parts of the movie, there is now interference with the artistic
including conciliation, and shall enforce their mutual expression of the director or filmmaker.
compliance therewith to foster industrial peace.
IGLESIA NI CRISTO v. CA 259 SCRA 529 (1996)
Freedom of Association The Board classified the VTR Tapes for the INC Channel with X
One has the right to associate, it includes the right not to ratings for it is not for public viewing claiming they offend and
associate. This provision guarantees the right to form unions constitute attack against other religions which is expressly
those who are employed in private and public sector. But it prohibited by law. The INC questioned the jurisdiction of the
does not give the government employees right to strike. It board, for it is beyond their review the religious programs. The
is because strike includes stoppage of work. It would be Court emphasizes that when the free exercise of religion come
prejudicial to the public service. They only have the right to to divides and its exercise destroys, the State should not stand
form unions and self-organization but not to strike. still. The ratings are sustained.
GSIS v. KAPISANAN 510 SCRA 622 (2006) 5. Radio Broadcasting

There was a four-day concerted demonstration, rallies and mass Freedom of speech on radio is somewhat lesser in scope than
walkout in front of the GSIS main office in Roxas Boulevard the freedom afforded to newspaper and print media. This was
Pasay. They were FSIS personnel and members of the Kapisanan sustained by the SC in the case of Eastern Broadcasting.
ng Manggagawa Union. They were filed an administrative case.
EASTERN BROADCASTING v. DANS 137 SCRA 647 (1985)
We are not convinced. In whatever name respondent desires to There was this radio station, Dyre, that was closed by the
call the four-day mass action in October 2004, the stubborn fact government due to national security. The radio station was
remains that the erring employees, instead of exploring non- found to incite people to sedition and overthrowing the
crippling activities during their free time, had taken a disruptive government. They wanted to compel the government to
approach to attain whatever it was they were specifically after. reopen the radio station. The court used the Clear and Present
Danger Rule. The court pointed out reasons why radio
As events evolved, they assembled in front of the GSIS main broadcast deserves a stricter standard of regulation than
office building during office hours and staged rallies and printed media:
protests, and even tried to convince others to join their cause,
thus provoking work stoppage and service-delivery disruption, First. Broadcast Media can establish a uniquely pervasive
the very evil sought to be forestalled by the prohibition against presence in the lives of all citizens. Material presented in the
strikes by government personnel. airwaves confronts the citizens not only in public but in the
privacy of his own home. Thus, it is evidently stronger.
GSIS v. VILLAVIZA 625 SCRA 659 (2010)
Compared to printed media, not all individuals have the access
The employees wore red shirts, they went to the public hearing to newspapers, buy them and read them especially in far flung
they just stood there in disgust. They alleged that they were not
areas due to accessibility.
in strike. They were in their offices, they just wear red to show
disgust. This is part of their freedom of expression. Second. Due to the nature of radio broadcasting, it can easily
be accessed by all kinds of audiences, especially children and
Wearing similarly colored shirts, attending a public hearing at minor. The utterance of seditious words and of overthrowing
the GSIS-IU office, bringing with them recording gadgets,
the government clearly cannot be done in radio and television
clenching their fists, some even badmouthing the guards and
where the listener or viewer is constantly chewing in and
PGM Garcia, are acts not constitutive of an (i) intent to effect
chewing out. The government has a right to be protected
work stoppage or service disruption and (ii) for the purpose of
realizing their demands of force concession, it is not strike. against broadcast which incite listeners to violently overthrow
it, thus there is justification for the closing.
(g) Freedom of Information VALMONTE v. BELMONTE 170 SCRA 256 (1989)

They wanted to compel the GSIS to furnish them a copy of the
ARTICLE III, SECTION 7
members of the Batasang Pambansa who obtained loans from
The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official the government at the recommendation of then First Lady
records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to Imelda Marcos. They were given a copy, but they requested the
official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to certified true copies of all. They must furnish copies for
government research data used as basis for policy themselves.
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such
limitations as may be provided by law. Although citizens have right to information and are entitled to
"access to official records," the Constitution does not accord
Freedom of Information them a right to compel custodians of official records to prepare
The right of freedom of information include:
lists, abstracts, summaries and the like in their desire to acquire
1. The right to information on matters of public concern;
information on matters of public concern.
2. Access to official records;
This is in accord with the transparency and full disclosure rule E. Academic Freedom
of our constitution as laid down in the bill of rights.
ARTICLE XIV, SECTION 5 (2)
Exceptions to the Rule Academic freedom shall be enjoyed in all institutions of
1. Matters of national security, state secrets regarding higher learning.
military, diplomatic, and other national security
matters. Greater Application of Institutions for Higher Learning
2. Information on inter-government exchanges prior to It must be emphasized that academic freedom is only for
the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements. institutions of higher learning. For elementary and secondary
3. Trade secrets and banking transactions. there is a greater state intervention, not only in the public but
4. Criminal matters such as those relating to the also in the private sectors.
apprehension, prosecution and detention of criminals,
which courts may not impart prior to the arrest, Three Aspects of Academic Freedom
detention and prosecution. 1. On the part of the school
5. Other confidential and privileged communication. This involves the school’s right to decide for itself its own aims
and objectives, free from outside control. The Commission on
NERI v. SENATE 564 SCRA 152 (2008) Higher Education is the body tasked to oversee the way faculty
This involves Abalos regarding the ZTE deal. The Senate wanted and students are handled based on the discretion of the school.
to invite Neri to testify on the P200M deal between Abalos. He The school has the right to set the standards like QPI retention.
did not appear because he cited executive privilege. This was
deemed privileged because it was within the scope of 2. On the part of the teaching faculty
presidential communication and correspondence. So, the This refers to the right of the faculty members to pursue further
Supreme Court allowed such non-appearance for it was rooted studies to enhance their skills, for as long as it is not
in the principle of separation of powers. interrupting with their teaching requirements. This includes the
evaluation of notebooks and exam papers which the grading is
CPEG v. COMELEC 631 SCRA 41 (2010) left to the discretion of the professor.
The Court granted the request of CPEG for the release of the
3. On the part of the students
source code of the 2010 Elections. The source code here is a
The students shall have a right to choose what course they take.
series of procedures and instructions that operate on the
No one can force you to enroll to a certain school in a certain
automated election system as well as the canvassing and
course or field of discipline. It is clearly the choice of the student
consolidating system of the PCOS Machines. They wanted such to select such academic direction.
source to be made available to the public.
GARCIA v. FACULTY OF ADMISSION 68 SCRA 277 (1975)
Pursuant to RA 9369, the Commission shall promptly make the
This involves a case wherein a female applicant desires to enroll
source code of that technology available and open to any
herself to the MA Theology Program of the Loyola School of
interested political party or groups which may conduct their
Theology in Ateneo de Manila University. The problem here was
own review thereof. The COMELEC has offered no reason not
that the program was for seminary which eventually leads to
to comply with this requirement of the law. priesthood and under the rules, females cannot be priests.
Indeed, its only excuse for not disclosing the source code was
Garcia invoked her academic freedom to compel ADMU to
that it was not yet available when CenPEG asked for it and,
receive her as applicant, but the court upheld that the program
subsequently, that the review had to be done, apparently for
was limited indeed for those male applicants eligible for
security reason, under a controlled environment. The elections seminary and for priesthood, and as such the defense of
had passed, and that reason is already stale. academic freedom cannot be sustained.
DLSU v. COURT OF APPEALS 541 SCRA 22 (2007) IV. FREEDOM OF RELIGION

They were refused enrollment to the DSLU for they were
previously expelled by the disciplinary board because of their ARTICLE III, SECTION 5
involvement in an offensive action causing injuries to the No law shall be made respecting an establishment of
petitioner James Yap and other students who were members of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free
the Lux Domino Fraternity. In this situation, they invoked the exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall
right of education while the university defended using the right
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for
to academic freedom. the exercise of civil or political rights.
Their petition to compel DLSU to accept them as enrollees was

Two Components of Freedom of Religion
eventually denied. Even though they cited also their own 1. The Non-Establishment Clause
academic freedom, DLSU is an institution of higher learning
2. The Free Exercise Clause
who also possess academic freedom which incudes
determination of who to admit for study
A. Non-Establishment Clause
It prohibits the establishment or preferring one religion over
CSC v. SOJOR 554 SCRA 160 (2008)
others. If the government does something to promote one or
In this case, two questions were asked: all religions, it is not allowed. It prevents the state from
(1) Is the president of a state university outside the reach promoting any one religion. The government cannot promote
of the disciplinary jurisdiction constitutionally granted or advance any one religion. The purpose of this clause is to
to the Civil Service Commission (CSC) over all civil allow religions to compete freely with each other based on their
servants and officials? merits without the state. It prohibits:
(2) Does the assumption by the CSC of jurisdiction over a 1. Excessive governmental entanglement with religious
president of a state university violate academic institutions; and
freedom? 2. Government endorsement or disapproval of religion.
The test in Non-Establishment Clause is Benevolent Neutrality
The court answered that the power of the BOR to discipline or Benevolent Accommodation. Meaning government must be
officials and employees is not exclusive. CSC has concurrent an innocent by-stander when it comes to religious matters.
jurisdiction over a president of a state university. All members
of the civil service are under the jurisdiction of the CSC, unless RE: REQUEST OF MUSLIM 477 SCRA 648 (2005)
otherwise provided by law.
This involves during Ramadhan, the Muslim employees of Iligan
petitioned that they hold offices from 7:30AM to 3:30AM
Being a non-career civil servant does not remove respondent
without lunch break or coffee break during the month of
from the ambit of the CSC. Career or non-career, a civil service Ramadhan, and to be excused from work every 10AM to 2PM
official or employee is within the jurisdiction of the CSC.
every Friday throughout the entire calendar year.
MERCADO v. AMA 618 SCRA 218 (2010)

The court allowed during the month Ramadhan of the office
There were new guidelines requiring faculty backgrounds to a hours request, however, with respect to the second request of
certain standard. One of the faculty was unable to reach that 10-2 excused for every Friday for the entire year is not
stipulated standard. They alleged that it was violative of his permissible for this is now violation of the civil service rules,
academic freedom. there are minimum hours to reach. Your remedy is not with the
court, but now with the legislative body.
The Court replied that it cannot interfere, as long as the
standards imposed by the school are reasonable and are not TARUC v. DELA CRUZ 453 SCRA 123 (2005)
arbitrary, they will not interfere. It is the prerogative of the Here, this involves the Philippine Independence Church, there
school to set standard of efficiency. This is academic freedom
was conflicts between the bishop and priests inside their own
on the part of the school. Thus, it was not unconstitutional. church, on matters on who shall worship, celebrate mass
involving internal matters. They filed a case with the courts
NOTE: Even though the students have academic freedom as
involving the expulsion of one of the members of the church.
well, meaning under the Magna Carta of students, the students
have the right to enroll if he passed the reasonable admission The courts do not have jurisdiction, this is a matter best left to
policy or requirement and has the right to compel reenrollment the discretion of their own officials, and the laws and canons, it
until completion of the desired course the student has enrolled is not for the courts to exercise their control in the performance
in. And the academic freedom also provides that the student of their official functions.
cannot be disciplined just because of his or her exercise of Therefore, if it involves matters of faith, religious practices,
Freedom of Expression. The school can impose reasonable doctrine or worship, the court will never look into those
admission policy as the [school] cannot be compelled by state matters, these are left to such group. The court is not the
regulation to admit students [who are] not qualified under proper venue for such questions for they have no standards for
reasonable admission policy. such questions.
ESTRADA v. ESCRITOR 492 SCRA 1 (2006) 1. Operation of Sectarian Schools

Estrada here wrote Judge Caobes, that her court interpreter
Soledad Escritur was exhibiting grossly immoral behaviors, for Article XIV, Section 4(2)
she was living with a man who is not her husband, they a live- Educational institutions, other than those established by
in and they have a child. This was alleged to be very immoral religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely by
and a case was filed against her. citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at
least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such
In her defense, she stated that this was not grossly immoral on citizens. The Congress may, however, require increased Filipino
her part, when she entered the judiciary, her husband has been equity participation in all educational institutions.
dead for 20 years already.
2. Religious Instruction in Public Schools
She was part of the religious group, Jehovah’s Witness, in their
religion, they are allowed to execute Declaration of Pledging Article XIV, Section 3 (3)
Faithfulness wherein parties can live together as husband and At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians,
wife without the benefit marriage for there are certain legal religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children or wards
impediments. in public elementary and high schools within the regular class
hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious
Since there are legal impediments, they cannot become authorities of the religion to which the children or wards
married, but they have to attend certain seminars. But under belong, without additional cost to the Government.
their church, this is allowed. This is a pledge that she will be
faithful to the other. His partner is the one who has legal Section 927, Revised Administrative Code
impediment. Discussion of religious doctrines to be eschewed. - No teacher
or other persons engaged in any public school whether
Here, the freedom of religion, was preferred over the ground of maintained from (insular) national, provincial, or municipal
gross immorality for it was found out that such was part of their fund, shall teach or criticize the doctrine of any church, religious
religious practice. But it must be clarified, that in the name of sector, or denomination, or shall attempt to influence the pupils
religious belief, you can already have the relationship and get for or against any church or religious sect. If any teacher shall
away with the liability, for this is only an academic case. intentionally violate this section he or she shall, after due
hearing, be dismissed from the public service.
It would have been different if this is a criminal case, only for
this case this is allowed. In a criminal dimension, their breach Section 928, Revised Administrative Code
is an offense not only against the person injured but against Provision for religious instruction by local priest or minister. – It
society. Thus, even if all involved in the misdeed are consenting shall be lawful, however, for the priest or minister of any church
parties, such as in the case at bar, the injury done is to the public to establish in the town where a public school is situated, either
morals and the public interest in the moral order. in person or by a designated teacher of religion, to teach
religion for one-half hour three times a week, in the school
The legislature included concubinage as a crime under the building, to those public-school pupils whose parents or
Revised Penal Code and the constitutionality of this law is not guardians desire it and express their desire therefore in writing
being raised in the case at bar. This is an administrative filed with the principal teacher of the school, to be forwarded
charge. to the division superintendent, who shall fix the hours and room
for such teaching.
Illustrative Question:
Determine if there is a violation of religious freedom: There is Article 359 (1), Civil Code
an Indian Tribe, and part of their religious practice is that once The government promotes the full growth of the faculties of
a year, they would smoke a pipe filled with marijuana passed every child. For this purpose, the government will establish,
around the members. Suppose that they were raided by the whenever possible:
authorities, can they use religious freedom as defense? (1) Schools in every barrio, municipality and city where
optional religious instruction shall be taught as part of
A: Does it constitute clear and present danger? This is allowable the curriculum at the option of the parent or guardian;
if this indeed annually, but if this is done daily this is no longer
permissible, but if it’s really in the genuine exercise of their 3. Tax Exemption
religious practice then this is allowable as long as part of their
religious belief and occasional. Article VI, Section 28(3)
Charitable institutions, churches and parsonages or convents
However, now if that would happen in the Philippines, it would appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and all
not apply because of the strict laws against dangerous drugs. lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
This shows that indeed the freedom of religion is a preferred exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational
right in the constitution. purposes shall be exempt from taxation.
NOTE: What is important hear is that the tax exemption is It appears that the purpose was to advertise the Philippines
limited to the real estate tax of the properties which was and to attract more tourists to the country. The official’s
actually, directly, and exclusively used for religious, charitable concern was just to take advantage of an international event
or educational purposes which are exempted. that would help boost the country and its people.
BISHOP NUEVA v. PROV. BOARD 51 PHIL. 132 (1927) Applying the Lemon Test, it was tourism, the benefit was
The Roman Catholic Apostolic Church possess a parcel of land, merely incidental, and the appropriation was only P60K. It
on the south part has the convent and others. These lands were passed the Lemon Test. While the issuance of these stamps, the
subject to taxes. They were assessed taxes, even if there is resulting propaganda was not the aim of the measure.
agreement, there must be payment despite protest. They paid
under protest, the lot adjoining the convent was formerly their B. Free Exercise Clause
cemetery. The board stated that it was no longer for religious Freedom to believe is absolute, but freedom to act on such
uses for it was not used. belief is now subject to state intervention. If you believe that
you are the most beautiful in this world and create a religion
It should still be exempted. In this regard, while it was no around it, this is allowed. But freedom to act, this is where the
longer, it was neither used for commercial purposes. It was now state regulates.
used as lodging house for those who participate in the
religious activities and is incidental to the religious purpose. 1. Flag Salute
If the property was used for other purposes it is not exempted
from real property taxes. GERONA v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 109 PHIL. 2 (1959)
There were students in a public school there was flag ceremony
TOLENTINO v. SECRETARY 236 SCRA 632 (1994) with all the formalities therein. These students were members
Value added tax is allowed on the sale of bibles, E-VAT is a tax of the Jehovah’s Witness, under their religion that they were
on the exercise of privilege not for license of the sale. It does prohibited to salute to the flag and sing to the national
not infringe their freedom of religion. anthem. They were threatened of expulsion for such.
4. Public Aid to Religion There was nothing religious on saluting the flag and singing the
national anthem. If we produce students that do not salute or
Article VI, Section 29(2) sing they may not develop patriotism. They were compelled.
No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, [Notice comparison to Ebralinag v. Division Sup’t of Schools].
paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or
support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian institution, EBRALINAG v. DIVISON SPS 219 SCRA 256 (1993)
or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or Similar to the preceding case of Gerona v. Executive Secretary,
other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such this still involved students who refuse to salute to the flag and
priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the armed sing the national anthem due to the prohibition by their
forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or religions which they belong to the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
leprosarium.
This time Supreme Court completely overturned Gerona, the
Lemon Test, Concept and Application Court said that religious freedom is a fundamental right which is
It is a test to find out whether the act is a permissible public aid entitled to the highest priority and the amplest protection among
to religion without violating the non-establishment clause. human rights, for it involves the relationship of man to his
There are three requirements provided: Creator. The right to religious profession and worship has a
1. There must be a legislative or secular purpose; two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to believe and freedom to act on
2. Its principal or primary effect is neither advancing or one's belief.
prohibiting any religion;
3. It does not foster any excessive government The sole justification for a prior restraint or limitation on the
entanglement with religion. exercise of religious freedom is the existence of a grave and
present danger of a character both grave and imminent, of a
AGLIPAY v. RUIZ 64 PHIL. 201 (1937) serious evil to public safety, public morals, public health or any
This was during the 33rd Eucharistic Congress in Manila, this is other legitimate public interest, that the State has a right (and
celebrated every year throughout the world. The government duty) to prevent." Absent such a threat to public safety, the
appropriated P60K postage commemorative stamps with a expulsion of the petitioners from the schools is not justified.
map of the Philippines and the Manila Cathedral. The Aglipayan
Church questioned such stamps stating that it was advancing After all, what the petitioners seek only is exemption from the
the Roman Catholic religion in violation of the constitution. flag ceremony, not exclusion from the public schools where
they may study the Constitution, the democratic way of life
The Court held that the issuance of these postage stamps was and form of government, and learn not only the arts, sciences,
not inspired by any sectarian denomination. The stamps was Philippine history and culture but also receive training for a
not issued or sold for the benefit of Roman Catholic. vocation of profession and be taught the virtues.
Expelling or banning the petitioners from Philippine schools will 3. Exemption from Union Shop
bring about the very situation that this Court had feared in
Gerona. Forcing a small religious group, through the iron hand A union shop, also known as a post-entry closed shop, is a form
of the law, to participate in a ceremony that violates their of a union security clause. Under this, the employer agrees to
religious beliefs, will hardly be conducive to love of country or either only hire labor union members or to require that any new
respect for dully constituted authorities. employees who are not already union members become
members within a certain amount of time.
If they quietly stand at attention during the flag ceremony while
their classmates and teachers salute the flag, sing the national Closed-shop is a form of union security. It is defined as an
anthem and recite the patriotic pledge, we do not see how such enterprise which, by agreement between employer and
conduct may possibly disturb the peace, or pose "a grave and employees or representatives, no person may be employed in
present danger of a serious evil to public safety, public morals, any or certain agreed departments of the enterprise unless one,
public health or any other legitimate public interest that the State becomes, and, for the duration of the agreement, remains
has a right (and duty) to prevent. [Note the application of the member in good standing of a union entirely comprised of or
Clear and Present Danger Rule]. of which the employees in interest are a part. In short, you have
to be a part of the union to be employed.
The Court upheld their freedom of religion. The State cannot
compel to do something which your religion prohibits, VICTORIANO v. ELIZALDE UNION 59 SCRA 54 (1974)
concomitantly, the State cannot prohibit what your religion Members of Jehovah’s Witnesses cited their religion that they
commands. This is the essence of the free exercise clause. are not allowed to join unions, they were removed. The court
ruled that they should uphold their religious beliefs thus they
2. Freedom to Propagate Religious Doctrines were exempted from the union shop agreement.
AMERICAN BIBLE v. MANILA 101 PHIL. 386 (1957) The primary effects of the exemption from closed shop
This involves American Bible Society selling bibles, but they agreements in favor of members of religious sects that prohibit
were tax for when they sold this they did not procure permit their members from affiliating with a labor organization, is the
and municipal to sell these bibles. ABS contend that the protection of said employees against the aggregate force of the
ordinances were unconstitutional and illegal because they collective bargaining agreement, and relieving certain citizens
provide religious censorship and restrain the free exercise and of a burden on their religious beliefs; and by eliminating to a
enjoyment of religious profession of distributing bibles. certain extent economic insecurity due to unemployment,
which is a serious menace to the health, morals, and welfare of
As may be seen, the license fees required to be paid quarterly the people of the State, the Act also promotes the well-being
in Section 1 of said Ordinance No. 2529, as amended, are not of society.
imposed directly upon any religious institution but upon those
engaged in any of the business or occupations therein It is our view that the exemption from the effects of closed shop
enumerated, such as retail “dealers in general merchandise” agreement does not directly advance, or diminish, the interests
which, it is alleged, cover the business or occupation of selling of any particular religion. Although the exemption may benefit
bibles, books, etc. those who are members of religious sects that prohibit their
members from joining labor unions, the benefit upon the
CENTENO v. VILLALON-PORNILLOS 236 SCRA 197 (1994) religious sects is merely incidental and indirect.
A civic organization known as Samahang Katandaan ng Nayon
The "establishment clause" (of religion) does not ban regulation
ng Tikay launched a fund drive for renovation of a chapel.
on conduct whose reason or effect merely happens to coincide
Centeno together with others approached Judge Angeles and
or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions. The free
solicited a contribution but was found out that such solicitation
exercise clause of the Constitution has been interpreted to
had not gone through permit from DSWD. Thus, a case was
require that religious exercise be preferentially aided.
filed against them for not having procured such permit before
solicitation. Pornillos defended that PD 1564 does not cover
Illustrative Question:
religious purposes only “charitable and public welfare.”
Knowing that the Jehovah’s Witnesses cannot be compelled to
salute the flag and sing the national anthem, what are they
The Court ruled that the Constitution treat the words
supposed to do in cases of flag ceremonies?
“charitable” and “religious” separately and independently. It
enumerated distinctively “charitable institutions, churches and
As stated in the case of Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of
patronages.” They are dissociated and are individually
Schools, they have to stand in attention although you are not
mentioned. These enactments specifically spelled out
required to salute and sing, you are still required to stand in
“charitable” and “religious” in an enumeration to emphasize
attention and respect the ceremony that is taking place.
difference from each other. Religious purposes are not
interchangeable with charitable purposes. The word
NOTE: Article II, Section 4, in cases of war, the citizens may be
charitable can have different significations. PD 1564 does not
called to protect it country, no belief of non-violence.
cover religious purposes. They are acquitted.
V. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND OF TRAVEL COJUANGCO v. SANDIGANBAYAN 300 SCRA 367 (1998)
Eduardo Cojuangco was charged for violation of the Anti-Graft
ARTICLE III, SECTION 6 and Corrupt Practices Act where they allegedly took advantage
The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the of their public positions as member and as Administrator of the
limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except Philippine Coconut Authority by granting a donation of P2M
upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to to the COCOFED a private entity using PCA fund, giving the
travel be impaired except in the interest of national
entity unwarranted benefits, advantage and preference.
security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.
Cojuangco requested that the travel restriction on him in view
of the various problems involving the San Miguel Corporation
Two Rights Present
abroad which he must immediately attend to as Chairman and
1. Liberty of abode – the right to choose or change
CEO. He cited that it became necessary for him to attend
residence wherever on one wants for whatever reason.
meetings abroad. He needs permission from Sandiganbayan to
travel abroad. There was an issuance of warrant or arrest.
2. Right of travel – the right to move wherever you want
from one place to another.
Travel ban should be lifted, considering all the circumstances
prevailing. As a general rule, a person facing a criminal
EXCEPTIONS: (1) Except upon lawful order of the court; or of
indictment and provisionally released on bail does not have an
(2) In the interest of national security, public safety or public
unrestricted right to travel, the reason being that a person’s
health as may be provided by law.
right to travel is subject to the usual constraints imposed by the
very necessity of safeguarding the system of justice.
SALONGA v. HERMOSO 97 SCRA 121 (1980)
The right to travel here was upheld as a cherished right. Salonga
Considerations to Lift Travel Ban
asked for a Certification of Eligibility to Travel. However, there
The Office of the Solicitor General did not interpose any
were so many requirements. There should not be so many objection to the prayer of travel abroad based on:
requirements for one to travel abroad. 1. Court can suspend its own Rules of Court;
2. It has been shown that in the past that the petitioner
MARCOS v. MANGLAPUS 177 SCRA 668 (1989)
has always returned to the Philippines after
Marcos was exiled after the EDSA Revolution; his dying wish
expiration of his allowed travel.
was to die in the Philippines. He sent envoys to then President 3. Petitioner is Chairman and CEO of SMC and may be
Corazon Aquino requesting such. President Cory Aquino constrained to leave the country for business
prohibited Marcos from returning. Marcos cited the right to purposes, more often than the past.
travel invoking his right to return to the country.
YAP, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS 358 SCRA 564 (2001)
The President has the right to balance the general welfare and
He was allowed to travel abroad, but the bail set here was
the common good of the people. If Marcos could return, during P5.5M which was equivalent to the civil liability in his criminal
this time there was instability, so for the common good, him case. The court ruled that it was excessive and that under the
being a serious threat, he was not allowed to return. The court constitution, excessive bail is not allowed.
elicited the right to travel only includes the right to leave
the country, it does not include the right to return to the MIRASOL v. DPWH 490 SCRA 318 (2006)
country. [NOTE: Atty. Caharian cites his dissent of such ruling.] There was a directive issued regulating the use of motorcycles
in toll roads and express highways like skyways. This was
Q. If one faces criminal charges, does it affect right to travel? alleged as being violative of right to travel. The use of public
highways by motor vehicles is subject to regulation as an
SILVERIO v. CA 195 SCRA 760 (1991)
exercise of the police power of the state.
He had a bond and a hold departure order, they cancelled his
passport and a warrant of arrest was issued. His right to travel
We find that AO 1 does not impose unreasonable restrictions.
can be restricted while facing a criminal charge precisely
It merely outlines several precautionary measures, to which
due to the bail bond. The bond ensures that if he or she is
toll way users must adhere. These rules were designed to
needed to attend a hearing one shall be present due to the
ensure public safety and the uninhibited flow of traffic
bond that is made for such security.
within limited access facilities. They cover several subjects, from
what lanes should be used by a certain vehicle, to maximum
Thus, if one is facing criminal charges and has a bail bond, one
vehicle height. The prohibition of certain types of vehicles is but
still has to file a motion to the court to be allowed to travel
one of these. None of these rules violates reason. The purpose
abroad. This is allowed as long as he is not a flight risk. One
of these rules and the logic behind them are quite evident. A
can set up for a separate bond.
toll way is not an ordinary road. The special purpose for which
a toll way is constructed necessitates the imposition of
NOTE: Upon motion for right to travel abroad while facing a
guidelines in the manner of its use and operation.
criminal charge, one can set up defense of interest to return.
Inevitably, such rules will restrict certain rights. But the mere VILLAVICENCIO v. LUKBAN 39 PHIL. 778 (1919)
fact that certain rights are restricted does not invalidate the This involves prostitutes in Manila around this time that were
rules. None of the rules outlined in AO 1 strikes us as arbitrary considered as eyesores. The Mayor of Manila hurdled all these
and capricious. women and shipped them all to Davao City stating that the are
free to roam in Davao City but not leave such City. It was alleged
The DPWH, through the Solicitor General, maintains that the to be violative of their right to travel for not being allowed to
toll ways were not designed to accommodate motorcycles and travel outside Davao City. The court agreed to the allegation.
that their presence in the toll ways will compromise safety and One cannot require them to leave Davao City.
traffic considerations. Reason, not scientific exactitude, is the
measure of the validity of the governmental regulation.
• A classification based on practical convenience, safety - END OF EXAM I COVERAGE –
and common knowledge is not unconstitutional
simply because it lacks theoretical uniformity.
A toll way is not an ordinary road. As a facility designed to

