2nd part bill of rights

8/18/2019 2nd Part Bill of Rights

1/18

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

© BASONG, CAVALIDA, CONFESOR, DEL ROSARIO, ESTILLORE

COPY OF : KRISTINE CONFESOR

Page 1 of 18 ~2016~

V. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

Article III Section 6.The liberty of abode and of changingthe same within the limits prescribed by law shall not beimpaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shallthe right to travel be impaired except in the interest ofnational security, public safety, or public health, as may be

provided by law.

*Abode– the place where you want live you have the right to live anywhere you want to within the

limits prescribed by law or by the courts ex: one is prohibited from living in a park or any public place Liberty of abode can only be regulated if it is upon lawful

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

to travel within the country and to depart the country butdoes NOT include the right to travel back from the outsidegoing into the country

MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS:Marcos was on his death bed when he expressed the dire to return tothe Philippines so that he could die in his own country. The president atthe time, Corazon Aquino, denied him the opportunity to return to thecountry. Considering the guarantee of the right to travel and the libertyof abode, may President Aquino ban the return of Mr. Marcos toPhilippines?

SC: The right to travel and the liberty of abode are different from theright to return to one’s country, as shown by the fact that theDeclaration of Human Rights and Covenant on Human Rights haveseparate guarantees for these. Hence, the right to return to one’scountry is not covered by the specific right to travel and liberty of abodedo not apply. (implicitly, the court says that the right to return, not beingspecifically guaranteed must be treated simply under the general rubric

of liberty.Article III, Section 6: the law regarding abode only includes the right totravel around the country and the right to depart from the country BUTnot the right to return.

The right to travel cannot be regulated except in the1. Interest of national security;2. Public safety; or3. Public health

SALONGA VS. HERMOSO:Salonga asked for a certification of eligibility to travel. The SupremeCourt ordered the travel processing centers (this was during the MartialLaw) not to cause any inconvenience or annoyance on the part of thepersons traveling abroad. This is precisely because the right to travel isconsidered a cherished right and is in fact part of the universaldeclaration of human rights.

SILVERIO VS. CA:(note: one’s right to travel takes a backseat if one has several criminalcases filed against oneself) Silverio was facing a criminal case, he wasout on bail, and he had ahold departure order . If there is ahold departure ordered against you, you cannot leave the country. Despite this order,Silverio was able to leave the country several times so the prosecutionwanted his passport to be cancelled because he went abroad withoutthe permission of the court.

SC: If you have a criminal case filed against you, you can only travelabroad if you file amotion for leave so that you can go abroad.Furthermore, it is part of the inherent power of the court to use allmeans necessary to carry their orders into effect in criminal casespending before them.

COJUANGCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN:Cojuangco was the president of San Miguel Corporation. He wanted tolift the ban on his foreign travel because he wanted to oversee thestages of the international operation of SMC.

SC: Cojuangco is allowed to go abroadonly if he asks for the permissionof the court. Cojuangco has been traveling back and forth and he hasalways come back and faced the court when asked by the court. He

was thus allowed to go out the country.YAP JR. VS. CA:

Petitioner contests the condition imposed by the Court of Appeals thathe secure “a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of hisresidence that he is a resident of the area and that he will remain to be aresident therein until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfershis residence, it must be with prior notice to the court.” Petitioner claimsthat it violates his liberty of abode and travel. Further, he claims that thehold departure order on him is enough.

SC: The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines beinginvoked by petitioner, are not absolute rights. It can be regulated bylawful order . The order of the CA in releasing petitioner on bailconstitutes such lawful order as contemplated by Art. III, Sec. 6. Thecondition imposed by the CA is simply consistent with the nature andfunction of a bail bond, which is to ensure that petitioner will makehimself available at all times whenever the Court requires his presence.

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

SC:A toll way is not an ordinary road. It is a facility designed to promotefast access and fast transportation. This is a valid regulatory measure based on safety. Furthermore, theright to travel does not involve the rightto choose any vehicle in traversing the toll way . The right refers to the rightto move from one place to another. Petitioners can traverse the toll wayany time as long as they sue a private or public four wheel vehicle.Petitioners are free to access the toll way but the mode by which theywish to travel the toll way can be subjected to the limitations of theregulation.The right to travel does not include the best transport nor themost convenient route.