promote the fastest access to certain destinations, its use,
operation, and maintenance require close regulation. Public
interest and safety require the imposition of certain restrictions
on toll ways that do not apply to ordinary roads. As a special
kind of road, it is but reasonable that not all forms of
transport could use it.
The right to travel does not mean the right to choose any
vehicle in traversing a toll way. The right to travel refers to the
right to move from one place to another. Petitioners can traverse
the toll way any time they choose using private or public four-
wheeled vehicles. Petitioners are not denied the right to move
from Point A to Point B along the toll way. Petitioners are free
to access the toll way, much as the rest of the public can. The I don't feel that it is necessary to know
mode by which petitioners wish to travel pertains to the manner exactly what I am. The main interest in life
of using the toll way, a subject that can be validly limited by and work is to become someone else that you
regulation. were not in the beginning. If you knew when
you began a book what you would say at the
REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS 606 SCRA 580 (2009) end, do you think that you would have the
courage to write it? What is true for writing
Instead of filing for the Motion to Life Hold Departure Order,
and for a love relationship is true also for
what was filed was Writ of Amparo. This is the wrong remedy. life. The game is worthwhile insofar as we
The court finds the recourse inappropriate for Writ of Amparo. don't know what will be the end.
OFFICE OF ADMIN v. MACARINE 677 SCRA 1 (2012) - Michel Foucault, 1982

This involves the Office of Administrative Services and Judge
Macarine. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine faced administrative
charge for violating an OCA circular which required that all
foreign travels of judges and court personnel regardless of
number of days must be with prior permission from the court.
A travel authority must be secured from the OCA Judges.
Macarine here requested authority to travel to Hongkong with

his family for 5 days for celebrating his 65th birthday. However,
he did not submit application for leave, failure to submit
complete requirements, his request was unacted. Nonetheless,
he proceeded with his travel abroad without the required
travel authority from the OCA.
He admitted that due to the time constraint he left and

admitted such mistake. The right to travel is not absolute but
this is by no means be construed to limit the Court’s
inherent power of administrative supervision over lower
courts, the OCA circular merely regulates and does not
prohibit one to be able to travel abroad.
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall
be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate
Atty. Thomas Kristino B. Caharian family, or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him
I-Manresa 2017-2018 or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any
national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
VI. RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental
organization duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée,
parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or
ARTICLE III, SECTION 12 aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an
offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to Rights of Persons Under Custodial Investigation
remain silent and to have competent and independent The constitutional provision prohibits as evidence only
counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot confession and admission of the accused as against himself.
afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. This is also known as the Miranda Rights which render
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in inadmissible only the extrajudicial confession or admission made
presence of counsel.
during custodial investigation.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against The admissibility of other evidence, provided they are relevant
him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or to the issue and are not otherwise excluded by law or rules, are
other similar forms of detention are prohibited. not affected even if obtained or taken in the course of custodial
investigation. Any allegation or violation of rights during
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this custodial investigation is relevant and material only to cases in
or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible as evidence which an extrajudicial admission or confession is extracted from
against him.
the accused as basis of their conviction.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this section as well as compensation to the The Miranda Warning
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices and As usually seen in movies, one has the right to remain silent and
their families. that anything they say can and will be used against them in the
court of law. If one cannot afford the services of counsel you
RA 7438, Section 2 will be provided with one. This refers to the rights of persons
Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
facing custodial investigations.
Investigation; Duties of Public Officers
(a) Any person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation shall REQUISITES FOR THE RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL
at all times be assisted by counsel. INVESTIGATION TO ATTACH
According to Justice Isagani Cruz, there are three requirements
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order of when one can state that the rights under custodial investigation
his place, who arrests, detains, or investigates any person for the
commission of an offense shall inform the latter, in a language known to
has attached to the accused;
and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent and to have 1. The accused must be under custody or in jail or
competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who deprived of any freedom of action in any significant
shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, way;
detained or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the
services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a competent and 2. The accused must be under investigation subject to
independent counsel by the investigating officer. the questioning or interrogation by a law enforcement
officer; and
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the 3. The questioning must be in relation to the crime
investigating officer, provided that before such report is signed, or
thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to
committed.
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 If there absent in any one requisite, he is not yet under custodial
in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, investigation, thus the rights under Section 12, does not apply.
otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect
whatsoever.
PEOPLE v. ESPEJO (1970)
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or Rule: There was an interview by the accused, but he made the
under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such confession or admission before a reporter. The reporter was
person in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence, upon a
valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and later called in court to testify regarding the confession made by
sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district the accused. Could he invoke rights to custodial investigation?
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him;
otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence
No. The questioning was not made by a police officer, the one
in any proceeding.
who made the questioning was a reporter. The second requisite
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of for rights under custodial investigation to attach is absent thus
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, the admission or statements he stated in media can be
shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his
considered as admissible evidence against him.
counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
PEOPLE v. BOLANOS GR 10108 (1992) Reason for Article III, Section 12

During trial, it was established that the alleged oral admission It prohibits coerced confessions. The right to remain silent and
of the appellant was given without the assistance of counsel as the right to counsel are precisely inscribed in the Constitution
it was made while on board the police vehicle on their way to to prevent coerced confession to be used against use. These
the police station. It was ruled that the right to custodial rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
investigation has already attached. of a counsel. But the accused cannot waive the right to be given
the Miranda warnings.
The three elements are present. There is an investigation made
by the police office in relation to the crime, and it does not HO WAI PANG v. PEOPLE 659 SCRA 624 (2011)
matter whether or not you are still in the police car. The Facts: This involves Chinese nationals who boarded plane from
custodial investigation has already started even if one is not yet Hongkong to NAIA. When they arrived, among the Hongkong
in jail because one is already under custody because one’s Nationals, there were boxes of chocolates. Upon inspection
freedom has already been deprived in a significant way. they became suspicious of the volume of such chocolates.
Airport security inspected the boxes, upon inspection there
Being under custodial investigation while on board the police were shabu found inside. One of defenses was their rights under
patrol jeep on the way to the police station where formal custodial investigation, stating that they were not informed of
investigation may have been conducted, appellant should have their right to remain silent and their right to counsel.
been informed his constitutional rights.
However, it is important to note that in this case, they were
Evolution of Rights under Custodial Investigation caught in flagrante delicto, as they were caught in the act of
Note that under the 1935 Constitution there is no established transporting dangerous drugs into the country.
concept yet of rights under custodial investigation, it was only
then on 1966, when the Miranda v. Arizona ruling was made Rule: While it may be true that they were subjected to custodial
that the law took into consideration such. questioning by the custom authorities and NBI alleged as a
violation under Section 12, it cannot be overlooked that Section
1935 1973 1987 12 of the Article III prohibits as inadmissible only confession
No custodial Referred to as Custodial and admissions of accused against himself.
investigation custodial investigation
interrogation The infractions of so-called Miranda rights render inadmissible
No right to No rights to Rights to counsel only the extrajudicial confession made during custodial
remain silent and counsel and right and right to investigation. The admissibility of other evidence provided that
to counsel. to remain silent. remain silent. they are relevant to the issue and are not otherwise excluded
by law or rules, are not affected even if obtained or taken in the
Note that in 1992, upon the enactment of RA 7438, as a rule course of the custodial investigation.
extrajudicial confessions must be made in the presence of
counsel, however due to the special law, Section 2(d) of RA Thus, the petitioner did not make any confession or admission
7438 now allows that extrajudicial confession, upon a valid during his custodial investigation. The prosecution did not
waiver, in presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and present any extrajudicial confession extracted from him as
sisters, his spouses, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, evidence of his guilt. No statement was even taken from him.
district school supervisor, or priers or minister of the gospel as
chosen by him, otherwise it is inadmissible. EXCEPTIONS TO THE APPLICATION OF MIRANDA RULE
Custodial Investigation While Article III, Section 12 outlining the rights of the accused
Custodial investigation involves any questioning initiated by under the custodial investigation is present, it also admits of
law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into exceptions under the following:
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any 1. Not applicable to confessions before January 17, 1973.
significant way. 2. Not applicable to res gestae statements or to those
spontaneous statements.
It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry 3. Not applicable to statements given in administrative
into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular investigations.
suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries 4. Not applicable to police lineups for identification.
out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting
incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate. 1. Miranda Rule Not Applicable to Confessions
Before January 17, 1973
It shall include the practice of issuing an invitation to a person The Miranda rule is not applicable to confession executed
who is investigated in connection to an offense he is suspected before January 17, 1973 or prior the effectivity of the 1973
to have committed without prejudice to the liability of an Constitution. Therefore, this refers to confessions that were
inviting officer for any violation of law. made during the 1935 Constitution, where the Miranda rights
could not be invoked by then.
PEOPLE v. RIBADAJO 142 SCRA 637 (1986) The Supreme court ruled here that the Miranda Doctrine does
There was a stabbing incident wherein the accused admitted not apply. The rule beings operate at once as soon as the
participation of the crime. Appellant claims that they have not investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved
been informed of their right to silence and to counsel during crime and direction is now aimed upon a particular suspect who
the custodial investigation. has been taken into custody and to whom police would then
direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit incriminating
However, the confession was made on November 18, 1971 statements against him.
which was made prior to the effectivity of the 1973 Constitution.
No law gives the accused the right to be informed prior the Here, assailed statements herein were spontaneously made by
1973 Constitution. Even if presented after January 17, 1973, the petitioner together with his cousin Fiscal, when they personally
constitutional guaranty relative to confessions obtained during wen to the police station and voluntarily made the statement
custodial investigation does not have any retroactive effect. that Leticia, victim, jumped out of his vehicle.
FILOTEO v. SANDIGANBAYAN 263 SCRA 222 (1996) 3. Not Applicable to Statements in

This involved the hijacking of postal delivery and there was an Administrative Investigations
extrajudicial confession. It was held here that the constitutional
mandate should be given a prospective and not retrospective The rights outlined under Section 12 of Article III, does not
effect. Consequently, a confession obtained from a person apply to administrative investigations because the one making
under investigation before 1973, is admissible for there was no the questions are not law enforcement officers per se.
law that gave the accused the right to be so informed.
PEOPLE v. TIN LAN UY 475 SCRA 248 (2005)
2. Not Applicable to Res Gestae Statements Tin Lan Uy here was an accountant and treasurer of NPC. He
or Spontaneous Statements and his companions took advantage of their positions and with
grave abuse of confidence falsifying application for manager’s
Res Gestae Statements checks with PNB which intended to purchase US dollars from
These are spontaneous statements, thus if one is under arrest the UCPB. Instead of doing that, they inserted the account of a
of being detained and one randomly blurts out a statement to certain Raul Gutierrez.
an officer before he has the opportunity to give you the
Miranda warnings and ask you questions, that statement is But in truth and in fact, the payment instruction did not indicate
considered completely voluntary and admissible against the that it was for the account of Raul Gutierrez. Basically, they
accused as these fall under the exceptions. altered a genuine document. There was an administrative
investigation of the NPC that was made and an audit team.
PEOPLE v. BALOLOY 381 SCRA 31 (2002) Before that audit team, this was where he made that confession.
In involved the killing of an 11-year-old girl at the waterfalls Later on, he questioned that confession. He even made that
sometime in August 3, 1996. She was found dead. Here, Baloloy confession at the Philippine Heart Center.
said that he was watching frogs. The weapon used here is a
black rope to kill the child. Here, Mosqueda, one of the police Rule: His statement taken during administrative investigation
officers informed the Brgy. Captain. The Captain went to him of the NPC audit team and before he was taken into custody
and asked him about the incident. Out of nowhere, he was still a general inquiry into an unsolved offense at the time
voluntarily made the statement. and there was no specific suspect yet. Much less can he claim
that he was in police custody because he was at the time at the
Supreme Court said, that in the case, he admitted ownership of Philippine Heart Center and he gave his statement to the NPC
the black rope and was asked by Ceniza to tell her everything. personnel and not to the police authorities.
Juanito Baloloy, voluntarily narrated too Ceniza that he raped
Genelyn and thereafter threw her body to the ravine. Appellant cannot claim that, under the prevailing circumstances
that any degree of compulsion may have existed beyond duress
This narration is a spontaneous answer, freely and voluntarily to force him into making false and incriminating declarations
given in an ordinary manner. It was given before he was placed against his interest. While he may have been persuaded in
under custody or arrested in connection with the commission doing so, he cannot feign that he was intimidated in such a way
of the offense. as to bring his statements within the ambit of the provision.
JESALVA v. PEOPLE 640 SCRA 253 (2011) ASTUDILLO v. PEOPLE 509 SCRA 509 (2006)
Jesalva had a drinking session with his companion and This is a case for qualified theft wherein the complainant here
apparently the woman (whom he courted), they went home and was Western Marketing Corporation. There were certain
was the last one seen with the victim. He was the one who wen appliances and cash that was missing. The modus was to
to the police station and gave the voluntary spontaneous prepare fictitious sales and withdrawals. The accused herein
statement. He was convicted herein using evidence for the admitted to the accountant about what they did and asked for
crime of murder of the victim. remission and that they will never repeat the act again.
The Supreme Court said, custodial investigation is meant TEST OF VALIDITY OF WAIVER OF MIRANDA RIGHTS
“questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after the To be informed. The Supreme Court has always been consistent.
person has been taken into custody”, the employee may of To inform the accused of his rights should not be merely a
course refuse to submit any statement at the investigation. That ceremonial recitation. The accused should understand what his
is his privilege. rights are. An officer should make sure that the person is
informed and understood of the rights accorded to him.
If he should ought to do so, in his defense against the
accusations against him, it will be absurd to reject his The Miranda Warning
statements whether at that administrative investigation or 1. You are arrested for the crime of (crime charged).
subsequent criminal action against him because he is not 2. You have the right to remain to remain silent.
accorded his Miranda rights. Here, the questioning is done not 3. Any statement you make may be used against you in
by the police officers but by the accountant. Therefore, during a court of law in the Philippines.
administrative investigations, Miranda Rights do not apply. 4. You have the right to have a competent and
independent counsel preferably of your own choice.
4. Custodial Phase of Investigation – Police Lineups 5. If you cannot afford the services of a counsel the
A police line-up is not for the purpose of investigation. It is government will provide you one.
simply for the purpose of identification. Identification is not yet 6. Do you understand these rights?
part of such
Q. Should all the statements need to be recited by the police
DELA TORRE v. COURT OF APPEALS 294 SCRA 196 (1998) officer upon informing the accused of his Miranda rights?
This involves missing 6 electric meters of wires of Cathay Pacific.
Dela Torre with 8 other persons were picked by Garcia in a PEOPLE v. CASIMIRO 383 SCRA 390 (2002)
police lineup, upon identification he stated that he was not This was a buy-bust operation for Marijuana. PO2 Supa testified
accorded with his right to custodial investigation. that informed that accused appellant of his Miranda rights
while he was being arrest outside the grocery:
In the instant case, petitioner de la Torre, together with the
other crewmembers of MERALCO truck number 522, was Q: What happened after you brought out your comb and started
merely included in a line-up of eight (8) persons from which he combing your hair?
was picked out by Garcia as the leader of the group which had A: Sir, my two companions went to our place and effected the
arrest of the suspect.
removed the electric meters from the CAPASSCO premises.
Q: What else happened after the two members of the team
rushed to your place?
Until then, the police investigation did not focus on petitioner. A: We apprised the suspect of his constitutional rights and
Indeed, no questions were put to him. Rather, the questions brought him to our Narcotics office.
were directed to witnesses of the complainant. There is, Q: How did you apprise the suspect of his rights as you said?
therefore, no basis for petitioner's allegations that his rights as A: Sir, we informed him of his constitutional rights by saying, You
a suspect in a custodial interrogation were violated. Remember are under arrest for violation of 6425. You have the right to
the three requirements again, he is under custody, questioning remain silent. You have the rights to call for a lawyer of your own
choice. Anything you say may be used as evidence in favor or
by the police in relation to the crime.
against you. And we brought him to the office, sir.
Q: What happened after that? A: Sir, we investigated him, and the
PEOPLE v. PAVILLARE 329 SCRA 684 (2000) suspect identified himself as Albert Casimiro.
In this case, Indian nationals were kidnapped and were asked
to form a police lineup. The prohibition however, does not The warning was incomplete. It did not include a statement
extend to a person in a police line-up because that stage of an that, if accused appellant could not afford counsel, one would
investigation is not yet a part of custodial investigation. be assigned to him.
It has been repeatedly held that custodial investigation The warning was perfunctory, made without any effort to find
commences when a person is taken into custody and is singled out if he understood it. It was merely ceremonial and
out as a suspect in the commission of the crime under inadequate in transmitting meaningful information to the
investigation and the police officers begin to ask questions on suspect.
the suspect's participation therein and which tend to elicit an
admission. Thus, the rights under Section 12, Article III of the We cannot say that in signing the receipt without a lawyer,
Constitution has not attached yet. accused acted willingly, intelligently, and freely. What is more,
the police investigators did not pause long enough and wait for
The stage of an investigation wherein a person is asked to stand the accused to say whether he was willing to answer their
in a police line-up has been held to be outside the mantle of questions even without the assistance of counsel or whether he
protection of the right to counsel because it involves a general was waiving his right to remain silent at all. The extrajudicial
inquiry into an unsolved crime and is purely investigatory in confession herein was deemed inadmissible in evidence due to
nature. the failure to follow the constitutional requirements under the
constitution.
PEOPLE v. SAYABOC 419 SCRA 659 (2004) Evolution of the Waiver of Right to Competent Counsel
The court found out here that the extrajudicial confession of As a rule, the waiver of the right to remain silent and the right
Sayaboc cannot be used as evidence in this case. The to independent and competent counsel of persons under
prosecution must be able to show that the constitutional custodial investigation requires:
requirements safeguarding rights has been strictly complied 1. To be in writing; and
with, failure to do so renders the confession valueless and 2. To be made in presence of a counsel.
inadmissible the extrajudicial confession.
Apart from the absence of an express waiver, the confession It is important to note that throughout history, the waiver to an
contains the passing of information of the kind held to be in independent and competent counsel evolved.
violation of the right to be informed. The right to be informed
requires the transmission of meaningful information rather Pre-Galit Rule An uncounseled waiver of the right to
than just ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract (1973 a competent counsel does not render
constitutional principle. It should allow the suspect to consider Constitution) the extrajudicial confession obtained
the effects and consequences of any waiver he might make of therefrom inadmissible in evidence.
these rights. Morales-Galit The landmark case of People v. Galit
Ruling and Enrile v. Morales prior to the 1987
Moreso when the suspect is one like Sayaboc, who has an (April 26, 1983) Constitution provided that the right to
educational attainment of Grade IV, was a stranger in Nueva (March 20, 1985) counsel may be waived but the waiver
Vizcaya, and had already been under control of the police shall not be valid unless made with the
officer s for two days previous investigation for another offense. assistance of counsel.
Under the 1987 Section 12 of Article III provides, that
The court ruled here that Sayaboc was not afforded his Constitution these rights cannot be waived except
constitutional right to a competent counsel. The facts show that (Feb. 02, 1987) in writing and in the presence of
through the testimonies that Atty. Cornejo remained silent counsel of choice.
throughout the duration of the custodial investigation. The
counsel should be able to explain the nature of the questions Does the Morales-Galit Rule
by conferring with his client and halting the investigation Have a Retroactive Application?
should the need arise. The duty of a lawyer includes ensuring
that the suspect under custodial investigation is aware that the SANTOS v. SANDIGANBAYAN 347 SCRA 386 (2000)
right of an accused to remain silent may be invoked at any time.
Facts: This case involved a switching scheme with different
banks and in the Bangko Sentral and the accused herein were
Q. Suppose that an accused was not informed that the
in conspiracy. They were able to switch and pilferage checks.
imposable penalty of the crime he is admitting to was death,
Two of the accused made a written confession of February 13,
does that make the extrajudicial confession inadmissible?
February 17, and March 22, 1982. Now the accused, raised
here as a defense that the extrajudicial cannot be used as
PEOPLE v. BAGNATE 428 SCRA 633 (2004)
evidence because it was executed in the absence of a lawyer.
The main issue in this case is the admissibility of appellants
confession. He claims that Atty. Brotamonte was not a Rule: The court ruled that the Morales-Galit Ruling does not
competent and independent counsel as he failed to advise him apply in this case because it does not have a retroactive
of the penalty to be imposed on the crimes he was accused of application. The extrajudicial confessions herein were made on
committing. Hence, he was not aware of the consequence of his 1982 long before the Morales decision on 1983.
admissions.
Q. Should there be a need to object to the admissibility of the
The failure of Atty. Brotamonte to apprise appellant of the evidence assuming it is inadmissible?
imposable penalty of the crime he was to admit is not a
sufficient ground to strike down his extrajudicial PEOPLE v. MENDOZA 365 SCRA 289 (2001)
confession.
Facts: In this case, the accused was already under investigation
and was brought to the hospital wherein he was questioned by
What the constitution regards as inadmissible in evidence is
the police. Ideally, herein the confession was inadmissible,
confession given by an accused without having been informed
During trial they failed to object against its inadmissibility.
of his Miranda rights.
The confession then was made admissible, even though it
There is nothing in the Constitution that mandates a counsel to
might have been inadmissible because it was given under
inform an accused of the possible penalty for the crime he
custodial investigation and was made without the assistance of
committed. Neither would a presumption arise that the counsel
counsel. However, the defense failed to object to its
is incompetent or not independent just because he failed to
presentation during trial with the result that the defense is
apprise the counsel that imposable penalty for the crime he was
deemed to have waived objection to its admissibility. Thus,
about to admit is death. Even the judge explained the
there is a need to object to the admissibility upon presentation.
consequences of his admission.
Proving the Voluntariness of the Waiver Since these signatures are actually evidence of admission
is on the Prosecution obtained from petitioner and his co-accused under
The burden of proving the voluntariness of waiver is one the circumstances contemplated in Art. III, 12(1) and 17 of the
prosecution, but the burden of proving the voluntariness of the Constitution, they should be excluded.
confession itself lies upon the confessant.
For indeed, petitioner and his co-accused signed following their
PEOPLE v. BACOR 306 SCRA 522 (1999) arrest. Hence, they were at the time under custodial
Facts: In this case, the accused made a confession stating that investigation, defined as questioning initiated by law
the admission was uncounseled, but he himself went to the enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody
police. Atty. Angot of the PAO informed him of his rights. or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in a significant
way.
After, the police brought him to the Clerk of Court where he
was again apprised of his rights; so, he could not claim that it Under the Constitution, among the rights of a person under
was uncounseled. In fact, the appraisal was made in vernacular custodial investigation is the right to have competent and
so the he could understand. independent counsel preferably of his own choice and if the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, that he must be
Under the law, an extrajudicial confession is presumed to be provided with one.
voluntarily made, in this case the presumption was not
overcome by the confessant that the admission was forced. PEOPLE v. JANSON 400 SCRA 584 (2003)
Facts: This was a case that happened in Kidapawan. The
What May be Waived? accused stole money from a certain Alcantara; there was a rape
The rights under custodial investigation that may be waived are: of a their 13-year-old daughter. Problem was, this group of six,
1. The right to remain silent; were all wearing mask. The victims did not immediately go to
2. The right to independent and competent counsel. the police because they were unsure of the identities.
But it is clear, that while these two rights need to be waived in On the radio, they heard that a certain Janson robbed the
writing and in the presence of counsel, the right to be informed cornfield. It was only then they went to the police stating that
or be given Miranda warnings cannot be waived. they were also the ones who robbed them and raped their
daughter. However, it was shown that they were not positively
EXCLUSIONARY RULE sure of the identities.
Section 12(3) of Article III provides that Any confession or
admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof There were uncertainties as to the identities of the perpetrators.
shall be inadmissible as evidence against him. Precisely because they were all wearing masks. The admission
however was inadmissible because the police prepared an
PEOPLE v. ANDAN 269 SCRA 95 (1997) already signed sworn statement not made in the presence of
Facts: In this case, the accused committed rape, he talked the counsel, thus an uncounseled admission even if the counsel
privately with the mayor. Res gestae statements are not had arrived at a later date.
included. The mayor did not even know that he would confess
his guilt to him. He just wants to speak privately. Right then and Requirements for a Confession to be Admissible
there, the accused admitted guilt that he killed. And at that 1. It must be voluntary;
point he was not yet under custodial investigation. 2. It must be made with the assistance of competent and
independent counsel; wherein a waiver thereof must
MARCELO v. SANDIGANBAYAN 302 SCRA 102 (1999) still be made in writing and in presence of counsel;
Facts: This case involved the pilferage of mail matter. They were 3. It must be express; and
caught in the act by the NBI. When they brought to the 4. It must be in writing.
authorities, they were asked to sign the letters. This was
considered to be an act of self-incrimination. It was clear in this case, that Janson was illiterate and a minor
of sixteen year at the time of the offense. It cannot be said that
Rule: The court ruled here that the signatures on the letters are the waiver to the right to counsel was made knowingly and
inadmissible but not the letters themselves. The purpose was to intelligently.
show that the specimen handwriting in the document show that
the accused was the author of the crime. The investigation officers already had a prepared statement
when they went to the lawyer who is supposed to assist Janson
However, this purpose and petitioner’s signatures on the in waiving his right to counsel. This is not what is contemplated
envelope, when coupled with the testimony of prosecution by law. What befell the Alcantara Family must be condemned,
witnesses that the envelopes seized from petitioner were those but the court finds difficulty in sustaining convicting due to the
given to him and Romero, undoubtedly help establish the guilt existence of doubt as to who are the real malefactors the
of petitioner. quantum of proof requires proof beyond reasonable doubt.
VII. RIGHT TO BAIL When Right May be Invoked
ARTICLE III, SECTION 13 PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN 529 SCRA 764 (2007)

All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable Facts: This involves the plunder case of RA 7080 involving
by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, Jinggoy Estrada. Now, it is important to note that while the
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
offense charge may be bailable due to the weakness of the
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The
evidence of guilt, the right to bail may still be justifiably denied
right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall if the probability of escape is great. Here the Sandiganbayan
not be required. deemed Jinggoy as not to be a flight risk.
Bail, Defined The likelihood of escape on the part individual respondent is

Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody now almost nil, given his election on May 10, 2004, as Senator
of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his of the Republic of the Philippines. The Court takes stock of the
appearance before any court as required under the conditions fact that those who usually jump bail are shadowy characters
hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate mindless of their reputation in the eyes of the people for as
surety, property bond, cash deposit or recognizance. long as they can flee from the retribution of justice. On the
other hand, those with a reputation and a respectable name to
Bail: Matter of Right or Discretion and When Not Allowed protect and preserve are very unlikely to jump bail.
It is important to remember that the application of bail matters:
1. Bail, as a matter of right; The Court, to be sure, cannot accept any suggestion that
2. Bail, as a matter of discretion; and someone who has a popular mandate to serve as Senator is
3. Bail, when not allowed. harboring any plan to give up his Senate seat in exchange for
becoming a fugitive from justice.
As a matter of Before or after conviction by the MeTC,
Right MTC, MTCC, MCTC before final judgment VALERIO v. COURT OF APPEALS 535 SCRA 453 (2007)
Before conviction by the RTC for an Facts: Valerio was a lawyer, a chief of the government corporate
offense punishable by reclusion temporal counsel. He was gunned down by Cabador. On trial, Cabador
or less stated that the mastermind is her spouses Milagros Valerio.
Before conviction by the RTC for an Stating that Milagros has planned everything, and she was
offense punishable with reclusion really the mastermind. Is Milagros entitled to bail?
perpetua or death when the evidence of
guilt is not strong. Bail is not a matter of right in cases with a capital or an offense
As a matter of After conviction by the RTC for an punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment or death
Discretion offense punishable by reclusion temporal when the evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of the stage of
or less and the circumstances under SC the criminal action.
12-94 are nor present.
When Bail is After final judgment rendered by any In this case, the trial court had disregarded the glaring fact that
Not Allowed court the killer himself has confessed to the crime and has implicated
Milagros as the mastermind. When taken in conjunction with
Before conviction of an offense
the other evidence on record, these facts show very strongly
punishable by death or reclusion
that Milagros may have participated principal by inducement
perpetua where the evidence of guilt is
in the murder of Jun Valerio. Thus, bail should not be granted
strong.
because the evidence of guilt against her is strong.
After conviction for offenses punishable
by reclusion perpetua, death or life
TRILLANES v. PIMENTEL 556 SCRA 471 (2008)
imprisonment while on appeal.
After conviction for an offense even if it Facts: This involved the Oakwood mutiny. Trillanes stated that
is within 6y1d to 20y present the ff.: the crime of coup d’etat is a political one as different from the
1. Accused is a recidivist, quasi- crime of rape which is of moral turpitude. The court stated
recidivist, habitual delinquent or herein that the complexion of crime is an immaterial distinction.
aggravated by reiteracion.
2. Escapee Regardless of the Stage of Criminal Action. Even when one
3. Committed offense while on is detained or under appeal, the presumption of innocence
probation, parole or conditional does not carry with it the full enjoyment of civil and political
pardon. rights, because regardless at what stage, bail can be denied.
4. Circumstances indicating a
probability of flight Trillanes was a Flight Risk. It was shown that on 2007,
5. Undue risk, during pendency of Trillanes went past security from courtroom to hotel to issue
appeal commit another crime. certain statements. The flight risk was probable.
Election/Re-Election Does Not Obliterate Criminal Charge. Standards for Fixing Bail
The electoral victory only signifies pertinently that when the Rule 110, Section 9 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure,
voters elected him to the Senate, they did so with full awareness provide the guidelines for the amount of bail. The judge who
of the limitations on his freedom of action, and with the issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a
knowledge that he could achieve only such legislative results reasonable amount of bail considering primarily but not limited
which he could accomplish within the confines of prison. to the following guidelines:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
QUI v. PEOPLE 682 SCRA 94 (2012) (b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
Facts: This involves a child abuse case, there was an appeal for (c) Penalty of the offense charged;
his conviction. This involves an appeal after conviction from the (d) Character and reputation of the accused;
RTC wherein it could have been bailable, but it was shown that (e) Age and health of the accused;
Qui was a flight risk for he did not attend the scheduled (f) The weight of evidence against the accused;
hearings he did not inform the court that he transferred his (g) Probability of the accused appearing in trial;
residence. There is this policy that the courts are tough on bail (h) Forfeiture of other bonds;
pending appeal and this was upheld in this case. (i) Fact accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested;
(j) The pendency of other cases in which under bond.
Q. Is a bail hearing mandatory?
NOTE: Excessive bail shall not be required.
GACAL v. JUDGE INFANTE (2011)
Facts: Judge Infante granted bail without hearing, the public In fixing the amount of bail, it should be high enough as to
prosecutor failed to oppose such and allowed bail without assure the presence of the defendant but no higher than is
hearing. Judge Infante acted as if it was a minor requirement. reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose.
The court has outline the duties of the judge:
1. When it is a matter of right or discretion, notify the VILLASENOR v. ABANO 21 SCRA 312 (1967)
prosecutor of the hearing or require submitting his Facts: This involves a murder case. Accused was allowed to post
recommendation; bail of P60,000 and was a property bond. The order of the
2. When as matter of discretion, conduct a hearing, judge, considering the bail was of property bond of P60,000,
regardless of whether the prosecution refuses to the court further required that the persons who can only post
present evidence to present evidence to show that the the property bond should be residents of Marinduque actually
guilt of the accused is strong for the judge to exercise staying therein which must be in the possession and ownership
sound discretion; of said resident for 5 years (additional requirements). Is this
3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong bond requirement considered excessive?
based on the summary of evidence of the prosecution;
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the No. It does not transgress the excessive bail prohibition. The
accused upon the approval of the bail bond. judge has based the grant of bail on the guidelines and found
that it was to prevent the commission of frauds in connection
Bail in Military Courts; Not Applicable with the posting of personal bail bonds to protect the interest
As both held in the cases of Comendador v. De Villa and Aswat of the government.
v. Galido, the right of bail is not available to military personnel.
The right to a speedy trial is given more emphasis in the military Regarding the additional requirement, the court reasoned that
where the right to bail does not exist. it was for the notices to be sent to the bondsman. This is to notify
a hearing, because if the property is quite distant then one
The unique structure of military should be enough reason to would not be notified of a hearing.
exempt military men from the constitutional coverage on the
right to bail. Aside from structural peculiarity, it is vital to note DE LA CAMARA v. ENAGE 41 SCRA 1 (1971)
that mutinous soldiers operate within framework of democratic The Municipal Mayor in Misamis Oriental was charged with
system, allowed the fiduciary use of firearms for the discharge multiple and the bail fixed was P1,195,000. This bail was
of their duties and responsibilities and are paid out of revenues considered excessive by the courts it could have not been (at
collected from the people (Comendador v. De Villa). that time) exceed P50,000. This was too excessive.
When military personnel are charged under the Articles of War YAP, JR. v. CA 358 SCRA 564 (2001)
before a Court Martial bail is unavailing. In Aswat, it was This was an estafa case which involved an amount of P5.5M.
shown that confinement is one way of ensuring presence The judge fixed the bai amount as the same amount for that
during sessions of the general court martial, the more civil liability which is P5.5M. The court find this amount to be
important reason underlying the authority to impose excessive and constitutes and effective denial of the right to
confinement is the need to enable proper military authority to bail. To fix a bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability is
instill discipline with the command and thereby achieve to permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is an
command efficiency. exaction of the civil liability that accused is charged of; this we
cannot allow because bail is not intended as a punishment.
Right to Bail and Right to Travel Abroad NOTE: In all these cases, the Supreme Court ruled, in the
A court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail conditions for bail, there is a valid restriction on one’s right to
from leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence travel if you’re already facing criminal cases. The court has
of the nature and function of a bail bond. If the accused were jurisdiction over one’s person especially when one has been
allowed to leave the Philippines without sufficient reason, he arraigned.
may be placed beyond the reach of the courts.
It is imposed so that the accused will make himself available
MANOTOC v. COURT OF APPEALS 142 SCRA 149 (1986) whenever the court requires his presence. Thus, a person facing
Manotoc wanted to go abroad, but he is facing an estafa case. criminal charges may be restrained by the court from leaving
As a necessary consequence of the nature and function of a bail the country or if abroad compel to return. The right to travel
bond, a court can prohibit a person admitted to bail from cannot be used as defense, due to the condition of the bail.
leaving the Philippines.
Waiver of the Right to Bail
Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and the As held in the case of People v. Donato (1991), right to bail is
state of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial, and at the one of the constitutional rights that can be waived. It is a right
same time, to put the accused as much under the power of the which is personal to the accused and whose waiver would not
court as if he were in custody of the proper officer, and to be contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good
secure the appearance of the accused so as to answer the call customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized
of the court and do what the law may require of him. by law. Thus, the right to be can be waived.
Manotoc here failed to satisfy the trial courts and the appellate As a reminder, as held in Lardizabal v. Reyes (1994), absence
of the urgency of his travel, the duration thereof, as well as of hearing which is mandatory in bail cases, renders the grant
the consent of his surety to the proposed travel. of bail ineffective. Failure of such would mean a violation of
procedural due process, and the order of the court granting bail
SANTIAGO v. VASQUEZ 217 SCRA 633 (1993) should be considered void on that ground.
Facts: Sandiganbayan issued a hold departure order against
Santiago. It will be recalled that petitioner has posted bail which Whether the motion for bail of an accused who is in custody for
the court declared as valid and complete. a capital offense be resolved in a summary proceeding or in the
course of a regular trial, the prosecution must be given an
To reiterate, the hold departure order is but an exercise of opportunity to present, within a reasonable time, all the
respondent court's inherent power to preserve and to maintain evidence that it may wish to introduce on the probable guilt of
the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the person the accused, before the court resolves the motion for bail. If, as
of the accused. in the present case, the prosecution should be denied such an
opportunity, there would be a violation of procedural due
Perforce, since under the obligations assumed by petitioner in process, and the order of the court granting bail should be
her bail bond she holds herself amenable at all times to the considered void on that ground.
orders and processes of the court, she may legally be
prohibited from leaving the country during the pendency of the PEOPLE v. PANES 303 SCRA 231 (1999)
case. That on or about the 23rd of June, 1991, in the Municipality of
Badiangan, Province of Iloilo, Philippines, and within the
SILVERIO v. COURT OF APPEALS 195 SCRA 760 (1991) jurisdiction of this Honorable court, the above-named accused,
Facts: Silverio here wanted to go abroad, but he was facing a conspiring, confederating and mutually helping one another to
violation, his passport was cancelled due to going abroad better realize their purpose armed with a knife and a .38 caliber
without permission. He has posted bail but has violated the revolver respectively, with treachery and/or evident
conditions thereof by failing to appear before the Court when premeditation, did then and there wilfully, unlawfully, and
required. Warrants for his arrest have been issued. feloniously assault, attack, stab and shot Nicanor Tamorite with
the knife and .38 caliber revolver with which they were then
Warrants of his arrest was issued, and it would be rendered provided, inflicting upon the said Nicanor Tamorite stab
useless if he would be allowed to leave the country. Holding an wounds and gunshot wounds on the different parts of his body
accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by which caused his death immediately thereafter.
preventing his departure from the Philippines must be
considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he Panes was charged with the killing of Tamorite. The prosecution
may be dealt with in accordance with law. recommended no bail for the provisional liberty of the accused.
Now, it is important to note that the trial court proceeded to try
The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People of the case without resolving the petition for bail, but the accused
the Philippines. It is to their best interest that criminal did not call the attention of the trial court at the earliest
prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finality opportune time, the appellants are deemed to have waived
without undue delay, with an accused holding himself their right to bail.
amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes.
VIII. RIGHTS DURING TRIAL PAGASIAN v. AZURA 184 SCRA 391 (1990)
In a criminal case for theft of Dumo, Pagasian was a witness. It
ARTICLE III, SECTION 14 appeared that because of a report accompanied by police, he
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense seized the carabao from the house of the accused which
without due process of law. allegedly is the subject matter of the theft. After trial, the judge
acquitted Dumo but convicted the witness Pagasian.
(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 The court ruled that the judge violated due process. The
informed of the nature and cause of he accusation against barangay captain was not informed of the charges against him
him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the and in fact, he had no idea that he himself was on trial, he did
witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to not even present evidences on his own behalf.
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of
evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may OLAGUER v. MILITARY COMMISSION GR L-54558 (1987)
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused
provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to Olaguer was a civilian tried and sentenced to die by the military
appear is unjustifiable. tribunal during the Martial Law. After Marcos was deposed,
Olaguer went to the Supreme court challenging the validity of
Rights of the Accused his conviction saying that his conviction was a violation of his
This refers to the rights of the accused during trial, Section 14 right to due process.
illustrates the rights of the accused during trial. There are ten
rights covered under Section 14: Rule: The court ruled that the due process under Section 14,
1. Right to Due Process; means trial by judicial process not by executive or military
2. Right to Presumption of Innocence; process. Military tribunal is not part of the judiciary, but of the
3. Right to be Heard; executive branch for discipline of the army.
4. Right to Counsel;
5. Right to be Informed; Therefore, there is a violation of due process, because even
6. Right to a Speedy Trial; during martial law, all cases should be tried under civilian
7. Right to an Impartial Trial; courts, as long as they are open and functioning, the decisions
8. Right to a Public Trial; of military tribunals over civilians are null and void.
9. Right to Confront the Witnesses; and
10. Right to Compulsory Process Pending cases involving civilians in military tribunals should be
transferred to civilian courts when national emergency ceased
1. RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS to exist. Military tribunals have jurisdiction only as long as
The right to due process is the biggest right of all, according to national emergency exists.
Justice Cruz, the right to due process mentioned here is only
procedural due process. ALONTE v. SAVELLANO 287 SCRA 245 (1998)
Judge Alonte was denied due process. It was shown that there
Four Elements of Due Process (In Criminal Case) was no clear waiver of his right to due process. It was shown
1. The court or tribunal is clothed with judicial power to that Alonte was not directed to present evidence, not given the
hear or decide a case; opportunity to present rebutting evidence nor have dates been
2. Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired for the person of the set for such. Thus, the case was remanded.
accused. (Meaning, he must have been arraigned)
3. Accused must have given an opportunity to be heard; PEOPLE v. MACARANG 424 SCRA 18 (2005)
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing. Appellant in trial for a crime punishable by death, manifested in
the trial court that he was still not ready to do so to present
PEOPLE v. TOMIO GR 74630 (1991) his evidence. Appellant did not say that he did not wish to
In this case, Marcos issued a General Order directing that crimes present evidence. It should have been clear that Macarang did
against tourists must be tried and finished within 24 hours and not intend to waive his right to present evidence.
other were charged with kidnapping Japanese Tourists.
• May 12 – arrest A simple forewarning to the appellant that the next time that
• May 15 – charge he would not be ready with his defense evidence, he would be
• May 19 – arraigned deemed to have waived his right to present it, did not satisfy
• May 19 and 20 – prosecution presented witnesses appellant’s constitutional right to due process.
• May 22 – defense presented witnesses
• May 27 – sentenced to death The trial court should have first apprised appellant or explained
to him in clear terms the exact nature and consequences of a
Consequently, they went to the court stating that there was a waiver. The trial court should have satisfied itself that appellant
violation of their due process. The court ruled that there was understood the real import of the court’s action if it would
no violation because all the four elements were present. consider him as having waived his right to present his evidence
if he would not be ready to do so next time.
2. RIGHT TO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE it is critical to start with the law's own starting perspective on
The accused is presumed innocent until found guilty, this is the status of the accused - in all criminal prosecutions, he is
found Section 14. In all criminal prosecution, the accused is presumed innocent of the charge laid unless the contrary is
presumed to be innocent until the contrary is provided. Thus, proven beyond reasonable doubt.
the prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, or that quantum of proof
sufficient to produce a moral certainty that would convince and
Q. What if the prosecution failed to discharge its burden? satisfy the conscience of those who act in judgment, is
The remedy available is the Demurrer to Evidence which is indispensable to overcome the constitutional presumption of
basically a motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of the innocence.
evidence because the prosecutor’s duty is to prove the guilt of
the accused. 3. RIGHT TO BE HEARD
Basically, this refers to the right of one to present evidence in
Motion for Leave of Court. This is usually done by the defense one’s behalf which includes:
whenever a demurrer to evidence has been filed, which makes 1. The right to testify in one’s favor;
the defense need not present its witnesses anymore. 2. The right to call witnesses; and
3. The right to be given reasonable opportunity to
CAUTION: In filing a Motion for Leave of Court, one has also to present witnesses.
file a Demurrer to Evidence, failure to file for a motion for leave
of court and in case the demurrer is denied, the defense is 4. RIGHT TO COUNSEL
denied the capability to present its own witnesses. This refers to the right to a counsel during the trial for accused.
Take note that the right to counsel during trial can be waived,
Exceptions to the Presumption of Innocence the accused may represent himself in any litigation
1. Malversation (Article 217, RPC) – failure of a public
officer to produce money in his charge is prima facie Elements
evidence of malversation. 1. The court is duty bound to inform the accused of his
2. Anti-Fencing Law – a violation of the anti-fencing law right before he is arraigned;
bearing the presumption that one in possession of 2. The court must ask him if he desires the service of a
stolen property, in absence of adequate explanation, counsel;
is the possessor of the object presumed to have stolen 3. If he does not or is unable to get one, the court must
the property. assign a counsel de oficio; and
3. Illegal Fishing Law – there is also a presumption that 4. If the accused wishes to get a private counsel, the
one has violated the illegal fishing law. court must give him time to obtain one.
Are these presumptions constitutional? NOTE: The negligence or incompetence of the lawyer amounts
Yes. Clearly, the fact presumed is but a natural interference from to deprivation of due process (Reyes v. Moncado).
the fact proved so that it cannot be said that there is no rational
connection between the two. Further, the statute establishes, PEOPLE v. HOLGADO GR L-2809 (1950)
only a prima facie presumption, thus giving the accused an The accused was charged with a crime during which the judge
opportunity to rebut it. asked, “Do you have an attorney or are you going to plead
guilty?” The accused answered, “I have no lawyer and I will
LEJANO v. PEOPLE 638 SCRA 104 (2010) plead guilty.” He was arraigned and was sentenced.
The main issue herein is whether or not a judgment of acquittal
can be reconsidered. No. A judgment of acquittal cannot be The court held that the judge did not follow the four guides
reconsidered, presumption of innocence applies. As a rule, a aforementioned. The right of the accused was violated. There is
judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places no fair hearing if the accused is not given the opportunity to be
the accused under double jeopardy. heard by counsel in criminal cases.
DEL CASTILLO v. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 450 (2012) Accused to be represented by a counsel is essential in criminal
This involved a dangerous drugs case, herein the Del Castillo cases. Accused to be represented by a counsel is essential in
was acquitted due to the failure of the prosecution to criminal cases. Even if the accused pleaded guilty to the crime,
overthrow the presumption of innocence. The prosecution he should be subjected to a new trial. The Court should have
must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence seen to it that he was assisted by counsel especially because of
and presence of the drugs in the place under his control and the seriousness of the crime which is found capital by the court.
dominion and the character of the drugs. The judgment appealed from is reversed and the case is
remanded to the Court below for a new arraignment and a new
With the prosecution's failure to prove that the nipa hut was trial after the accused is apprised of his right to have and to be
under petitioner's control and dominion, there casts a assisted by counsel.
reasonable doubt as to his guilt. In considering a criminal case,
DELGADO v. COURT OF APPEALS GR L-46392 (1986) Q. Is the negligence of the counsel tantamount to denial of the
During trial, a woman was charged with estafa, and was right of counsel of the accused?
represented by Atty. Yco. Her lawyer however, failed to appear
despite proper notice. She was convicted. Upon knowing that MILLA v. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 309 (2012)
her lawyer was not a member of the bar she prated that she The accused argues that the negligence of his former counsel
be granted new trial on the ground that she was deprived of deprived him of due process because Atty. Mendoza filed a
her right to be defended by a competent counsel. demurrer to evidence, and that former was never advised by
the latter of the demurrer. Which surprised her to discover that
The court ruled that a defense by a fake lawyer violated the the RTC already found her guilty and a warrant of arrest was
right to due process. The accused can demand a new trial, the issued against him.
reason is because there is a big danger that a fake lawyer may
not be able to present an adequate defense behalf of the The general rule is that mistake of a counsel binds the client,
accused. and it is only in instances wherein negligence is so gross and
palpable that courts must step into grant of relief to the
PEOPLE v. MANALO GR L-55177 (1987) aggrieved client.
This case involved the trial wherein the accused by represented
by different lawyers, as follows: In this case, Milla was able to file a demurrer to evidence, and
Arraignment Atty. X upon the trial court’s denial of such demurrer, could present
First Day Atty. W evidence. Failure to present evidence was considered as being
Second Day Atty. X deemed to have waived such.
Third Day Atty. W
Fourth Day Atty. Y It can be gleaned from the foregoing circumstances that Milla
Fifth Day Atty. Y was given opportunities to defend his case and was granted
Sixth Day Atty. X concomitant reliefs. Thus, it cannot be said that the mistake and
negligence of his former counsel were so gross and palpable to
The court ruled here that there was no violation of the right have deprived him of due process.
to counsel. All the lawyers had exerted adequate efforts in
trying to defend the accused. This is not satisfactory, and it is Q. Is the absence of a counsel during the police line up
dangerous. But the court refused to annul the conviction. tantamount to denial of the right to counsel?
PEOPLE v. ENCIPIDO GR 70091 (1986) PEOPLE v. LARA 678 SCRA 332 (2012)
The two accused were represented by only one lawyer, a Lara claims here that he was not provided with counsel when
counsel de oficio. When the interest of one of the accused came he was placed in a police line-up. However, the court ruled that
in conflict with the other, the accused should have different this did not invalidate the proceedings leading to his
lawyers. The trial should have been suspended and another conviction.
counsel de oficio be assigned to the other accused. The right to
counsel of the two accused were violated in this case. That he stood at the police line up without the assistance of
counsel did not render identification inadmissible for the right
Q. Is the appointment of a counsel de oficio in replacement of a to counsel is deemed to have arisen at the precise moment
scarce counsel de parte a violation of right to counsel? custodial investigation begins and a stand in some police
lineup is not starting point of the custodial investigation.
PEOPLE v. SIONGCO 623 SCRA 501 (2010)
If the choice of counsel by the accused in a criminal prosecution 5. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
is not a plenary one. If the chosen counsel deliberately makes The information charging the accused with a crime must be
himself scarce, the court is not precluded from appoint a stated with precision. There must be specific allegation of every
counsel de oficio which it considered competent and fact and circumstances necessary for the crime charged.
independent, to enable trial to proceed until the counsel of
choice enters his appearance. The information has to be read to the accused. What controls
is the body of the information not the caption.
A scrutiny of records showed that Atty. Moralde was
appointed as appellant’s counsel de oficio in six hearings, Purpose of the Right
because the regular counsel de oficio, Atty. Antoniano from 1. To enable the accused to defend himself;
PAO was inexplicably absent. 2. To enable him to avail of the protection of double
jeopardy if prosecuted or charged the second time for
There is no denial of the right to counsel where a counsel de the same offense.
oficio is appointed during the absence of the accused’s counsel
de parte, or in this case the regular counsel de oficio, pursuant The purpose of this right to be informed is for the accused to
to the court’s desire to finish the case as early as practicable. be able to defend himself and to enable him to avail of the
protection of double jeopardy.
PEOPLE v. GUEVARRA 570 SCRA 384 (2008) 6. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL

It is settled that aggravating/qualifying circumstances must After the conviction of the accused, delays in the appeal do not
be alleged in the information and proven during trial before violate the right to a speedy trial.
they can be appreciated. In this case, treachery was alleged in
the information and all its elements were duly established by PEOPLE v. TAMPAL GR 102485 (1995)
the prosecution. Accused was charged before the RTC with robbery and
homicide. The case was scheduled for hearing, but the
PEOPLE v. BARTOLINI 626 SCRA 527 (2010) prosecutor was absent. The judge considered the absence of
Notably, the amended information merely stated that appellant prosecutor as unjustified and dismissed the case.
had carnal knowledge of his minor daughter without stating
the actual age. In a rape, case where the very life of the accused The court ruled here that in dismissing criminal cases based on
is at stake, such an inexact allegation of the age of the victim is the right of the accused to speedy trials, courts should carefully
insufficient to qualify the rape and raise the penalty to death. weigh the circumstances attending each case. They should
balance the right of the accused and the State to punish those
The sufficiency of the information is held to a higher standard who violate its penal laws.
when the only imposable penalty is death. The constitutional
rights of the accused to be properly informed of the nature and The prosecutor could not be faulted for his failure to attend
cause of the accusation against him assumes the greatest the hearing on particular case where the same was due to his
importance when the only imposable penalty in case of good faith and belief that the date was a Muslim legal
conviction is death. holiday.
Q. Is the failure of the information for estafa to allege the In determining the right of the accused to speedy trial, courts
falsification of the duplicate receipts issued by petitioner to her should do more than a mathematical computation of the
customers violated petitioner’s right to be informed of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings.
nature and cause of the accusation?
PEOPLE v. GINES GR 83463 (1991)
PATULA v. PEOPLE 669 SCRA 135 (2012) There were several trial schedules totaling to six dates. Five of
An accused cannot be convicted of an offense that is not clearly these scheduled dates were cancelled because complainant was
charged in the complaint or information. To convict him of an not around because he was seeking medical treatment for his
offense other than that charged in the complaint or cataracts. The accused moved for dismissal on the ground of
information would be violative of the right to be informed of the right to speedy trial.
the nature and cause of accusation.
Rule: The court ruled that there was no violation of the right to
In this case, however, the petitioner misappropriated or speedy trial. One cannot use the right in order to deprive the
converted the sums paid by her customers and falsified the State of reasonable opportunity in indicting criminals. The
duplicates of the receipts before tuning such duplicates to her absence was done in good faith and with justifiable reasons.
employer to show that the customers had paid less than the
amounts actually reflected on the receipts. Obviously, she PEOPLE v. LAYA GR L-53873 (1988)
committed the falsification in order to conceal The case was scheduled on March 14 and 25. After scheduling,
misappropriation. the fiscal inhibited himself because he recommended dismissal.
The fiscal who replaced him moved for postponement because
Considering that the falsification was not an offense separate he was busy.
and distinct from estafa charged against her, the Prosecution
could legitimately prove her acts of falsification as it is the The court granted the postponement only on the March 14
means of establishing her misappropriation or conversion as an hearing. The fiscal now requested that the case be assigned to
essential ingredient of the crime duly alleged in information. the provincial fiscal, who also moved for another
postponement. Is a violation of right to speedy trial?
In the manner, her right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation against her was not infringed or denied to The court ruled in the affirmative. There was a violation of the
her. As such, the information pleading estafa, there was no right. The acts of the fiscals reflected a cavalier attitude of the
necessity for the information to allege the acts of prosecution and therefore violates the right of the accused to a
falsification by petitioner because falsification was not an speedy trial.
element of the estafa charged.
The delay is vexatious and prejudicial to the to the job of the
No. The failure to allege falsification in the information for Mayor and is also prejudicial to the people of his town where
estafa did not violate the petitioner’s right to be informed of he is a mayor. The case was very simple and there were other
the nature and cause of the accusation. The crime is not fiscals who could have handled that case. Flimsy excuses are not
separate and distinct from the crime of estafa. valid grounds for delaying trial.
JACOB v. SANDIGANBAYAN 635 SCRA 94 (2010) In tolerating respondent Republic’s antics for almost twenty
The right to a speedy trial may be defined as one free from (20) years, the Sandiganbayan so glaringly departed from
vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays, it is to assure that procedure and thereby flagrantly violated COCOFED et. al’s
an innocent person may be free from the anxiety and expense right to speedy trial.
of a court litigation or, if otherwise, of having his guilt
determined within the shortest time possible. VILLAREAL v. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 519 (2012)
This involved the death of a neophyte under the Aquila Legis
Factors of Relativity of Right to Speedy Trial initiation of ADMU. The CA dismissed the case against Escalona
1. The extent of the delay et al. on the basis of the violation of their right to speedy trial.
2. The reason of the delay The court affirmed the CA finding of this violation.
3. The invocation of the accused
4. The prejudice it causes the accused It was seen that prosecution was already ordered by the court
to secure complete records of the case from CA. The prosecution
In this case, both petitioners were arraigned and plead not did not comply from 1995 even until 2002, the said records
guilty. Since then, there had been no significant development were still not at the disposal of the trial court because of the
in the cases since prosecution repeatedly requested for failure of the prosecution. For a period of almost seven years,
deferment or postponements as it awaits the results of the there was no action at all on the part of the court. This led to
reinvestigation of the OMB leading to delay for more than the inactivity of the SB for close to five years leads to an
one year. unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases a clear violation
of the right to speedy trial.
While reinvestigation by the OMB delayed proceedings in the
case, the said process could not have been dispensed with as it 7. RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL TRIAL
was undertaken for the protection of the rights of petitioners The right to have an impartial trial, includes the right to have an
and themselves. The court acknowledges the delay in the impartial judge. The impartiality must not only be in reality but
proceedings. also even in appearance. A litigant is entitled to the cold
neutrality of the judge. The judge should file a motion for
MARI v. PEOPLE 657 SCRA 414 (2011) inhibition if he thinks he is partial.
The right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of a case is
violated only when the proceeding is attended by vexatious, MATEO v. VILLALUZ GR L-34756-59 (1973)
capricious and oppressive delays. The petitioners in this case were the accused for the offense
robbery in band with homicide. In the meantime, another
The inquiry as to whether or not an accused has been denied suspect, Reyes was arrested.
such right is not susceptible by precise qualification. The
concept of a speedy disposition is a relative term and must It appears that this Reyes executed an extrajudicial statement
necessarily be a flexible concept. signed and sworn to Judge Villaluz. In that statement it
implicated Mateo.
In this case the trial court cannot be faulted for refusing to
countenance delays in the prosecution of the case. Here it must Reyes however repudiated the statement alleging that he had
be emphasized, that private respondent, had already been executed it because of a threat from a government agent. It is
deprived of his liberty on two occasions for the crime of rape is contended by petitioner that such repudiation would not sit
a non-bailable offense. well with the judge who has placed himself in a position of
being unable to pass such question with the degree of
Thus, it was absolutely vexatious and oppressive to delay the objectivity required by due process.
trial in the subject criminal case to await the outcome of
petitioners’ petition for transfer of venue, especially in this case Issue: Whether or not the circumstance of a party having sworn
where there is no temporary restraining order or writ of before respondent judge an extrajudicial statement purporting
preliminary injunction issued by a higher court against herein to describe the manner in which an offense was committed,
public respondent from further proceeding in the case. later on repudiated by him as the product of intimidation in the
course of his having been asked to testify against petitioner
COCOFED v. REPUBLIC 663 SCRA 514 (2012) would suffice to negate that degree of objectivity required by the
The voluminous records of these ill-gotten wealth cases readily Constitution?
reveal the various dilatory tactics respondent Republic resorted
to in this case. Rule: Yes, petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for.
Respondent could not be totally immune to what apparently
Despite the lapse of almost twenty (20) years of litigation, the was asserted before him in such extrajudicial statement. It is
republic has not been required to, and has not even attempted unlikely that he was not in the slightest bit offended by the
to prove the bases of its perjurious claim that the sequestered affiant’s turnabout with his later declaration that there was
assets constitute ill-gotten wealth of Marcos and Cojuangco. intimidation by a government agent exerted on him.
His sense of fairness could easily be blunted. It was he who In a case in the Shari’a Court, what happened was that the
attested to the execution of the said statement. It cannot be offended party did not have evidence thus the accused won.
doubted that respondent ruled that such extrajudicial The plaintiff went to the SC and challenged the validity of the
statement was executed freely. It is a situation of a judge having procedure of the Shari’a court because there was a violation of
to pass on a question that by implication had already been the right to confrontation. The court ruled that even without
answered by him for the respondent was called upon to review the Shari’a decision defendants would still have won the case
a matter on which he had previously given his opinion. because of the insufficiency of the evidence.
8. RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL However, the Supreme Court noted that the procedure in the
Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent abuses that may be Shari’a courts violated the right to confrontation. The Court
committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant. IT then recommended that a committee be formed to rectify and
suffices to be considered public trial as long as the door of the supervise these problems.
court are open for the public to come in. These rights belong to
the accused and can be waived. Exceptions to the Right of Confrontation
1. Admissibility of a dying man’s declaration
Exceptions 2. Trial in absentia, wherein accused was not present at
1. Trial of cases involving child abuse the hearing hence waiving his right to confront the
2. Trial of cases involving rape witnesses.
GARCIA v. DOMINGO 52 SCRA 143 (1970) HO WAI PANG v. PEOPLE 659 SCRA 624 (2011)
The pivotal question in this petition for certiorari and Petitioner asserts in this case that he was deprived of his right
prohibition, is the meaning to be accorded the constitutional to know and understand what the witnesses testified to. For
right to public trial. him, only a full understanding of what the witnesses would
testify would enable an accused to comprehend the evidence
More specifically, did respondent Judge commit a grave abuse against him and to refute it by cross-examination or by his own
of discretion in stigmatizing as violative of such a guarantee the countervailing evidence.
holding of the trial of the other respondents inside the
chambers of city court Judge Gregorio Garcia named as the The OSG argues that petitioner was already given the
petitioner. That was done in the order now impugned in this opportunity to confront his accusers or witnesses of the
suit, although such a procedure had been agreed to prosecution when his counsel cross-examined them. It is
beforehand by the other respondents as defendants, the petitioner’s call to hire an interpreter to understand that
hearings have been thus conducted on fourteen separate proceedings before him and if he could not do so, he should
occasions without objection on their part, and without an iota have manifested before the court.
of evidence to substantiate any claim as to any other person so
minded being excluded from the premises. Rule: The court agrees with the OSG. Looking at the records,
petitioner did not register any objection to the presentation of
It is thus evident that what took place in the chambers of the the prosecution’s evidence particularly on the testimony of
city court judge was devoid of haste or intentional secrecy. The Cinco despite the absence of an interpreter. It has not even been
court ruled that there was no transgression of the right to a shown that the lack of interpreter greatly prejudiced him.
public trial and grant the petition.
Still and all, the important thing is that the petitioner, through
9. RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES counsel, was able to fully cross-examine Cinco and other
The right to confrontation intends to secure the accused in the witnesses for credibility.
right to be tried, so far as facts provable by witnesses are
concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him face to face at The right to confrontation is essentially a guarantee that a
the trial, who give their testimony in his presence and give to defendant may cross-examine the witnesses of prosecution.
the accused an opportunity of cross-examination.
The right to confrontation is one of the fundamental rights
It was intended to prevent conviction of the accused upon guaranteed by the Constitution to the person facing criminal
deposition or ex parte affidavits, and particularly to preserve the prosecution who should know, in fairness, who his accusers are
right of the accused to test the recollection of the witnesses and must be given a chance to cross-examine them on their
in the exercise of the right of cross-examination. charges.
In ordinary cases, the plaintiff has the burden in presenting the The chief purpose of the right of confrontation is to secure the
evidence. If the plaintiff has no evidence the defendant wins opportunity for cross-examination, so that if the opportunity
because the plaintiff was not able to prove his cause of action. for cross-examination has been secured, the function and test
Thus, it is to be noted that the time and time again, the right to of confrontation has also been accomplished, the confrontation
confront the witnesses is important to identify the recollection being merely the dramatic preliminary to cross-examination.
of the witnesses and their testimonies.
10. RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS BERNARDO v. PEOPLE GR 166980 (2007)

Also known as the right to secure subpoena. A person accused Petitioners motion for extensive was anchored on the ground
can obtain a subpoena from the court in order to compel the that his counsels were pre-occupied in preparation of petitions,
attendance of witnesses in his behalf. memoranda, briefs and other lengthy pleadings in cases as
important as this case and in daily court appearances and
Example. There was a rumble, and there were spectators, the personal commitments This is not a plausible reason for it is not
accused wanted to be witnesses, thus he can go to court and considered as a compelling ground to allow extension.
ask for subpoena after providing the names and addresses, so
they can be compelled to go to court and testify. The accused Thus, there was indeed a valid trial in absentia done, because
must show that these witnesses are material and are of the accused being already arraigned, he was duly notified
indispensable to the case. and his failure to appear is unjustifiable as the reasoning above.
NOTE: If the person resides more than 100 kilometers from the IX. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
place of trial, he is not bound by subpoena, but this rule only
applies to civil cases and not to criminal cases. ARTICLE III, SECTION 17
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding Privilege Against Self-Incrimination
the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly Basically, this means that one cannot be compelled to be a
notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable (Section 14). witness against one’s self. This privilege is based on public
policy and humanity.
Requisites for Trial in Absentia to Apply
1. The accused has been previously arraigned; Public policy in a sense that if we are free to incriminate the
2. He was notified of the proceedings (notice sent to the accused by evidence coming from him, it will put the accused
last known address is sufficient); and in the strongest temptation to commit perjury. Humanity in a
3. Failure to appear is unjustified. sense that it is introduced to prevent the extortion of
confession under duress or compulsion.
Right to Attend is Waivable; Exceptions
The right to attend trial is deemed waivable, but are subject to However, this right only covers testimonial incrimination and
the following exception is when accused has duty to appear: it does not cover nontestimonial acts or acts which are purely
1. Arraignment; mechanical which does not require intelligence or imagination.
2. During identification stage (where witness testifies to
the identity of the accused); and When is a question incriminating?
3. Promulgation of judgment (unless light offense, which It is considered incriminating if it tends to establish any degree
accused may appear by counsel or representative) of guilt against the accused. It also includes when the answer
tends to expose one to the accusation of a crime.
GIMENEZ v. NAZARENO 160 SCRA 1 (1988)
There were several accused and after he was arraigned, the SCOPE OF THE PRIVILEGE
accused escaped. The trial proceeded in his absence and the It only applies to compulsory testimonial self-incrimination,
judge convicted his co-accused. However, insofar as the one and it does not include those nontestimonial acts or acts which
who escaped, the judge withheld his decision. The court ruled are purely mechanical and does not require any thinking.
here that these rights (right to confrontation, right to present
evidence and for cross-examination) are all deemed to have People v. Codilla. This involved a rape case wherein the victim
been waived. These rights are no longer retained once the fought and scratched the accused while she was being raped,
accused escapes. when it was the turn of the accused on the witness stand, the
judge told the accused to remove the shirt. If he would remove
PARADA v. VENERACION 269 SCRA 371 (1997) the shirt, it would establish guilt against him. The court ruled
Even though Parada her was arraigned, it was shown that here that the privilege does not apply mainly because the
requirements (2) and (3) are still wanting. Parada had not been removal of the shirt is merely a mechanical act.
duly notified of the trial because the notice of the hearing was
sent to the former address despite the notice of his change of VILLAFLOR v. SUMMERS GR 16444 (1920)
address. Thus, his failure to appear was justified due to the Accused was charged with the crime of adultery. The judge
absence of a valid service of notice because it was sent to the ordered the defendant to submit her body to an examination
former address even though there was a notice of change of of one or two competent doctors to determines if she was
address made by the counsel. pregnant or not. She refused invoking her privilege against self-
incrimination. She was found in contempt of court and was
Thus, Judge Veneracion is guilty of ignorance of the law when ordered to be committed to the prison until she would permit
he did not follow the legal requirements of a valid trial in the medical examination. Whether or not the act of compelling
absentia leading to conviction and premature incarceration. woman to permit body to examination is included.
The court held that no. The prohibition is limited against SJS v. DDB 570 SCRA 410 (2008)
compulsory testimonial self-incrimination. On a proper showing This involved the random drug testing. Drug testing is allowed
and under an order of the trial court, an ocular inspection of the for public officials, employees, students. But the court ruled that
body of the accused is permissible, provided that no torture or such is unconstitutional concerning those facing charges
force shall be applied. before the office of the prosecution, a random drug testing
requires both randomness and suspicionless, and it is shown
Exceptions that both in this case are questionably absent.
1. If the test will subject the accused to unnecessary and
existent humiliation; and PEOPLE v. GANIH 621 SCRA 159 (2010)
2. If the accused is required to submit a specimen of his This involved a kidnapping for ransom of Mrs. Lee. The accused
handwriting to be used as evidence against him to a contended here that during the operation, it is the police the
charge of forgery (Beltran v. Samson). made Mrs. Lee identify him, and not in a proper police lineup
but in a mere show up after giving her improper suggestions.
Scope of the Privilege, Specified
1. It exempts a person from testifying against himself; But the court ruled here that the manner in which Mrs. Lee
2. It exempts a person from protecting documents or identified Ganih was substantially the same as in a police
articles demanded of him which are incriminating; lineup except this took place outside a police station on
3. It does not extend to nontestimonial acts, like blood account of Mrs. Lee’s desire not to be seen while making the
tests and acts which does not require reasoning; and identification. It was shown that it was not only Ganih who was
4. It also exempts the accused to do reenactment of the presented for identification by Mrs. Lee for they made other
crime being charged. three men stand in front of the police station while she gazed
behind the tinted windows of a vehicle.
Nontestimonial Acts; Requisites
As a rule, nontestimonial physical acts are allowed as evidence Besides, granting that the out-of-court identification was
so long as that: irregular, Mrs. Lee’s court testimony clearly shows that she
1. They are purely mechanical and does not involve the positively identified Ganih independently of the previous
use of intelligence or imagination; and identification she made in front of the police station.
2. If it will not subject the accused to unnecessary and
existent humiliation. Mrs. Lee could not have made a mistake in identifying him since
she had ample opportunities to study the faces and peculiar
Examples of Nontestimonial Acts that are Allowed: body movements of her kidnappers in her almost four months
• Stolen shoe that is made to be worn by the thief to of ordeal with them.
determine guilt; and
• Hair sample from the bed to established adulterous PEOPLE v. LUMANOG 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
activities. The extrajudicial confession of accused Joel de Jesus taken
during the custodial investigation was not valid. It was shown
Right Against Self-Incrimination, must be Claimed that the counsel attending the confession, Atty. Sansano was
The right against self-incrimination is not self-executing or not shown to have participated competently, there was
automatically operational. It must be claimed. If not claimed by insufficient evidence because the counsel himself was not
or in behalf of the witness, the protection does not operate. It presented, and that there was no evidence showing that he
also follows that the right may be waived expressly, or impliedly made Joel understand of the consequences of the admission.
as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time.
IN WHAT PROCEEDINGS AVAILABLE
IN RE: SABIO 504 SCRA 704 (2006) As a rule, a defendant here or the respondent cannot refuse to
This involved the Senate Committee hearing concerning the ill- go to the hearing, they may only refuse to answer if the
gotten wealth. Anent the right against self-incrimination, this question is already incriminating (In Re: Sabio).
right maybe invoked only when incriminating questions is being 1. In civil cases, the plaintiff-defendant and the
asked, since they haven o way of knowing in advance the nature witnesses cannot refuse to take witness stand, but
of effect of the questions to be asked of them under legislative they can refuse to answer once the question is
inquiry. However, the possibility of the violation of this right, is incriminating (Bagadion v. Gonsal).
no ground to deny the Senate its power of inquiry. 2. In administrative proceedings, the same rule
likewise applies, they cannot refuse to testify, but once
So long as the constitutional rights of witnesses, like Chairman the question becomes incriminating, then they can
Sabio and his Commissioners, will be respected by Senate refuse to answer (See Pascual v. Board of Examiners).
Committees, it their duty to cooperate with them to obtain the 3. In criminal cases, there is a prohibition of inquiry,
facts needed for intelligent legislative action. The obligation of when accused can refuse altogether to take the
every citizen is to respond to subpoenae, to respect dignity of witness stand whether questions are incriminating or
Congress and its Committees, and to testify fully with respect not, for the purpose is to prosecute (Chavez v. CA).
to matters within the realm of proper investigation.
BAGADION v. GONSAL USE IMMUNITY v. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY

Plaintiff called one of the defendants to testify and he refused.
The judge overruled him and compelled him to take the witness Transactional Immunity
stand and object only if the questions asked are incriminating. Article XIII, Section 18 (8): Grant immunity from prosecution to
any person whose testimony or who possession of documents or other
Rule: The court ruled that in proceedings other than criminal, evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any
investigation conduct by it or under its authority.
the right against self-incrimination is an option to refuse but
not prohibition to inquiry. In effect the accused can take the
RA 1379, Section 8. Protection against self-incrimination. Neither
witness stand, and he will only object when the question starts
the respondent nor any other person shall be excused from attending
to become incriminating. and testifying or from producing books, papers, correspondence,
memoranda and other records on the ground that the testimony or
PASCUAL v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS (1969) evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him may tend to
Administrative proceeding which is an exception to the refusal to incriminate him or subject him to prosecution; but no individual shall
testify rule. This involved a malpractice suit where the accused be prosecuted criminally for or on account of any transaction, matter
or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having claimed his
is a doctor for immorality. During the hearing, he was called by
privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or produce evidence,
the prosecutor to testify and he refused, invoking the right
documentary or otherwise, except that such individual so testifying
against self-incrimination, the board overruled stating he has to shall not be exempt from prosecution and conviction for perjury or false
take the stand and to object only if the questions are testimony committed in so testifying or from administrative
considered to be incriminating. proceedings.
Rule: Exceptional ruling. The court ruled that an administrative Transactional Immunity
hearing against a medical practitioner for alleged malpractice It is granted when a person is compelled to testify, and he is
may not be compelled to take the witness stand without his now free from any liability or the acts under investigation, but
consent. it is granted to a person whose testimony is necessary because
he is now immune from prosecution for any offense to which his
It is because the penalty in such accusation is so severe as it compelled testimony relates.
can cause revocation of license in practice, thus exceptionally,
the prohibition of inquiry, which is primarily applicable to Use and Fruit Immunity
criminal cases, is exceptionally allowed here. PD 1886. A Fact-Finding Board for the Purpose of Investigation of the
Killing of Senator Aquino on Manila Airport also known as the Agrava
CHAVEZ v. CA GR L-29169 (1968) Board Ad hoc Fact-Finding Board.
The accused was charged with theft of a motor vehicle. During
the trial the prosecutor called on the accused as a witness. The Use and Fruit Immunity
lawyer objected but was overruled. According to the judge, you It is the type of immunity wherein the person is also compelled
only object when the statement is under scrutiny for trial. The to testify and answer incriminating question, but these answers
accused was convicted and as stated in the decision, the cannot be used against him.
accused was described as the star witness against himself.
Difference from Transactional Immunity
Rule: The court held that in criminal cases the accused may He is not free altogether from liability if there are other
refuse altogether to take the witness stand and answer all evidences that can be used aside from his testimony. He is not
questions. The accused can invoke Section. 17. Neither a free from liability aside from the use of his compelled testimony
witness can be compelled to take the witness stand. In contrary and the fruits thereof.
to the theory of the judge, accused need wait until the
incriminating question is asked. He can refuse altogether to GALMAN v. PAMARAN 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
take the witness stand. Pursuant to PD 1886, the Agrava Board was made to help
determine the persons criminally liable for the killing so that
Right Against Self-Incrimination, Waivable they be brought to the bar of justice. The Board conducted
It can be waived (1) directly; or (2) by failure to invoke it. public hearings wherein various witnesses appeared in
Provided that the wavier is certain and unequivocally, obedience to the subpoena or in response to invitation.
intelligently and willingly made.
Upon termination of the investigation, two reports were sent to
Examples of Implied Waiver then President Marcos and turned over to the Tanodbayan for
1. Where the accused takes the witness stands and offers appropriate action. The witnesses where then subsequently
testimony on his behalf, he can also be cross- charged.
examined by the opposing party.
2. When the accused voluntarily surrenders The counsels objected to the admission of the exhibits
incriminating papers, which is later used as evidence contending that its admission will be in derogation of
against him is deemed to have waived the privilege constitutional right against self-incrimination and violative
against self-incrimination. of the immunity granted by PD 1886.
The Right Against Self-Incrimination Applies to the Agrava His testimony is not of his own choice. To him it was a case of
Board. This notwithstanding, PD 1886 denied them the right to compelled submission. He was a cowed participant in
remain silent. They were compelled to testify or be witnesses proceedings before a judge who possessed the power to put
against themselves. him under contempt had he chosen to remain silent. Nor could
he escape testifying. The court made it abundantly clear that his
Section 5 of PD 1886 leave them no choice. They have to take testimony at least on direct examination would be taken right
the witness stand, testify or produce evidence, under pain of then and there on the first day of the trial.
contempt if they failed or refused to do so.
It matters not that, after all efforts to stave off petitioner's
No Need to Invoke Right due to Use Immunity. Presidential taking the stand became fruitless, no objections to questions
Decree 1886, more specifically Section 5 thereof, belongs to the propounded to him were made. Here involve is not a mere
first type of immunity statutes (use immunity). question of self-incrimination. It is a defendant's constitutional
immunity from being called to testify against himself. And the
It grants merely immunity from use of any statement given objection made at the beginning is a continuing one.
before the Board, but not immunity from prosecution by reason
or on the basis thereof. Merely testifying and/or producing Paraffin Test
evidence do not render the witness immune from prosecution The application of paraffin test for the determination of illegal
notwithstanding his invocation of the right against self- possession or discharge of firearms, this is considered as a
incrimination. He is merely saved from the use against him of purely mechanical act and thus cannot be subject to the right
such statement and nothing more. against self-incrimination.
• As well as re-enactment;
PEOPLE v. AYSON 175 SCRA 216 (1989) • Made to write signature in the witness stand for
Compare the effect under Galman case. However, the right handwriting to compare forgery (Beltran v. Samson).
can be claimed only when the specific question, incriminatory
in character, is actually put to the witness. It cannot be claimed X. SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to
disregard a subpoena, to decline to appear before the court at ARTICLE III, SECTION 18
the time appointed, or to refuse to testify altogether. The (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political
witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, beliefs and aspirations.
take the stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
a particular question is addressed to him, the answer to which
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
may incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse to convicted.
answer on the strength of the constitutional guaranty.
ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 15
The right against self-incrimination is not self- executing or (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
automatically operational. It must be claimed. If not claimed by Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four
or in behalf of the witness, the protection does not come into months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and,
unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower
play. It follows that the right may be waived, expressly, or
collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
impliedly, as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or
EXCLUSIONARY RULE resolution upon the filing of the last pending, brief, or
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible as evidence against him itself.
[Section 12 (3), Article III].
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the
EFFECT OF DENIAL OF PRIVILEGES BY COURT presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof
attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the
CHAVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS 24 SCRA 663 (1968) parties. The certification shall state why a decision or resolution
We have no hesitancy in saying that petitioner was forced to has not been rendered or issued within said period.
testify to incriminate himself, in full breach of his constitutional
right to remain silent. It cannot be said now that he has waived (4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period,
the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have
his right.
been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the
case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without
He did not volunteer to take the stand and in his own defense; further delay.
he did not offer himself as a witness; on the contrary, he claimed
the right upon being called to testify. If petitioner nevertheless ARTICLE VII, SECTION 18
answered the questions inspite of his fear of being accused of The President shall be the Commander-in Chief of all armed
perjury or being put under contempt, this circumstance cannot forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he
may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless
be counted against him.
violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, NOTE: When the accused is the reason why the trial was
when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not postponed for several times for unjustifiable reasons, the
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas accused cannot invoke his right to speedy disposition if he
corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial
himself has contributed to the delay.
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 Four Factors to the Right of Speedy Disposition of Cases
to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least 1. Length of delay;
a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may 2. Reasons of the delay;
revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall 3. Invocation of the accused;
not be set aside by the President Upon the initiative of the 4. Accused is prejudiced by the delay;
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 NOTE: Same as the factors involving Right to Speedy Trial.
safety requires it.
Neglect of Judges
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours There is a timeframe in which a judge is supposed to decide a
following such proclamation or suspension, convene in case. There is a constitutionally prescribed period for courts to
accordance with its rules without any need of a call. decide cases and as provided under Article VIII, Section 15:
(1) Supreme Court – 24 Months
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding
(2) All Lower Collegiate Courts – 12 Months
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of (3) All Other Lower Courts – 3 Months
the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. DIMARUCOT v. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 659 (2010)
Dimarucot for is accused Frustrated Murder. Dimarucot filed
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the several extensions but was not granted by CA. Upon receiving
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
the notice to file the brief, through his counsel, he requested
legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where additional 20 days within which to file said brief.
civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
privilege of the writ. This was followed by three (3) successive motions for
extensions. The failure to file of the appellant’s brief due to
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to personal problems emanating from the counsel wife’s recent
persons judicially charge for rebellion or offenses inherent in or surgical operation.
directly connected with the invasion.
Negligence of the counsel is not a defense for the failure to file
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person thus
arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within three days, the appellant’s brief within the reglementary period.
otherwise he shall be released.
ANGELES v. SEMPIO-DIY 631 SCRA 456 (2010)
ARTICLE IX-A SECTION 7 This is an administrative complaint for disbarment by Angeles
Each Commission shall decide by a majority vote of all its by Sempio-Diy; stemming from several consolidated criminal
Members any case or matter brought before it within sixty days
cases where Judge Angeles was the private complainant. The
from the date of its submission for decision or resolution. A case
or matter is deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon complaint was that the decision was belatedly rendered
the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by because there was a lapse of six months from time it was
the rules of the Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless submitted for resolution to the time it was promulgated.
otherwise provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision,
order, or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the It was shown that there were no requests for extension for time
Supreme Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty to decide the subject cases. The cited instances show that:
days from receipt of a copy thereof.
• The medical check up could have been in any other
day other than the date of scheduled promulgation;
Speedy Disposition of Cases from Speedy Trial
• The neck ailment was not as serious as it was made to
The right to speedy disposition of cases is broader because
appear because judge was able to attend symposiums;
speedy trial only refers to the trial stage for criminal cases.
• The claim of need to study the voluminous cases is not
valid for she found to time travel abroad.
Speedy Disposition Speedy Trial
Applies not only to criminal Criminal cases only. Sempio-Diy argues that she decided the subject cases in due
cases but also to civil and time and within the extended period granted by the Supreme
administrative proceedings. Court and stated that she merely inherited the subject cases
Applies to judicial, quasi- Refers to actions in trial. which made her dockets voluminous and her illness.
judicial and administrative
cases. Issue: Whether Judge Sempio-Diy should be held liable for her
NOTE: These rights are personal and thus waivable. unreasonable delay in several cases.
Rule: Judge Sempio-Diy timely filed his extensions for the XI. SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE
period to decide the consolidated criminal cases. All requests DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
were approved by the SC. The complainant should have verified
her allegations first. However, concerning an Urgent Motion for Substantive Rights under Due Process Clause
Reconsideration, it was shown that the she allowed the ten-day A. Certain acts cannot be criminalized;
period she gave for the defense to lapse. B. That certain punishment cannot be imposed;
C. That there is a protection against double jeopardy
A judge cannot choose to prolong the period for resolving D. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus; and
pending incidents and deciding cases beyond the period E. Affirmative rights
authorized by law. Let it be underscored that it is the sworn
duty of the judges to administer justice without undue A. WHAT ACTS CANNOT BE CRIMINALIZED
delay under the time-honored precept the justice delayed is
justice denied. Judges should act in dispatch with resolving
pending incidents so as not to frustrate and delay the Acts that Cannot be Criminalized
satisfaction of a judgment. 1. Mere beliefs and aspirations;
2. Debts and civil obligations; and
Judge Sempio-Diy, having been a member of the judiciary for 3. Acts which when done were innocent
several years, should not have any trouble disposing the court’s
business and resolving motions for the required period. 1. Mere Beliefs and Aspirations
Otherwise, she should formally request this court for an
extension of the deadline to avoid liability. ARTICLE III, SECTION 18 (1)
No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations.
Unfortunately, she failed to do that in these cases. Delay in
resolving motions and incidents within the period of 90 days
Freedom of Conscience
fixed by law cannot be excused or condoned.
This is also known as the freedom of conscience, as similar in
freedom of religion, one has absolute freedom to believe,
RAYMUNDO v. ANDOY 632 SCRA 218 (2010)
what is subject to state regulation is to act on such belief; thus,
There was a case for BP 22, filed around 2000, but after two one cannot be imprisoned by merely believing in communism
motions to render decisions until 2006, Judge Andoy failed to but acting those violative of laws.
act upon such motions to decide. As a defense, he raises the
problem that his court is clogged with cases, he begged to 2. Debts and Civil Obligations
consider for he is about to retire on 2008.
While the court is not unaware of the heavy caseload, nothing No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a
in the records show that Judge Andoy asked for an extension poll tax.
of time to decide the subject criminal cases.
Debts and Civil Obligations
In addition, the judge failed to consider that the subject cases Poll tax refers to the residence certificate or cedula and the tax
required a quicker resolution as they were covered summary paid is a precedent to the exercise of the right of suffrage. In
procedure. non-payment of a debt, the debt assured in this section refers
only to contractual debt arising from contracts.
Rule: The right to speedy trial has been violated. The judge
failed to exercise the capacity to request extension of time and LOZANO v. MARTINEZ 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
decide within the allowable period. The facts show that the This question the constitutionality of BP 22 of the Bouncing
should have rendered a decision within 30 days from the Checks Law that it violates the constitutional provision
termination of the trial. forbidding imprisonment for debt. The court ruled that BP 22 is
a valid law, and it does not violation Article III, Section 20.
Failure to comply with the mandated period constitutes a
serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a BP 22 is aimed at putting a stop to or curing the practice of
speedy disposition of their cases. issuing checks that are worthless, checks that end up being
rejected or dishonored for payment. It punishes a person, who
While the respondent judge attributed his failure to render a makes or draws and issues any check on account or for value,
decision to the heavy caseload, he did not ask for extension knowing at the time of the issuance that he does not have
of time to decide the cases. sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of said check in full upon presentment.
This failure to decide within the required period given that he
could have asked for an extension is inexcusable, constitutes This check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
neglect of duty as well as gross inefficiency that collectively insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored
warrant administrative sanction.
for the same reason had not the drawer without any valid Kinds of Ex Post Facto Laws (In Re: Kay Villegas Kami, 1970)
reason ordered the bank to stop payment. 1. A law which makes an action done before the passage
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of of the law and which was innocent when done, be
making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is considered criminal.
dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the non- 2. A law which aggravates a crime, or which makes it
payment of an obligation which the law punishes. grater than when it was committed;
3. A law which changes the punishment and inflicts a
The law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime
his debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal which was committed.
sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them in 4. A law which alters the legal rules of evidence and
circulation. receives less or different testimony than the law
requires at the time of the commission of the offense.
Q. Is a memorandum check issued postdated in partial payment 5. A law which assumes to regulate civil rights and
of a pre-existing obligation covered under BP 22. remedies only, but in effect imposes a penalty or the
deprivation of a right for something which when done
PEOPLE v. NITAFAN 202 SCRA 726 (1992) was lawful.
Memorandum checks, drawn against the bank in which there is 6. A law which deprive persons accused of crime of some
a promise to pay is still covered by BP 22. Memorandum check, lawful protection to which they have become very
upon presentment, is generally accepted by the bank. entitled such as the protection of a former conviction
or acquittal or proclamation of amnesty.
It does not matter whether check issued is memorandum as
evidence of indebtedness or whether it was issued as partial IN RE: KAY VILLEGAS KAMI 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
fulfillment of a pre-existing obligation, for what the law They question the validity of RA 6132, stating that it violates
punishes is the issuance itself of a bouncing check and not due process rights of association, freedom of expression and is
the purpose for which the check was issued. an ex post facto law.
Q. Are payment of rentals covered by the constitutional The questioned provision is a valid limitation on the due
guarantee against imprisonment? process, for the same is designed to prevent prostitution of
electoral powers and denial of equal protection.
VERGARA v. GEDORIO 402 SCRA 520 (2003)
In here, the petitioners were ordered by court to be imprisoned While it is true that Sec. 18 penalizes a violation of any provision
until they can pay rentals. In Philippine jurisdiction, Section 20, of the 1971 Constitutional Convention Act including Sec. 8 (a)
Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly provides thereof, the penalty is imposed only for acts committed after
that no person shall be imprisoned for debt. the approval of the law and not those perpetrated prior thereto.
There is nothing in the law that remotely insinuates that
Debt, as used in the Constitution, refers to civil debt or one not Sections 8 (a) and 18, or any other provision thereof, shall apply
arising from a criminal offense. It means any liability to pay to acts carried out prior to its approval. Thus, not retroactive.
arising out of a contract, express or implied.
SALVADOR v. MAPA 359 SCRA 37 (2007)
In the present case, petitioners, as recognized lessees of the President Ramos organized a fact-finding committee and
estate of the deceased, were ordered by the probate court to issued AO 13 to constitute such body. Its role is to find out
pay the rentals to the administratrix. those behest loans, loans that were granted which are
disadvantageous to the government punishing them. The
Petitioners did not comply with the order for the principal Philippine Eagle Mines fell under this definition, it was shown
reason that they were not certain as to the rightful person to that the loan was made during the Marcos Administration, and
whom to pay the rentals because it was a certain Berlito P. that circular allegedly had retroactive effect stating that it was
Taripe who had originally leased the subject property to them. an ex post facto law. It must be a criminal law.
Clearly, payment of rentals is covered by the constitutional
guarantee against imprisonment. Not Penal Laws. AO 13 creates the Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-
Finding Committee on Behest Loans and provides for its
3. Acts Which When Done Were Innocent composition and functions. It does not mete out penalty for the
act of granting behest loans. Memorandum Order No. 61
ARTICLE III, SECTION 22 merely provides a frame of reference for determining behest
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. loans. Not being penal laws, Administrative Order No. 13 and
Memorandum Order No. 61 cannot be characterized as ex
Ex Post Facto Law post facto laws.
An ex post facto law is a criminal law with a retroactive effect
prejudicial to the accused it is one that would make a previous There is, therefore, no basis for Ombudsman to rule the subject
act criminal although it was not so at the time it was committed. administrative and memorandum orders are ex post facto.
PEOPLE v. CASTA 565 SCRA 341 (2008) Only to Matter Criminal in Nature. Proclamation No. 84 does
This involves the effectivity of RA 7659 which increases the not fall under any of the enumerated categories, it is settled
penalty of murder from RT-Death to RP-Death. The crime of that an ex post facto law as well as a bill of attainder only refers
murder was committed by the appellant on 1989 which was to those criminal in nature. The proclamation only restored the
before the effectivity of RA 7659 on 1993 which raised the area back to the Biak-na-Bato National Park by cancelling the
penalty of murder to RP-Death. license, which is clearly not penal in character.
Considering the greater penalty that attaches under the B. WHAT PUNISHMENTS CANNOT BE IMPOSED
amendment, the previous penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death will have to be imposed in order not Punishments that Cannot be Imposed
to run afoul of the constitutional prohibition against ex post 1. Involuntary servitude;
facto laws. Thus, RA 7659 cannot be applied. 2. Excessive fines;
3. Cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment; and
NASI-VILLAR v. PEOPLE 571 SCRA 202 (2008) 4. Indefinite imprisonment
The crime of illegal recruitment took place in 1993, but RA 8042
took effect on 1995. Thus, the applicable provision here was 1. Involuntary Servitude
the Article 39 of the Labor Code and not the amendment
brought by RA 8042 because the presumption is that laws apply ARTICLE III, SECTION 18 (2)
prospectively, and any retroactive effect should be expressed. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except a
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been
Bills of Attainder duly convicted.
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
without trial. These are legislative adjudications of guilt. It is a Freedom from Involuntary Servitude
law which imposes a penal burden and that penal burden is It is the liberty not to be compelled against your will to work
imposed directly by the law without judicial trial. whether paid or not. There is no law authorizing as a penalty
for a crime to be suffered to work. If any case, the judge has to
It violates the principle of separation of powers. Because the embody in the decision the order to work.
judicial branch is the one which determines the penalty to be
imposed, because in here the congress is the one who gives the SARMIENTO v. TUICO 162 SCRA 676 (1988)
penalty thus encroaching judicial powers. This issue revolved around the validity of the return to work
order issued by the NLRC violated the proscription against
PEOPLE v. FERRER 48 SCRA 382 (1972) involuntary servitude.
On March 10, 1970, a prima facie case was filed against
Feliciano Co in the Court of First Instance in Tarlac concerning It must be stressed that while one purpose of the return-to-
the Anti-Subversion Act. He was accused of being an officer or work order is to protect the workers who might otherwise be
a ranked leader of the Communist Party of the Philippines, an locked out by the employer for threatening or waging the
outlawed and illegal organization aimed to overthrow the strike, the more important reason is to prevent impairment of
government of the Philippines by means of force, violence, the national interest in case the operations of the company
deceit, subversion or any other illegal means. Co claimed that are disrupted by a refusal of the strikers to return to work as
the Anti-Subversion Act is a bill of attainder. On May 25, 1970, directed. In the instant case, stoppage of work in the firm will
Nilo Tayag and five others were also charged in the same court be hurtful not only to both the employer and the employees.
with subversion.
More particularly, it is the national economy that will suffer
The Anti-Subversion Act is not a bill of attainder. In the case, because of the resultant reduction in our export earnings and
the act merely declares CPP as an organized conspiracy to our dollar reserves, not to mention possible cancellation of the
overthrow the government. he Act applies not only to the CPP contracts of the company with foreign importers. It was
but also to other organizations having the same purpose and particularly for the purpose of avoiding such a development
their successors. The Act’s focus is on the conduct not person. that the labor dispute was certified to the NLRC, with the
The declaration of that the CPP is an organized conspiracy to return-to-work order following as a matter of course under the
overthrow the Philippine Government should not be the basis law. It is also important to emphasize that the return-to-work
of guilt. Mere membership needs to couple with overt acts. order not so much confers a right as it imposes a duty; and
while as a right it may be waived, it must be discharged as a
REPUBLIC v. RMDC 426 SCRA 517 (2004) duty even against the worker's will.
This question the validity of Proclamation No. 84 for being a bill
of attainder because the declaration that a Quarry License Returning to work in this situation is not a matter of option or
Patent is a patent nullity is not a declaration of guilt. Neither is voluntariness but of obligation. The worker must return to his
the cancellation of the license a punishment within the purview job together with his co-workers, so the operations of the
of the constitutional proscription against bills of attainder. company can be resumed, and it can continue serving the
public and promoting its interest.
That is the real reason such return can be compelled. So AGBANLOG v. PEOPLE 220 SCRA 530 (1993)
imperative is the order in fact that it is not even considered Petitioner here was convicted of estafa in the amount of P21K,
violative of the right against involuntary servitude. The worker where the RPC punishes for PM-RT and that it was old and
can of course give up his work, thus severing his ties with based on 1932-peso value and that today P21K should only be
the company, if he does not want to obey the order; but the equivalent to one or two years.
order must be obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if
his inclination is to strike. Assuming arguendo that inflation has in effect made more
severe the penalty for malversing P21,000.00, the remedy
2. Excessive Fines cannot come from this Court but from the Congress.
ARTICLE III, SECTION 19 (1) Even though courts can intervene, considering that
Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or malversation of public funds by a public officer is a betrayal of
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death
the public trust, we are not prepared to say that the penalty
penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any imposed on petitioner is so disproportionate to the crime
death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion committed as to shock the moral sense.
perpetua.
3. Cruel, Degrading and Inhuman Punishments
When is a Fine Excessive?
The judge must consider in fixing fine the financial condition of ARTICLE III, SECTION 19 (1)
the convict, the amount fixed must be within limit established Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the death
by law, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. It
penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving
becomes excessive when the amount is so disproportionate to
heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any
the offense committed. death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
PEOPLE v. DELA CRUZ 92 PHIL. 906 (1953)
Facts: Having retailed a can of milk at ten centavos more than ARTICLE III, SECTION 12 (2)
the ceiling price, Pablo de la Cruz was sentenced, after trial, in No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.
the court of first instance of Manila, to imprisonment for five
Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
years, and to pay a fine of five thousand pesos plus costs. He similar forms of detention are prohibited.
was also barred from engaging in wholesale and retail business
for five years. Is the penalty an excessive fine? Cruel, Degrading and Inhuman Punishments
Punishment is not per se cruel, what makes it cruel is when it is
The law provides for the penalty, and what is left for the court vagrantly and plainly oppressive or if wholly disproportionate
is to apply; when P5,000 was provided under the law it shall be to the offense as to shock the moral sense of the community or
followed for there is a possibility he could have profited more, when it involves torture or lingering death, severity or also
the court however in this case tempered it to P2,000. duration (e.g. boiling water; guillotine).
PEOPLE v. DACUYCUY 173 SCRA 901 (1989) Two Concepts of Cruel and Unusual Punishment
RA 4670 or the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers which 1. Those which public sentiment would regard as cruel
someone violate, contains a section providing a penalty that a and obsolete to law, refers to form not on severity or
violation leads to a fine of P100-P1,000 or imprisonment. The seriousness of the punishment (e.g. crucifixion).
law has no prescribed period or term but qualified in the 2. Those which are disproportionate to the offense as to
discretion of the court. shock the moral senses of the community.
We cannot agree with this postulate. It is not for the courts to PEOPLE v. ECHEGARAY 267 SCRA 682 (1997)
fix the term of imprisonment where no points of reference have It was shown that the Congress may re-impose death penalty.
been provided by the legislature. What valid delegation There is innate heinousness of rape which the crime committed
presupposes, and sanctions is an exercise of discretion to fix the by Echegaray against a 10-year-old. Rape is a grave crime and
length of service of a term of imprisonment which must be death penalty is provided in the law, not only for the agony of
encompassed within specific or designated limits provided by the parents over the child, but also the stigma which shatter the
law, the absence of which designated limits well constitute such life of the victims, it is not considered as cruel.
exercise as an undue delegation, if an outright intrusion into or
assumption, of legislative power. PEOPLE v. TONGKO 290 SCRA 595 (1998)
The issue in this case is whether or not the 27 years of RP for
On the foregoing considerations, and by virtue of the
the crime of estafa is a penalty too harsh and out of proportion
separability clause in Section 34 of Republic Act No. 4670, the
as to be violative to constitution. No. The legislature was not
penalty of imprisonment provided in Section 32 thereof should
thoughtless in imposing severe penalties for Article 315. This
be, as it is hereby, declared unconstitutional. Because it cannot
kind of estafa erodes people’s confidence in trade.
be left alone to judicial legislation.
ECHEGARAY v. SECRETARY 297 SCRA 754 (1998) C. PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
The issue is whether or not the lack as to the details involved in
the execution by lethal injection rendered law cruel, degrading ARTICLE III, SECTION 21
and inhuman. It ruled that lethal injection is more humane than No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for
the previous form of death penalty by electrocution. the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an
ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
In lethal injection, a trained technician injects in an inmate’s arm constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
at the warden’s signal at lethal concoction of drugs. The person
dies in a less painful manner than electrocution. Protection Against Double Jeopardy
It prohibits prosecution again for a crime previously been
LIM v. PEOPLE 390 SCRA 194 (2002) acquitted or convicted. The object is to set the effect of the first
Petitioners contend that, inasmuch as the amount of the subject prosecution forever at rest, assuring accused that he shall no
check is P365,750, they can be penalized with reclusion thereafter be subjected to second charge for the same offense.
perpetua or 30 years of imprisonment. This penalty, according
to petitioners, is too severe and disproportionate to the crime Two Situations Covered
they committed and infringes on the express mandate of Article 1. Double jeopardy for the same offense;
III, Section 19 of the Constitution which prohibits the infliction 2. Double jeopardy for the same act punishable by a law
of cruel, degrading and inhuman punishment. and an ordinance.
Settled is the rule that a punishment authorized by statute is not REQUISITES FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY
cruel, degrading or disproportionate to the nature of the offense FIRST JEOPARDY MUST FIRST JEOPARY MUST
unless it is flagrantly and plainly oppressive and wholly HAVE ATTACHED PRIOR HAVE BEEN VALIDLY
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the TO THE SECOND TERMINATED
moral sense of the community. When first jeopardy When first jeopardy
attached? terminated?
It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of 1. When there is a valid 1. When accused is
proportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the complaint of information. acquitted; or
Constitution.
2. The complaint or 2. When accused is
Based on this principle, the Court has consistently overruled information was filed in a convicted; or
contentions of the defense that the penalty of fine or competent court.
imprisonment authorized by the statute involved is cruel and
degrading. 3. The accused has been 3. When the case is
arraigned and has pleaded. otherwise dismissed
4. Indefinite Imprisonment without the express consent
of the accused
PEOPLE v. DACUYCUY 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
Section 32 of Republic Act No. 4670 provides for an
indeterminable period of imprisonment, with neither a SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR
minimum nor a maximum duration having been set by the THE SAME OFFENSE OR FOR THE SAME ACT
legislative authority. When second jeopardy for When second jeopardy for
the same offense? the same act?
The courts are thus given a wide latitude of discretion to fix the 1. When two offenses are 1. First charge is for an act
term of imprisonment, without even the benefit of any identical. punished by a law and an
sufficient standard, such that the duration thereof may range, ordinance, and the second
in the words of respondent judge, from one minute to the life 2. When the second is an charge under either is for
span of the accused. attempt to commit the first. the same act.
Irremissibly, this cannot be allowed. It vests in the courts a 3. When the second is a
power and a duty essentially legislative in nature and which, as frustration of the first.
applied to this case, does violence to the rules on separation of
powers as well as the non-delegability of legislative powers. 4. When the first
This time, the presumption of constitutionality has to yield. necessarily incudes the
second.
On the foregoing considerations, and by virtue of the
separability clause in Section 34 of Republic Act No. 4670, the 5. When the first is
penalty of imprisonment provided in Section 32 thereof should necessarily included in the
be, as it is hereby, declared unconstitutional. second.
A. FIRST JEOPARDY MUST ATTACH The court ruled that there was no double jeopardy to speak of
The first jeopardy is deemed attached when: because there was neither an acquittal or conviction, while it
1. When there is a valid information; may be true that both have attached, neither has yet been
2. The complaint or information was filed in a competent validly terminated.
court; and
3. The accused has been arraigned and has pleaded. 1. Accused is acquitted
There is acquittal when the judgment absolves the accused of
1. When there is a valid information the crime charged against him. It is immediately final and can
no longer be reversed by appeal without placing the accused in
PEOPLE v. MANABA GR L-38725 (1933) double jeopardy.
There was a complaint for rape, the complaint was not signed
by the offended party. Thus, the judge dismissed the case. Instances When Appeal is Allowed without
When the case was refiled, the complaint was not signed. Is Placing the Accused in Double Jeopardy
there double jeopardy? 1. When there is a deprivation of due process of the
state;
Rule: No. The court held that there was no double jeopardy 2. When the judgment of the acquittal issued by the
because at first, there was no valid information. The information judge is with grave abuse of discretion;
at the first, was not signed by the offended party.
Q. Are all appeals when there is an acquittal violative of the
2. Filed before a competent court protection against double jeopardy?
DE GUZMAN v. ESCALONA GR L-51773 (1980) YSIDORO v. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO 665 SCRA 89 (2012)
The accused charged with illegal possession of dynamite. Case Facts: Ysidoro here was charged under RA 3019, for failure to
was appealed to the MTC judge for PI. During PI, the judge give Doller her RATA and ordered her name to be deleted in
immediately arraigned the accused who pleaded guilty and was the payroll. The Sandiganbayan acquitted Ysidoro of the
sentenced to 4 months imprisonment. crime charged thus, the question whether the appeal done is
violative of Article III, Section 21 on double jeopardy.
At this time there was already a new law, which increased the
penalty of illegal possession, thus the jurisdiction should have There are three kinds of appeal in criminal case before the SC:
been with the RTC and not with the MTC. 1. Ordinary Appeal – resolves factual and legal issues
which have not been properly raised (Rule 122).
3. Accused has been arraigned the pleaded 2. Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 – limited only to
the review of legal issues; only questions of law.
US v. SOLIS 3. Review on Certiorari under Rule 65 – resolves issues
There were two men courting the same woman. The rivalry of jurisdiction or grave abuse of discretion amounting
resulted to one killing the other. The accused was charged with to lack or excess of jurisdiction.
murder. Before arraignment, the fiscal called for a dismissal.
Later the fiscal refiled the case. There is no double jeopardy Rule: The constitutional right of the accused against double
because the dismissal was made before he arraignment. jeopardy proscribes appeals of judgments of acquittal through
the remedies of ordinary appeal and Rule 45 petition.
NOTE: That in the first general requisite for first jeopardy
attachment, all the requisites under it should be present, absent The constitution has expressly adopted the double jeopardy
one invalidates the first general requisite thus no jeopardy. policy and thus prosecution via an appeal from a judgment of
acquittal is barred because the government has already been
B. FIRST JEOPARDY VALIDLY TERMINATED afforded a complete opportunity to prove the defendant’s
There first jeopardy after being validly attached, is also deemed culpability.
to have been validly terminated when either:
1. Accused is acquitted; or Unfairness and prejudice would necessarily result, as the
2. Accused is convicted; or government would then be allowed another opportunity to
3. When the case is otherwise dismissed without the persuade a second trier of the defendant’s guilt while
express consent of the accused. strengthening any weaknesses that had attended the first trial,
all in a process where the government’s power and resources
BERNARTE v. SECRETARY GR L-36222 (1982) are once again employed against the defendant’s individual
means.
The accused was facing two charges one for illegal possession
with military commission, the other before the provincial fiscal
The rule against double jeopardy cannot be properly
of Rizal. The accused challenged jurisdiction for double
invoked in a Rule 65 petition, because a Rule 65 petition does
jeopardy in this case stating that two pending cases is a
not involve a review of facts and law on the merits in the
violation of his protection against double jeopardy.
manner done in an appeal whether the jurisdictionally correct.
Q, In what instance the Bill of Rights is invoked by the state? So, it was one with consent, however because being an
When the judgment of acquittal was issued by the court with exception, even if it was with the consent and the dismissal the
grave abuse of direction. accused can still claim double jeopardy because it was based
on a violation of the right to speedy trial.
2. Accused is convicted
Once the accused has already been convicted, the first jeopardy BAUTISTA v. CUNETA-PANGILINAN 684 SCRA 521 (2012)
has already been terminated, thus when there will be another It should be stressed that the granting of petitioners’
charge for the same offense, it shall be barred by the protection Demurrer to Evidence already amounted to a dismissal of the
against double protection. case on the merits and a review of the order granting the
demurrer to evidence will place the accused in double jeopardy.
3. When the case is otherwise dismissed
without the express consent of the accused The granting of a demurrer to evidence should, therefore, be
It should be noted that the dismissal must be without the exercised with caution, taking into consideration not only the
express consent of the accused, there is a dismissal not based rights of the accused, but also the right of the private offended
on merits. When it is with the express consent of the accused, party to be vindicated of the wrongdoing done against him, for
therefore he cannot claim double jeopardy because the if it is granted, the accused is acquitted, and the private
requirements say it is dismissed without the express consent of complainant is generally left with no more remedy. In such
the accused. There is a dismissal if the case is terminated not instances, although the decision of the court may be wrong, the
on the merits. accused can invoke his right against double jeopardy.
The rule is when the dismissal of the case is without the consent C. SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THE
of the accused, he can later invoke the right against double SAME OFFENSE OF FOR THE SAME ACT
jeopardy if there is a move to reopen trial. He cannot be
charged anymore of the same. 1. Jeopardy from the Same Offense
Usually applied here is the same evidence test, whether the
Dismissal with Express Consent same evidence would be necessary to support the case.
There is a dismissal with the consent of the accused-cannot
claim double jeopardy: PEOPLE v. CITY COURT 154 SCRA 195 (1987)
1. Files a provisional dismissal; The two informations with which the accused was charged, do
2. Upon motion of the accused; not make out only one offense, the two information is under RA
3. If the accused agrees to the dismissal. 3060 and another on Article 201(3) of the RPC.
4. When accused files for an MR.
It is evident that the elements of the two (2) offenses are
When there is dismissal with the consent of the accused, the different. The gravamen of the offense defined in Rep. Act No.
accused cannot claim double jeopardy. 3060 is the public exhibition of any motion picture which
has not been previously passed by the Board of Censors for
General Rule: Dismissal with express consent will not give rise Motion Pictures.
to double jeopardy.
The motion picture may not be indecent or immoral but if it has
Exception to the Express Consent Rule not been previously approved by the Board, its public showing
There is double jeopardy even if dismissal with consent: constitutes a criminal offense.
1. When dismissal is grounded on right to speedy trial;
2. When the dismissal is based on insufficiency of On the other hand, the offense punished in Article 201 (3) of
evidence or a demurrer to evidence. the Revised Penal Code is the public showing of indecent or
3. When the accused is discharged as state witness immoral plays, scenes, acts, or shows, not just motion pictures.
SALCEDO v. MENDOZA GR L-49375 (1979) The nature of both offenses also shows their essential
The accused was facing two charges one for illegal possession difference. The crime punished in Rep. Act No. 3060 is a malum
with military commission Suppose there was a trial, but there prohibitum in which criminal intent need not be proved
were more than for setting for postponements, so the accused because it is presumed, while the offense punished in Article
himself filed a motion to dismiss based on violation of 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code is malum in se, in which
speedy trial and the judge himself granted it. Suppose that criminal intent is an indispensable ingredient. They do not
the judge changed his mind and the prosecution files a motion constitute the same offense, no double jeopardy applied.
for reconsideration, the judge granted the MR allowing for
chance. The accused invoked his right against double jeopardy. Exceptions to the Same Offense Rule
1. Supervening Fact Doctrine
First, he was already arraigned, second it was with the consent 2. Newly Discovered Fact
because he was the one who filed the motion to dismissed 3. When the plea to a lesser offense is without the
based on the violation of speedy trial. consent of the fiscal or the offended party
RULE 117, SECTION 7 (2) IVLER v. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO 635 SCRA 191 (2010)
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be bar to There was vehicular collision by Ivler on the crime two separate
another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes offenses; he was charged before the MeTC for two offenses:
the offense charged in the former complaint or information 1. Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Slight Physical Inj.
under any of the following instances: 2. Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and
1. The graver offense developed due to supervening Damage to Property
facts arising from the same act or omission
constituting the former charge; On 7 September 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge
2. The facts constituting the graver charge became of Slight Physical Injuries. Invoking his conviction, the petitioner
known or were discovered only after a plea was moved to quash the homicide information for the same offense
entered in the former complaint or information; or of reckless imprudence.
3. The plea of guilty of the lesser offense was made
without the consent of the prosecutor and of the It is not disputed that the conviction in the Slight Physical Injury
offended party except as provided in Section 1(f) of case and the information on the Homicide Case involve the
Rule 116. same offense because they both arise from the quasi-offense
of reckless imprudence.
Supervening Fact Doctrine
Under Article 365, reckless imprudence is a single quasi-offense
MELO v. PEOPLE 85 PHIL. 776 (1950) by itself and not merely a means to commit other crimes such
Accused was charged for serious physical injuries on December that conviction or acquittal bars subsequent prosecution for
27, he pleaded guilty. A few hours later of the same day, the the same quasi-offense.
victim died. On January 4, the fiscal filed an amended
information from serious physical injuries to homicide. The 2. Jeopardy for the Same Act
accused invoked double jeopardy. Accused can also be held in jeopardy also for the same act in
time and space when the act is punished by a law and an
Rule: The court held that there is no double jeopardy because ordinance as expressly provided under Article III, Section 21.
the second offense was not yet in existence during the first
prosecution. When he pleaded guilty, the second offense was PEOPLE v. RELOVA 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
not yet in existence because the victim died a few hours later. An ice plant owner installed jumpers in his ice plant and was
The new offense only came about after the conviction. charged with a violation of an ordinance. The case was
dismissed for prescription. The fiscal charged him again for
PEOPLE v. CITY COURT 121 SCRA 637 (1983) violation for theft of electricity under Article 308. The fiscal
The timeline of the case proceeds as follows: argued that since the elements are different there is no double
October 17 – accident occurred jeopardy.
October 18 – charged with serious physical injuries
October 19 – victim died Where the offenses charged are penalized either by different
October 20 – arraigned and pleaded guilty serious PI sections of the same statute or by different statutes, the
October 24 – charged with homicide with reckless I important inquiry relates to the identity of the offenses
charged. The constitutional protection against double jeopardy
Rule: The court ruled that the supervening fact doctrine cannot is available only where an identity is shown to exist between the
be applied because when he pleaded guilty, The fact victim earlier and the subsequent offenses charged.
was dead was already in existence. Only the fiscal did not
know it. Therefore, double jeopardy will attach. The first case filed was against an ordinance, it was dismissed
due to prescription. A second case was filed for a violation of
PEOPLE v. YORAC 42 SCRA 230 (1971) theft of electricity under Revised Penal Code.
There was no new or supervening fact that arisen to justify
slight physical injuries to frustrated homicide. If X-ray Can the accused claim double jeopardy?
examination discloses existence of a fracture on 1957, that
fracture existed when first examination was made on 1956. If it is double jeopardy for the same offense you must be tried
for the same or similar offense. So, let us say you are charged
There is, therefore, no new or supervening fact that could be for murder and another for homicide.
said to have developed or arisen, since the filing of the original
action, which would justify the application of the ruling But in this case, the first case was an ordinance for unauthorized
enunciated by us in the case of Melo vs. People. Had an X-ray installation of motor, the second case was under the Revised
examination [been] taken at the time, the fracture would Penal Code.
have certainly been disclosed. The wound causing the delay
in healing was already in existence at the time of the first Could he still claim double jeopardy for the same offense? No,
examination, but said delay was caused by the very superficial because these are different offense, one is under an ordinance,
examination then made. and another under the Revised Penal Code.
But can he still claim double jeopardy? Read the second D. PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
sentence of Article III, Section 21, which provides that 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 privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
the same act. suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the
public safety requires it.
Relova could not claim double jeopardy for the same offense
but he could claim double jeopardy for the same act. Why? Habeas Corpus
He was accused from attaching a jumper and theft of electricity. It is a writ issued by the court directed to a person detaining
• The act of installing of jumper which was charged from another, commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner
an ordinance was dismissed under prescription which at the designated time and place with the date and cause of his
is without the express consent of the accused. capture and detention, to do, to submit to, and receive,
• He was also charged under the Article 308 under whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall consider in
Revised Penal Code for theft for electricity. his behalf. It is a remedy if there is an illegal restraint on
your liberty. Habeas corpus means “to have body.”
Even though he could not claim under double jeopardy for the
same offense, he can claim double jeopardy under the same act Application
because the act of installing is only a single act, that is why it For example, a person is already serving sentence he was
constitutes the same of act in time and in space, although he convicted for four years, served two years, but new law states
could not claim double jeopardy for the same offense, but he that penalty for crime he is detained is one year retroactively
can claim under same act, for it is one and same act, he could applicable to favored accused. Suppose he was not released, he
still claim double jeopardy. can file for the writ of habeas corpus because there is an illegal
restraint in his liberty. This also includes child custody cases.
Additional Illustration
I am driving, while I am driving my license is expired, while I am Two Grounds of the Suspension of the Privilege
driving I am intoxicated, I was driving without seatbelt, I 1. Invasion
bumped to a person who was hit and died. That is one act in 2. Rebellion
time and space, can a case be filed against me for: NOTE: Public safety requires it.
• Reckless imprudence resulting to homicide because
bumped and killed and person; Four Instances Applicable
• Anti-drunk driving Act; 1. Detention without charges;
• Over speeding ordinance; 2. Cases where prisoner has served sentence but is not
• Not wearing seatbelt released;
• Expired license 3. Custody children;
4. Patients detained in hospital for failure to pay bill.
The secret to the same act it is allowed if you are being
prosecuted for different laws, if a person is being prosecuted FUNCTIONS OF THE WRIT
for violation of a law and an ordinance, if law and ordinance
then apply same act if different laws don’t apply same act. The VILLAVICENCIO v. LUKBAN 39 PHIL. 778 (1919)
second sentence, expressly requires a law and an ordinance. This involved the 170 women alleged as prostitutes from Manila
that were sent to Davao and were prohibited from leaving
In the case of Relova, the law there was theft of electricity under Mindanao. These women were isolated from society and were
RPC, and a violation of an ordinance of installing for jumper forcibly hustled on board steamers for transportation to
cable, this can be a bar for prosecution for the same act. regions unknown. They have freedom of abode and cannot be
compelled to change residence. Mayor Lukban of Manila
Distinction Between Same Offense and Same Act herded these prostitutes. The relatives filed writ of habeas
Same Offense Same Act corpus, Mayor argued as not proper for no restraint of liberty.
It can either be: Statute and an ordinance
1. Same provision of The writ of habeas corpus was devised as a speedy an
the law effectual remedy to relieve persons from unlawful restraint and
2. Different a defense of personal freedom. The court held that any restraint
provisions of the which will preclude freedom of action is sufficient reason to issue
same law the writ. The forcible taking of the women by the city officials
3. Different who handed those to other parties and deposited them in a
statements distant region deprived them of locomotion as effectively as if
As to the point of inquiry Acts in space and time if they had been imprisoned. Without money or belongings, they
Elements of the two offenses committed on the same day were prevented from exercising their right of going where they
and place. want. So, restraint continues until they are brought back to
Manila, unless they do not want to return.
IN RE: GONZALES 526 SCRA 483 (2007) FLETCHER v. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU 593 SCRA 265 (2009)
This involved Gonzales and Mesa both enlisted personnel of the Fletcher claims that his prision sentence of 12-17 years was
Navy taking part of the Oakwood munity. They were taken in commuted by President Ramos to 9 to 12 years, since he served
custody by their Service Commander but were not charged 14 years, including his good conduct allowances, his continued
before a court martial with violation of the Articles of War but imprisonment is unlawful thus the petition for the writ.
were charged with Coup d’etat under Article 134-A of RPC.
While it may be true that there was overstaying, there were still
Gonzales and Mesa argued that since they are no longer subject other grounds to detain the person still release is applicable.
to Military Law as they have been discharged from the service To be true, he was also facing another case aside from the case
and not charged before a court martial, the military authorities he was serving which was estafa.
have no legal ground to detain them further because a court
order for their release had already been issued. AMPATUAN v. MACARAIG 622 SCRA 266 (2010)
Ampatuan appeals the denial of the writ of habeas corpus for
CA issued a writ of habeas corpus directing the AFP to produce her husband PO1 Ampatuan whom was arrested for the killing
the bodies of the two before the court and to appear and show of two COMELEC officials.
the cause and validity of their detention.
The most basic criterion for the issuance of the writ is that the
In its comment, the Solicitor General stressed that the habeas individual seeking such relief is illegally deprive of his freedom
corpus petition has been rendered moot and academic by of movement placed under some form of illegal restrain. If the
reason of the release of Mesa and Gonzales from detention and, restraint is due to some legal process, the writ is unavailing.
in the absence of an actual case or controversy, it is impractical
to consider and resolve issues involving the validity or legality Requisites for Application of the Writ of Habeas Corpus
of their detention, including the alleged refusal of the Court of 1. Petitioner is being restrained of his liberty;
Appeals to resolve said issues. 2. The cause of restraint is unlawful.
When the release of the persons in whose behalf the Petitioner contends that when PO1 Ampatuan was placed
application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was filed is affected, under custody of respondents on April 20, 2008, there was yet
the Petition for the issuance of the writ becomes moot and no administrative case filed against, and that there was no
academic. warrant of arrest upon arrest. However, he was a police officer,
there was administrative charge. Note a police officer under RA
VELUZ v. VILLANUEVA 543 SCRA 63 (2008) 8551 he has to be placed under restrictive custody.
Eufemia was a 94-year-old widow suffering from a poor state
of mental health and living with Veluz, her nephew since 2000 RA 8551 clearly provides that members of the police force are
acting as her guardian. In 2005, Villanueva took Eufemia from subject to the administrative disciplinary machinery of the PNP.
Veluz and despite repeated demands refuse to return. The law allows restrictive custody that may be imposed as a
matter of internal discipline.
Before grating the writ of habeas corpus, there must be
proof the Eufemia is being detained and restrained of her Writ of Habeas Corpus as a Post-Conviction Remedy
liberty.
LAMEN v. DIRECTOR 241 SCRA 473 (1995)
There is no proof showing such. The writ of habeas corpus The petitioners contend that since the gross quantity of the
extends to all cases of illegal confinement by which a person marijuana involved in this case is only 13.6 grams, then in the
is deprived of liberty or is wrongfully prevented from light of People vs. Simon, the maximum term imposed on
exercising legal custody over another person. Bagawe should be reduced to two (2) years, four (4) months
and one (1) day of prision correccional; and since he has already
It contemplates two instances at hand to apply the writ: served more than six years, he should be released from
1. Deprivation of a person’s liberty either through illegal imprisonment.
confinement or detention; or
2. Withholding of the custody of any person from Nevertheless, the writ of habeas corpus comes to his rescue
someone entitled to such custody. since he has undergone imprisonment for a period more than
the maximum imprisonment which could have been properly
It must be showed first that the person is being restrained of imposed on him considering the favorable statute, RA 7659.
his liberty, if he is not the writ will be refused. In this case, the
rightful guardian is the legally adopted daughter. There was no Thus, in view of the foregoing, though it be to give effect to a
showing in this case that the old woman was forcefully penal provision favorable to the accused, would be null and
abducted. void for lack of jurisdiction; and (2) that the only means of
giving retroactive effect to a penal provision favorable to the
The petition for habeas corpus is not the proper remedy accused when the trial judge has lost jurisdiction over the case,
applicable absence showing of the illegality of the confinement. is the writ of habeas corpus.
Suspension of the Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus 2. Protection and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can only be
suspended in case of invasion, rebellion, and when public safety ARTICLE III, SECTION 12(4)
requires it. Only the privilege can be suspended. 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
The writ can never be suspended only the privilege in cases of
their families.
rebellion and invasion and when public safety requires it. Now,
in case of the suspension of the privilege is suspended, it will ARTICLE VIII, SECTION 5(5)
only apply to those charged with rebellion or invasion as it Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
does not apply to ordinary offenses. enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
• Take note however, the rules on release still applies, procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law,
thus if one has not been charged within a certain the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
period of house (72 hours) one must be released.
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall
The writ can never be suspended because it does not mean you not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
cannot go to court and file petition and the court can issue. procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
However, if one is covered by invasion or rebellion, or when remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
public safety requires it, then the privilege is unavailing.
ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 18(3)
LANSANG v. GARCIA 42 SCRA 488 (1971) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of
human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as
This involved the Plaza Miranda bombing; thus Proclamation Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive
No. 889 was issued by the President suspending privilege of measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged
writ of habeas corpus stating that there is conspiracy of whose human rights have been violated or need protection.
rebellion and insurrection in order to forcibly seize political
power. As a consequence, petitions for habeas corpus filed. The WRIT OF AMPARO
court ruled that proclamation was valid because the existence The petition for writ of amparo is a remedy available to any
of a rebellion is obvious, and the event showed that the public person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or
safety requires such. Thus, in this regard, the court has to threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
uphold the constitutionality of the proclamation. public officer or employee or a private individual or entity. IT
shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or
E. AFFIRMATIVE RIGHTS threats thereof.
TAPUZ v. DEL ROSARIO 554 SCRA 768 (2008)