REYES VS. CA:In this case, when you have ahold departure order and your case is

dismissed, what you should do is file a motion to file all departureorders with the court that issued the hold departure order .The courtissued the order so you have to lift it with the same court. In this case,the motion was filed with the department of justice so thevenue waswrong.

*YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL ABROAD IF:1. you state the urgency of why you need to travel abroad so the court

will look into the reasons why you need to travel abroad2. you have tostate the duration (how long your stay will be and when

are you coming back to the country)

VI) RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONSRights Of The Accused; Miranda Warning)

Article III, Section 12.(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of anoffense shall have the right to be informed of his right toremain silent and to have competent and independentcounsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannotafford the services of counsel, he must be provided withone. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and inthe presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or anyother means which vitiate the free will shall be used againsthim. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, orother similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of thisor Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidenceagainst him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions forviolations of this section as well as compensation to andrehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, andtheir families.

this section is otherwise known as the Miranda Warning from

the case of Miranda vs. Arizona


2/18




Page 2 of 18 ~2016~

Justice Cruz: more than half of the rights in the Bill of Rights are foundto give privileges to the accused because they would like to favor thedisadvantaged precisely because of the presumption of innocence.

Q: How does one know when to invoke one’s rights under Section12? There are three requisites:

1. The right attaches when the person isunder custody or

in jail or this person isdeprived of any freedom of action inany significant way.2. When the person is under investigation subject to

questioning or interrogation by the law enforcer3. The questioning must be in relation to a crime

if the questioning ceases to become a general inquiry andstarts to zoom in on crime and the officers are already tryingto get a confession, your right already attaches

Q: Why do we have Section 12? this is to prohibit the police from coercing confessions and to

prohibit a police dominated atmosphere where the policewould ask questions leading to the utterance of self-incriminating statements

guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by thestate as would lead the accused to admit something false,not to prevent him from freely and voluntarily telling the truth[People v. Ordono]

Q: When are you considered under investigation or under interrogation?PEOPLE VS. DIMAANO rights under Section 12 can beraisedwhen the investigating officers start to question and elicitinformation or a confession from the accused.

BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE RIGHTS OF PERSONSUNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS:

PEOPLE VS. HATTON:if it is a police lineup, you are not yet under custodial investigation orinterrogation. Here, you do not yet need counsel because you are notyet being questioned and there is no enforcement officer that is tryingto elicit a confession from you. A police lineup is only for the purpose ofidentification and not for investigation or interrogation.

PEOPLE VS. ESPEJO:the person here was being interviewed by a newspaper woman and heconfessed to her that he killed the victim. During the trial, the womanwas summoned as a witness and she testified that the accusedadmitted the murder to her. The Supreme Court said that the testimonyof the woman can be used against him because custodial investigationrefers to an investigation by the police and in this case, the confession wasmade to a private person.

PEOPLE VS. BOLAÑOS: he was arrested but before they actually reached the police station, hewas already asked by the police if he was the one that killed the victim.The issue here is whether or not he was already under custodialinvestigation when he was still on a vehicle going to the station? Yesbecause the investigating officer was already starting to question him inrelation to the crime.It does not matter where you are.

*RA NO. 7438: AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OFPERSONS ARRESTED, DETAINED OR FACING

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.

It outlines the duties of the police and the arresting officers as well asprovides penalties for violators. Here, it was stated that the right commences when the person is

arrested. Once he is arrested , he is given those rights (right toremain silent, right to independent counsel, the waiver of counselmust be in writing and with the assistance of counsel)

the Miranda rule is not applicable to confessions executed beforeJanuary 17, 1973 (the date when the 1973 constitution tookeffect).

o This is important because before the 1973 Constitution, there wasno mention of the right to remain silent, right to counsel, the right

to be given counsel if you cannot afford one AND the constitutionDOES NOT have a retroactive application.

*Evolution of consent

1935 Constitution: there was no definite provision of the Miranda rights.There was no right to remain silent and right to counsel.

1973 Constitution: although there was already the right to remain silentand the right to counsel, there was no specific requirement as to anywaiver because if you read the relevant section under the saidconstitution, there was no mention of any waiver there. How do we

know that the waiver is voluntarily made? There must be a meaningfultransmission of rights. The individual circumstances must beconsidered:1. Education2. Cultural Background3. Level of intelligence

2 c) CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION report shall be1. reduced to writing by the investigating officer,2. provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked

if the person arrested or detained does not know how toread and write, it shall be read and adequately explained tohim by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided bythe investigating officer

3. in the language or dialect known to such arrested ordetained person,

4. otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and voidand of no effect whatsoever.

2 d) EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION Any extrajudicial confession1. made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial

investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his

counsel orin the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, in the presence

of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, themunicipal mayor, the municipal judge, district school supervisor,or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise,such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence

in any proceeding.

HO WAI PANG VS. PEOPLE: There was a flight from Hong Kong to NAIA. The Chinese nationals inthis flight were searched by immigration and it was discovered that theywere carrying chocolate boxes but inside there wasshabu . They werequestioned by the NBI and asked to write statements. This wasquestioned because during their confession, they were not assisted bycounsel in violation of Section 12. The court said that they did notconfess to anything. They were caught in flagrante delicto so their rightsunder Section 12 were not violated because there was no need to confess tothe crime.

LUZ VS. PEOPLE: This was the motorcycle case. The driver was arrested and he wasinvited to the police station. The police found out that he was carryingshabu. In this case, the court said that he was not yet under arrest because he was being prosecuted for the violation of a municipalordinance. So since he was not under arrest,he could not avail of hisrights under Section 12.

PEOPLE VS. LARA:this involves a police lineup. In a police lineup, youare not entitled to a lawyer because it is merely for identification.

a) Miranda rule not applicable to confessions executed beforeJanuary 17, 1973

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

prisoner and when he was investigated, he confessed to the crime. Hequestioned his conviction because he claimed that he was not apprisedof his right to remain silent, to have effective counsel, etc.SC:since thiscase happened on November 18, 1971 which means that it happenedbefore January 17, 1973,the accused could not avail of his rights becausethe constitution does not have any retroactive effect.

FILOTEO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: Filoteo was the mastermind inhijacking a postal delivery van and he gave an extrajudicial confessionbut he then claimed that he was entitled to counsel, etc. The court saidthat he could not do this because the constitution does not have anyretroactive application. The lawyer of Filoteo argued that Article 22 ofthe RPC provides that penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofaras they favor a person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal.SC:a penal law is different from the constitution itself. It is not applicable.

SANTOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN:they were accused of some bankinganomalies and they were brought to the NBI. They confessed and


3/18


4/18




Page 4 of 18 ~2016~

In this case, there was a confession to the PAO attorney and SPO3Ydulzura. This confession, the burden of proving the voluntariness ofhis confession is on the prosecution.

g) What can be waived?1. Right to remain silent2. Right to counsel (but such shall be made in writing and in the

presence of counsel)What cannot be waived?

1) Right To Be Informed Of The Miranda Rights

You cannot say “Yah, I already know my rights” I can waive my right toremain silent and right to counsel but the police still says “Sir, you havethe right to remain silent, anything can and will be used against you in acourt of law”, and you say to the police “Hey, I’m a lawyer. I teach Consti2, I know Miranda rights. Miranda is my favorite word.” But this rightCANNOT be waived. The police is obliged to still give you your Mirandarights, even if you listen or not but the right to be given the Mirandawarnings cannot be waived.

h) Exclusionary RuleREAD EXCULSIONARY RULEHere, you have to remember like in the case of ANDAN, a rape caseinvolving a nursing student. She was raped and then killed and wasfound in a pigpen.What happened was, when he was confronted with the concrete blockwhich he used to hit the head of the woman, and he was shown thisconcrete block by the mayor, he voluntarily confessed his guilt withoutanyone actually asking him for a confession, again, this was done in aspontaneous manner so this could not be covered.Read Marcelo- in flagrante delicto

VII) RIGHT TO BAIL Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is

strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficientsureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired evenwhen the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus issuspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Q: What is bail? A:Sec. 1 of Rule 114THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURESection 1. Bail defined.— Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guaranteehis appearance before any court as required under the conditionshereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.