What are the affirmative rights?
1. Free Access to Courts This involved conflicts regarding a parcel of land. They filed a
2. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights case for forcible entry, in this case they also filed for a writ of
a. Writ of Amparo amparo. The Court stated that the petition is defective in form
b. Writ of Habeas Data and substance. The writ of amparo herein has no application.
3. Compensation and rehabilitation of torture victims
The writ shall be issued by the court only when it is satisfied
1. Free Access to Courts with the prima facie existence of the ultimate facts
determinable from the evidence showing the threat or
ARTICLE III, SECTION 11 violation of the rights to life, liberty and security of the
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and aggrieved party was or is being committed.
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person
by reason of poverty. The courts did not grant the writ because clear from the facts,
the involvement of the property issues at the petition traces its
Free Access to Courts roots to questions of physical possession of the property
This right including adequate legal assistance shall not be disputed by the private parties. The remedy may lie more in the
denied to any person by reason of poverty. The government realm of ordinary criminal prosecution than amparo.
has several programs to provide counsel and legal aid to those
who cannot afford such services, such as the PAO. CANLAS v. NAPICO 554 SCRA 209 (2008)
Petitioners here are settlers in a certain parcel of land. Their
MARTINEZ v. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000) dwellings have been demolished as of the time of filing or is
In this case the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure were applied to about to be demolished thus they filed for a Writ of Amparo
Petitioner Martinez’s case even though his was on 1994; The because they were deprived of their liberty and freedom. The
retroactive application of the present rules is in keeping with court did not grant, the threatened demolition of a dwelling by
our Bill of Rights, which decrees that, “free access to the courts virtue of a final judgment of the court is not covered by the writ
and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall of amparo, the dwelling not covered by life, liberty and security.
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.”
SEC. OF DEFENSE v. MANALO 568 SCRA 1 (2008) The petition for habeas corpus and amparo has to be dismissed
In this case, the Manalo brothers were suspected symphatizers for being moot and academic anent the dismissal in the
of the NPA. They were abducted by the CAFGU, they were Qualified Theft case.
tortured, one was burned and could have been subjected to
more torture if he was no able to escape. He filed a case of writ Assuming for the sake of argument that the petitions would
of amparo. prosper, the order of Judge Tacla to confine Maria for the
determination of mental capacity for judicial trial is far from
The Supreme Court granted the writ for this involves the being unlawful, it was for the benefit of Maria to assess if she
extraordinary circumstances of violation or threat to enforced was really for trial. Absent unlawful restraint and threat or
disappearances and extrajudicial killing or those against life, violation of life, liberty or security, the petitions could still
liberty and security of a person. have not prospered.
The evidence will show that they were abducted from their WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
houses. For one year they experienced hardships, they paid for The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person
their blood, sweat and tears for being alleged as symphatizers. whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or
In this case, they were detained and abducted in 2006 and only employee or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
a year later on 2007, they were able to escape. As the testimony gathering, collecting or storing of data or information
goes, “Sumilip ako sa isang haligi ng kamalig at nakita kong regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the
sinisilaban si Manuel. Kinaumagahan, naka-kadena pa kami. aggrieved party (Section 1, AM 08-1-16-SC).
Tinanggal ang mga kadena mga 3 o 4 na araw pagkalipas.
Sinabi sa amin na kaya kami nakakadena ay dahil Requirements to be Applicable
pinagdedesisyunan pa ng mga sundalo kung papatayin kami o 1. There is a violation or threat against a person’s right
hindi.” This is clearly which the writ seeks to protect. to privacy in life, liberty or property;
2. By an unlawful act or omission;
REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS 606 SCRA 580 (2009) 3. By a public official or employee or private individual
Petitioner was arrested in Manila Siege. Petitioner invokes the engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of date
Writ of Amparo for the protection of his right to travel. He or information regarding the person, family, home and
insists that he is covered by the writ because the hold correspondence of the aggrieved.
departure order is a continuing actual restraint on his right to
travel. Is this covered by the writ? MANILA ELECTRIC v. LIM 632 SCRA 195 (2010)
Rosario Lim was a MERALCO clerk, whom was the subject of the
Here, the restriction on petitioner’s right to travel as a anonymous letter posted at the door of the offices and inserted
consequence of the pendency of the criminal case filed against in the lockers of linesmen, the letter reads:
him was not unlawful. Petitioner has also failed to establish that
his right to travel was impaired in the manner and to the extent Cherry Lim,
that it amounted to a serious violation of his right to life, liberty Matapos mong lamunin lahat ng biyaya ng MERALCO,
and security, for which there exists no readily available legal ngayon naman ay gusto mong palamon ang buong kumpanya
recourse or remedy. Thus, the right not availing, what should sa mga buwaya ng gobyerno. Kapal ng mukha mo, lumayas ka
have been filed is a motion to lift hold departure order. rito, walang utang na loob.
SO v. TACLA 633 SCRA 563 (2010) Copies were sent to PNP. She construed such as threats to her
Petitioner So filed for habeas corpus and amparo on behalf of security. By a memorandum, she was directed to transfer to
his daughter Maria whom was accused for qualified theft before another branch in light of these accusations.
judge Tacla. Petitioner alleged that Maria was under a life-
threatening situation while confined in the hospital. By letter, she asked for the deferment of the transfer, so she
could voice her concerns and that the transfer amount to denial
Maria was committed for psychiatric treatment and care. Tacla of due process and that travel to the new assignment is grueling
ordered referral from one hospital to another for independent and far. She requested for deferment of the implementation.
forensic assessment of mental health to determine if she can
stand arraignment and trial. Tacla ordered that Maria be However, no response to her request was received. Thus, she
physically brought to the other hospital to have temporary legal filed a petition for the issuance of writ of habeas data against
custody of the accused, and thereafter, Judge Tacla would issue petitioners MERALCO.
order of confinement in a regular facility.
Stating that the continued failure and refusal to provide her
Petition was filed because there were life-threatening with details and information about the report concerning her
circumstances surrounding her confinement in new hospital. security and safety, amounted to a violation of her to privacy in
During pendency of the case, Tacla dismissed the criminal case life, liberty and security, correctible by habeas data. She
for qualified theft against Maria. requested for full disclosure of report.
It is no to be noted here that the Writ of Habeas Data is only SAEZ v. ARROYO 681 SCRA 678 (2012)
against those who are engaged in the gathering, collecting, Petitioner failed to adduce substantial evidence to prove his
storing of data or information regarding the party’s person, claims. It cannot be overemphasized that Section 1 of both the
family or home, and that MERALCO is not engaged in such. Rules on the Writ of Amparo and Habeas Data expressly include
in their coverage even threatened violations against a person’s
Can the writ of habeas data be issued in favor of Lim? right to life, liberty or security.
The court ruled no. The case of the petitioner Lim does not fall Further, threat and intimidation that vitiate the free will
within the proving of a writ of habeas data. The writ of habeas although not involving invasion of bodily integrity nevertheless
data is remedy available to any person whose right to privacy constitute a violation of the right to security in the sense of
in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful "freedom from threat". It must be stressed, however, that such
act or omission by a public official or employee or private "threat" must find rational basis on the surrounding
individual engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of circumstances of the case.
data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party. In this case, the petition was mainly anchored on the alleged
threats against his life, liberty and security by reason of his
The habeas data rule, in general, is designed to protect by inclusion in the military’s order of battle, the surveillance and
means of judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, monitoring activities made on him, and the intimidation exerted
information, and freedom of information of an individual. It is upon him to compel him to be a military asset.
meant to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth
and to informational privacy, thus safeguarding the While as stated earlier, mere threats fall within the mantle of
constitutional guarantees of a person’s right to life, liberty and protection of the writs of amparo and habeas data, in the
security against abuse in this age of information technology. petitioner’s case, the restraints and threats allegedly made
allegations lack corroborations, are not supported by
There is no showing from the facts that MERALCO committed independent and credible evidence, and thus stand on
any unjustifiable or unlawful violation of respondent’s right to nebulous grounds.
privacy vis-à-vis the right to life, liberty and security.
Doctrine of Command Responsibility is applicable in Habeas
To argue that refusal of MERALCO to disclose the contents of Data proceedings a. Command responsibility of the President
the reports allegedly received on the threats to respondent’s The president, being the commander-in-chief of all armed
safety amount to violation of her right to privacy is at best only forces, necessarily possesses control over the military that
speculative. Lim trivializes these threats and accusation. qualifies him as a superior within the purview of the command
responsibility doctrine.
GAMBOA v. CHAN 677 SCRA 385 (2012)
Gamboa is a Mayor in Ilocos Norte while Chan is a provincial Pursuant to the doctrine of command responsibility, the
director. Gamboa after surveillance was said to be maintaining President, as the Commander-in-Chief of the AFP, can be held
a private army from a confidential report. His name was liable for affront against the petitioner’s rights to life, liberty and
included on those who maintain such private armies. security as long as substantial evidence exist to show that he or
she had exhibited involvement in or can be imputed with
Gamboa questioned such inclusion stating that such is a form knowledge of the violations, or had failed to exercise necessary
of harassment a violation of her right to privacy towards these and reasonable diligence in conducting the necessary
confidential reports. She filed a writ of habeas data requiring investigations required under the rules.
the government to release these reports to ascertain.
The petitioner, however, is not exempted from the burden of
It petition was not granted because such information holds proving by substantial evidence his allegations against the
legitimate public interest in dismantling these private armies. President to make the latter liable for either acts or omissions
PNP released information to the Commission without prior violative of rights against life, liberty and security. In the instant
communication to Gamboa and without affording her the case, the petitioner merely included the President’s name as a
opportunity to refute the same cannot be interpreted as a party respondent without any attempt at all to show the latter’s
violation or threat to her right to privacy since that act is an actual involvement in, or knowledge of the alleged violation.
inherent and crucial component of intelligence gathering and
investigation. 3. Compensation to, and rehabilitation of victims
Additionally, Gamboa herself admitted that the PNP had a ARTICLE III, SECTION 12(4). The law shall provide for penal
validation system, which was used to update information on and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as
individuals associated with PAGs and to ensure that the data compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or
mirrored the situation on the field. Thus, safeguards were put similar practices, and their families.
in place to make sure that the information collected maintained
its integrity and accuracy.
WRIT OF WRIT OF WRIT OF