Bail is basically the money of the property that you give to the courtwhen you are facing a certain criminal case to insure that you will becoming back to court if and when required. Is a security, like if you havea hearing in the next few months, to be sure that you will come back forthe hearing, you post bail.

Bail is generally a matter of rightThere are many forms of bail, it could be in the form ofcash . Usually,when there is a case filed against you, and the fiscal issues a resolutionfinding probable cause, in the last part there is a bail recommendedbecause there is now what we call abail bond guide- a manual bookletfor prosecutors which gives the amounts of bail depending on the casefiled. So if it’s put there, 80 thousand you can place cash. If you don’t

have cash you can use a surety or insurance, you go to an accreditedinsurance, the insurance will be the one to pay the 80k but you just paya premium for that 80k, usually 10 %. The problem is you have to renewit every year and that 8k (10%) will not be given back to you. Whereas ifcash, when later on you were found not guilty, the entire 80k will begiven back to you.

It could also bereal property, show a Torrens transfer certificate of titlethat you own a certain land, you have it assessed by the Clerk of Courtand they will assess how much the property is and you can use thatproperty as a bail. ONLY REAL PROPERTY because one client said thatshe had an engagement ring and asked if she may use it as bond, NO.You can only use real property not personal property.

Finally, you can go out on bail onrecognizance (Sec 15). Recognizanceis when you’re facing a case and you are released to a prominentperson in society. He will be the one to take charge and say that “duringthe next hearing, I will make surethat he will come to court”, so you

have to be a prominent person in society of known probity and integrity.Recognizance however is available only for minor offenses, not major.

Who decides what bail he should use?It’s the accused. The court may say “cash lang, bawal ang property”, no,it’s the accused’s choice.

The constitutional right to bail is again available to criminal cases theright is not available in the military.

1) When right may be invoked?

PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYANThis involves Erap and Jinggoy. They were investigated by theombudsman and were later on tried before the Sandiganbayan. To betried before the Sandiganbayan, your salary grade must be 27 andabove and the crime must be committed in relation to your office. Here,Jinggoy was facing a plunder charge (RA 7080) so he wanted to go outon bail, which was opposed. Now, if you’re facing a capital offense it’sstated in Sec 13 “except those charged with offenses punishable byreclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong”, you have a case forrape or violation of the dangerous drugs act- you are found with 1kilo ofshabu, can you go out on bail?

You can file a motion for a bail hearing and you have to show to thecourt that the evidence of guilt isnot strong. If evidence of guilt is notstrong, you can be granted bail, if strong no bail. That’s why if you lookat Sec 13 “charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua whenevidence of guilt is strong”, if it’s not strong you can still avail of the rightto bail.

SC:Jinggoy was not really a flight risk. Everytime he was asked to go tocourt, he would come to court and he was just elected as senator, thecourt said that it would be highly improbable that her would forfeit hisseat in senate and go abroad and become a fugitive from justice. So hewas granted bail because of the social standing and the possibility of

escape of Jinggoy Estrada.VALERO V. CAMilagros was accused of killing her husband, although she did notactually kill him, she was the mastermind, because the man whoactually killed him confessed. Therefore she was a principal byinducement, she applied for bail but the court said, “No, evidenceagainst you is strong. The person who killed your husband said you arethe master mind so you should not be grantedbail”.

TRILLANES VS PIMENTELOakwood mutiny. Evidence of guilt was strong, they could not avail ofthe right to bail]

QUI v PEOPLEChild abuse case, she was convicted in the RTC and pending appealbefore the CA, she filed an application for bail, what did the court say?You were already convicted, all the more we will not give you your rightto bail. The right to bail is a right enshrined in the bill of rights, the courtshould exercise grave caution because you were already convicted ofcourse you will already be a flight risk.

2) When is bail a matter or right, when is it a matter or discretion,and when is it not allowed?

Bail is a matter of right before and after conviction by the municipal trial court before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RT or

less or 12yrs &1 day– 20yrs before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RP ordeath when evidence of guilt is NOT strong.

Bail as a matter of discretion if after conviction of offense punishable by imprisonment of

6yrs and 1 day – 20 yrs or PC – RT if none of the ffcircumstances are not present:

Admin Circular 12-94: If the accused is a recidivist , quasi recidivist, or a habitual

delinquent; If the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal

confinement or evaded sentence; If the accused committed the offense while on probation or

parole or pardon; That the circumstance of the accused has the ability of flight/

flight risk;


5/18




Page 5 of 18 ~2016~

When there is a due risk that during the pendency of theappeal, the accused may commit another crime

so if the prosecution is able to prove this and the offense is punishableby penalty of 6yrs and 1 day– 20 yrs, bail is a matter of discretion.

Bail not allowed if after final judgment by the court- there is already finality, the

case is already finished before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RPwhen evidence of guilt is strong;

after conviction by offenses punishable by RP, death or lifeimprisonment WHEN THE CASE IS ON APPEAL (Qui v PP)

after conviction for an offense punishable by 6yrs and 1 day- 20yrs and circumstances under Admin Circ 12-94 are present

3) Bail in military courts

COMENDADOR VS DE VILLA AND ASWAT VS GALIDOIn both cases, they were members of the military and subject to courtmartial because they violated certain articles of war, the SC is clear:Bail is not available in military courts.

Remember: It is the prosecution that has the burden to prove or presentevidence that bail should be denied. Now in ordinary cases if the penaltyis RP or higher, the prosecution has the burden to prove that evidenceof guilt is STRONG. If it is a matter or discretion, it is the prosecution’sburden to prove is that the accused suffers from those mentioned inAdmin Circ 12-94.

Now, if it’s a matter of righ t (ex. Before conviction by the MTC), theprosecution has the burden to prove THE AMOUNT OF BAIL.

4) Standards in fixing bail

VILLASEÑOR v ABANO

He was facing a murder case and he was admitted on bail for 60,000pesos, now his original bond was reduced to 40k but because he wasnot able to attend, it was cancelled and of course if your bail iscancelled you have to file for a MR to reinstate the bail bond. Now inreinstating, the judge said that they question the amount of the bail,what is the criteria or basis for fixing bail? In this case, the courtmentioned certainguidelines in fixing bail such as:

1. the ability of the accused to give bail2. nature of the offense3. penalty for the offense charged4. character of the accused5. health of the accused6. character and strength of evidence7. probability of the accused to appear in trial8. forfeiture of other bonds9. whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when

arrested10. if the accused is under bond for appearance at trial inother

cases.With regard for standard of fixing bail, just look at the case of VILLASEÑOR V ABANO

DE LA CAMARA VS ENAGEIn this case, he was the municipal mayor of Magsaysay and he wasfacing multiple murder charges (14) he was given bail but his amount ofbail was 1,195,200.00.SC: he was basically charged with2 offenses, the amount of bail of1,195,200.00 when evidence of guilt is not strong is excessive and too

much the last sentence of Sec 13 specifically states that “ Excessive bailshall not be required”

YAP JR. VS CAHe was facing an estafa case for 5.5 million his bail bond was also 5.5million.SC: the amount of 5.5 million is unreasonable, excessive andconstitutes an effective denial of the petitioner’s right to bail. Why?Because you have the right to bail but because the amount of bail is toomuch and you cannot afford it, it will render nugatory your right in the1st place. These issues are laid to rest because we now have a bailbond guide for prosecutors, for you to know the amount of bail for aspecific case.

5) Right to bail and right to travel abroadRemember that the right to travel can be impaired if you are out on bail.

MANOTOK VS COURT OF APPEALSSC: the court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail fromleaving the Philippines because this is a necessary consequence of thenature and function of a bail bond. Why? If the accused were allowed toleave the Philippines, he may be placed beyond the reach of the courts.That’s why because the court has the inherent power and because ofthe condition of the bail bond, that you have to be there if and when

required by the courtSANTIAGO VS VASQUEZCase of Madam Miriam because of a graft and corrupt practices casewhen she was the chairman of the BIR, she allowed certain Indians tocome in. Now, she wanted to study in Harvard and had to leave for theUS, court said that she will not be allowed since she was out on bail.Court said that since she was amenable to the conditions of the bailbond, we can prohibit your right to travel abroad.