HABEAS CORPUS AMPARO HABEAS DATA
AS TO PURPOSE
It is a remedy devised as a speedy and It is a remedy available to any person It is remedy available to any person
effectual remedy to relieve persons from whose right to life, liberty and security is whose right to privacy in life, liberty or
unlawful restraint and a defense of violated or threatened with violation by an security is violated or threatened by an
personal freedom. unlawful act or omission of a public officer unlawful act or omission of a public
or employee or a private individual or official or employee or of a private
entity. It shall cover extralegal killings and individual or entity engaged in the
enforced disappearances or threats gathering, collecting or storing of data or
thereof. information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the
aggrieved party
REQUISITES FOR APPLICATION
Requisites for Writ of Habeas Corpus Requisites for Writ of Amparo Requisites for Writ of Habeas Data
1. Petitioner is being detained or 1. There is a threat or violation to the 1. There is a threat or violation of
liberty is restricted; life, liberty and security; the right to privacy in life, liberty
2. The restraint is unlawful or illegal 2. By an unlawful act or omission; or security;
3. By a public officer or employee or 3. By a public officer or employee or 2. By an unlawful act or omission;
private individual private individual 3. By a public official or employee
engaged in the collecting or
storing of data or information
regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of
the aggrieved party.
INSTANCES COVERED
1. Detention without charges; 1. Enforced disappearances; 1. Information covered by the right
2. Cases where prisoner has served 2. Extrajudicial killings; to privacy vis-à-vis the right to
sentence but is not released; 3. Threat or violation to life, liberty life, liberty and security
3. Custody of children; or security
4. Patients detained in hospital for
failure to pay bill.
*Enumeration not exclusive *Enumeration not exclusive *Enumeration not exclusive

EFFECTS WHEN GRANTED
This would require the one detaining or This would require the one alleged to cause The one granted can compel the release
causing the alleged unlawful restraint to the threat or violation to be required to of information, or to update, rectify,
produce the body of the prisoner at the give a Return which must include the suppress or destroy database, information
designated time and place with the date lawful defenses to shown that they did not or files in the control of the respondents
and cause of his capture and detention, to violate or threaten, to bring the suspected in a petition.
do, to submit to, and receive, whatever offenders before a competent court.
the court or judge awarding the writ shall
consider in his behalf.
Remember, one step leads to the other and

therefore never neglect the first step. It
will give you the confidence you need to
sail through with victory.
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Constitutional Law II Reviewer - ADDU (2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Constitutional Law II Reviewer - ADDU (2017)

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

Constitutional Law II Reviewer - ADDU (2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II NOTES | REGINALD MATT SANTIAGO 2

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II YRASUEGI v. PAL 599 SCRA 467 (2008)

ANG TIBAY v. CIR 69 PHIL. 635 (1940)

Administrative Due Process Vague Laws

ADMU v. CAPULONG 222 SCRA 644 (2003) Overbreadth Doctrine

Difference from Expropriation The Requisite of Public Use

EUSEBIO v. LUIS 603 SCRA 576 (2009) F. EQUAL PROTECTION

REPUBLIC v. MANGOTARA 624 SCRA 360 (2010)

The Congress may, by law, allow small-scale utilization of natural

BOCEA v. TEVES 661 SCRA 589 (2011) ARTICLE III, SECTION 3

Probable Cause, Defined Requirements for Search Warrant (Atty. Montejo)

Q. What are factors of validity of issuance of search warrants?

E. Express Waiver F. Search of Warehouse in Violation of Customs and

GAANAN v. IAC 145 SCA 112 (1986)

GUANZON v. DE VILLA 181 SCRA 623 (1990) 5. What May be Seized

C. Criminal Cases under Revised Penal Code

C. Waiver of Illegality of Arrest IN RE: SABIO 504 SCRA 704 (2006)

11. Privacy of Communications and Correspondence III. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

ARTICLE III, SECTION 3 ARTICLE III, SECTION 4

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the

Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling; Gago ka C. Content-Based Restrictions

In enunciating standard premised on a judicial balancing of the Balancing of Interest

1. Regulation of Political Campaign or Election Activity 2. Freedom of Assembly

3. Freedom of Association and the 4. Movie Censorship

GSIS v. KAPISANAN 510 SCRA 622 (2006) 5. Radio Broadcasting

(g) Freedom of Information VALMONTE v. BELMONTE 170 SCRA 256 (1989)

DLSU v. COURT OF APPEALS 541 SCRA 22 (2007) IV. FREEDOM OF RELIGION

Their petition to compel DLSU to accept them as enrollees was

MERCADO v. AMA 618 SCRA 218 (2010)

ESTRADA v. ESCRITOR 492 SCRA 1 (2006) 1. Operation of Sectarian Schools

A toll way is not an ordinary road. As a facility designed to

OFFICE OF ADMIN v. MACARINE 677 SCRA 1 (2012) - Michel Foucault, 1982

Macarine here requested authority to travel to Hongkong with

He admitted that due to the time constraint he left and

PEOPLE v. BOLANOS GR 10108 (1992) Reason for Article III, Section 12

FILOTEO v. SANDIGANBAYAN 263 SCRA 222 (1996) 3. Not Applicable to Statements in

VII. RIGHT TO BAIL When Right May be Invoked

ARTICLE III, SECTION 13 PEOPLE v. SANDIGANBAYAN 529 SCRA 764 (2007)

Bail, Defined The likelihood of escape on the part individual respondent is

PEOPLE v. GUEVARRA 570 SCRA 384 (2008) 6. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL

10. RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS BERNARDO v. PEOPLE GR 166980 (2007)

BAGADION v. GONSAL USE IMMUNITY v. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY

TAPUZ v. DEL ROSARIO 554 SCRA 768 (2008)

WRIT OF WRIT OF WRIT OF

*Enumeration not exclusive *Enumeration not exclusive *Enumeration not exclusive

Remember, one step leads to the other and

- Martin Luther King, Jr.

You might also like

Enumeration not exclusive Enumeration not exclusive *Enumeration not exclusive