6) Waiver of the right to bail

PEOPLE VS DONATODonato was facing a rebellion charge, now when the penalty was higher,the penalty for rebellion was PM, 6 yrs and 1 day- 12 yrs.If its PM, bail isa matter of right,what happened here was he was granted bail but theother side said he has been evading the police for 13 years it was onlynow that they were able to capture him. His address was unknown, hehas been using certain aliases, he has been giving a false address andhe even has a reward for his arrest of 250,00.00, we should not grantbail.

SC: Since bail is a matter of right and he was not facing a capitaloffense, despite all those circumstances the prosecution has presented,he is allowed to go out on bail because bail is a matter of right. Withregard to the waiver of bail, in this case Salas was the one principallycharged with rebellion. Salas said “ let my girlfriend go out and I will stayin jail so have my companion released” so they released her. After

releasing her, Salas said, that he will exercise his right to bail.SC: The right to bail is a personal right and since you waived it inexchange for you companion being freed, you do not have the right tobail anymore, why? Because you have already waived such right.Therefore, you can waive your right to bail being a purely personal right.

VIII) RIGHTS DURIAL TRIAL

Section 14.(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offensewithout due process of law.(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shallenjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to beinformed of the nature and cause of the accusation againsthim, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet thewitnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process tosecure the attendance of witnesses and theProduction of evidence in his behalf.

However, after arraignment, trial may proceednotwithstanding the absence of the accused provided thathe has been duly notified and his failure to appear isunjustifiable.

If you look at section 14 of the trial rights of the accused, he has tenrights there. What are these rights?

1. right to due process2. right to presumption of innocence3. right to be heard4. right to counsel,5. right to be informed,6. right to a speedy trial,7. right to have an impartial trial,8. right to a public trial,9. right to meet the witnesses face to face10. right to a compulsory process.

Atty Dela Banda’s notes1) Right to due process, again we already encountered the term due

process when we discussed section 1. This right of the accusedunder due process is the biggest right among all of the ten rights.According to Justice Cruz, it is by reason that the right to dueprocess mentioned here, only refers to procedural due process,


6/18




Page 6 of 18 ~2016~

substantive due process is not included. The procedure laid downby law in trying an accused that has been charged of a crime.

Q: What are the four elements of due process that are applicable tocriminal cases.

PEOPLE V. TONGIO,

Marcos here issued a General Order directing that if there are anycrimes against tourist, the case must be tried and finished within 24days. so Tongio here was charged for kidnapping Vietnamese tourist.Let’s say on May 12 they were arrested; May 15, they were charged;May 19, they were arraigned; May 20, the prosecution presentedwitnesses; may 21, the defendants presented their witnesses; May 25,they was judgment and all of them were sentenced to death. This waschallenged saying that paspasa ba ani. However the court said here,there was no violation of due process maskin paspas kayo. Why?Because again the four elements of due process: TJOL

1) the tribunal is clothed by judicial power who hear and decidethe case;

2) jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person of the accusedand over the offense;

3) the accused was given a opportunity to be heard; and4) Judgment rendered upon a lawful hearing.

As long as all the elements are present, there was no violation. Takenote the four elements in the due process of section 14. Anyway, thepurpose there was to boost tourism diba you will not commit crimeagainst tourist if you knowna ingana ka paspas ang trial.

PAGASIAN V. AZURA. The case was against Domo Pagasian was a witness. The case was fortheft. It appears that the cause for the report by the police because itwas testified that it was actually Pagasian. He was not the accused ha,he was the witness but later on convicted by the judge. Si Domo angkaso nga theft against him was acquitted, so this was challenged. Whatdid the court say? It was a violation of the due process. Why? The Brgy.

Captain was not even informed of the court the charged against him. Infact, I think, he was not even the accused. He had no idea that he wason trial. He did not presented any evidence on his behalf on violation ofrequirements under due process of Sec. 14.

PAGULIAN V. SECRETARY OF COMMISSION. Pagulian here was acivilian but he was tried by a Military Tribunal because it was duringMartial Law. So civilian under Military Tribunal. Pagulian went to the SCassailing the validity of his conviction.SC: the due process in sec. 14 is trial by judicial process and not byexecutive or military process. Therefore, there was a violation of due process. Even during Martial Law, all cases should be tried under civiliancourts. Pending cases involving civilians in a military tribunal should betransferred to civilian courts when the national emergency alreadyceases.

2) Right to Presumption of Innocence. This is found in section 14.You are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Have you alreadydiscussed Demurrer to Evidence? Wala pa.Demurer to Evidence isbasically a motion which bind if the prosecution unable toestablish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. So there is aninsufficiency of evidence. Precisely you file that motion becauseyou say: “ Ay, I am presumed innocent until proven guilty and you havenot proven my guilt beyond reasonable doubt so I don’t need to present my evidence, I’ll have the court dismiss it base on yourevidence laid down of the prosecution.” That is allowed, that is underthe Revised Rules of Court. So you are presumed innocent untilproven guilty, however there are certainexceptions:

Article 217 of RPC

, diba if the failure of the officer to producemoney in his charge, is a prima facie evidence of malversation.Presumed innocent ka, however if public officer ka then inchargeka sa money, and it is not accounted for, it is a prima facieevidence of malversation already; orviolation of Anti-Fencing law,diba kanang kinawat kawaton. Possession of stolen property, inthe absence of adequate explanation, you are already presumed tobe the author of the crime of the stolen and yet there is apresumption of innocence. So there are certain exceptions.

Does it violate the constitution? Well there is a logical connectionbetween the fact issue and the fact proof and at the same time, allthese presumptions are still rebuttable. They can still be overcomeby evidence.

3) Right to be heard, this means basically the right to presentevidence on one’s behalf. The right to testify on one’s favor, the

right to call witnesses, the right to be given reasonable opportunityto present witnesses.

4) Right to counsel Right to counsel. This means the right to counselduring trial. You are entitled to under sec.14,effectiverepresentation when you are facing a criminal case. The court isduty bound to inform the accused that he has the right to counsel

before he is arraigned. So you know what arraignment is. Now thecourt must ask the accused in accordance with sec. 14 of his trialrights “oh Mr. Accused, do you wish to secure the services of a privatecounsel?” If the accused says “yes”, he must be given time tosecure the services of counsel. What if he cannot afford one diba,the court must decide a counsel de officio for him. And thecounselde officio must assist the accused. So at all times, the accused hasthe right to effective representation under sec. 14. However, theaccused can waive this right. The accused may represent himselfin fact in any litigation.

PEOPLE V. ONDADO.In this case the judge asked the accused “Do you have an Attorney andare you going to plead guilty?” against the accused. The accused says Ihave no lawyer but I will plead guilty. He was arraigned and later onsentenced. What did the SC say? The judge did not follow guidelinesmentioned. The right of the accused to counsel was violated because therewas no fair hearing, not given an opportunity to be heard by a counsel. Sothere was a violation because he did not have counsel.

DELGADO V. CA. In this case, woman charged with estafa but represented by a lawyer.Her lawyer failed to appear despite to prior notice. She was convicted. Theproblem here was ang iyang lawyer I think si Atty. Icko was not really amember of the Bar. Fake nga lawyer. So she said, “Why am I beingconvicted when my lawyer is not really a lawyer. Is that a violation ofyour right to counsel under sec. 14? SC said yesthat’s a violation.

The accused can demand a new trial at the same time, the reason for this is

there is a big danger when a fake lawyer will not be able to present andadequate defense in behalf of the accused . In this case also, the right ofcounsel may be raised by the accused or the prosecution. Because ifyou look at it, the government will look stupid if they will raise this issueupon discovery that they will be defeated by a fake lawyer. Ulaw pud saprosecution mapildi ka sa fake nga lawyer. Pati ang constitutionmuingon nga oy violation na, mag new trial ta diba because you aredefeated by a fake lawyer.

5) The Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation. Theaccused has the right to be informed the nature of the chargeagainst him. That is the very purpose of arraignment . Theinformation charged the accused of the crime must be stated withprecision what the accused actually did. There must be a specificallegation of the fact and circumstance necessary for the crimecharged. The information has to be read to the accused but not just read. Read in English or in a dialect the accused knows andunderstand. The purpose of this right is precisely to enable theaccused to defend himself and enable him to avail of the protectionagainst double jeopardy if prosecuted or charge against second timearound for the same offense.

6) Right to Speedy Trial. The Right to a speedy trial according to onecase does not include the lees appeals. So speedy trial didto langsa court of origin.If you’re on appeal, you cannot use sec. 14, right tospeedy trial because in the first place that does not already a trial, it’salready an appeal. Now, there is no really mathematical formula tocompute how long really is. Meaning when can you invoke yourright to speedy trial if the case has been dragging on for four years,

five years or so. I think the only guideline put here in the SCis thatas long as it is not a vexatious and capricious, delay is allowed. Itdepends really on the attendant circumstances.

Example, the accused here was charged of statutory rape, thecase was scheduled for hearing, but the prosecutor was absent.So just because the prosecutor was absent, judge dismissed thecase. What did the court say, by disposing the criminal case basedon the right of the accused to a speedy trial, the court shouldcarefully weigh the circumstances attending each case. Theyshould balance the right of the accused and the state who punishwho violates penal laws. The prosecutor cannot be faulted for hisfailure to attend the hearing because on said date in good faith, hebelieved that that date was a Muslim legal holiday when it wasreally not. The judge should not dismiss it automatically. Soinusing your right your right to speedy trial, you really have to look at thecircumstances whether it is good faith and the reason really for thedelay and at the same time the invocation of the accused of such right


7/18




Page 7 of 18 ~2016~

because this right is also waivable. If the case is already dragging incourt for 20 years but the accused already saying that ah I havethe right to a speedy trial, the accused will drag because his rightcan also be waived, so it has to be invoked by the accused. So wehave to look at

1. the extent of the delay, and2. the reason for the delay and of course

3.

the invocation of the accused of this right under speedytrial

Of course there isSPEEDY TRIAL ACT now, there is Republic Act.In real practice now, let’s say, the complainant does not go tocourt, so the prosecution does not have evidence against theaccused, precisely the complainant can no longer be found. Thecourt usually set this to three to four consecutive meetings . Afterthree to four consecutive meetings, if the private complainant failsto appear, that is the time that you will invoke the right of theaccused of the speedy trial and the case will be dismissed.

7) Right to an Impartial Tribunal.Meaning the right to have animpartial judge. The impartiality must not only be in reality but alsoeven in appearance. In Legal Ethics, Diba the judge, there must bea bold neutrality of an impartial judge. A judge should be likeCaezar’s wife, irreproachable. So meaning, dapat he must be fairand he must be impartial and hue must only fair and impartial inreality, he must be seen as fair and impartial even in appearanceokay. That is the requirement under sec.14. Now cases. There wasa case I had last week in Manila. There was this judge, he was aprivate practitioner then I think the case is for annulment. When hewas still a private practitioner, his client was Mr. A now when hewas the judge, an annulment case filed by the wife of Mr. A, sowhen the judge said “Is your husband Mr. A? Yes . Ah he was myclient before when I was still a private practitioner, so I think wouldhave to inhibit because that would violate your right to an impartialtrial.” Diba, because he is no longer impartial because there isalready a conflict of interest.

MATTEO V. VILLALUZ.I think the accused here were charged for the offense of robbery in bandwith homicide.Robbery in band so daghan sila with homicide. In themeantime, another suspect in another case, Reyes was arrested. Reyesexecuted a extrajudicial confession that he signed and swore before acertain judge Villaluz. So he confessed before judge Villaluz that thepetitioners actually committed the crime of robbery with homicide. Sowhat happened then? It proceed in the sala of judge Villaluz. Later on herepudiated his statement. Okay ning atras siya. I was really forced tosign the confession because I was threatened with violence by certainpolice. So with that, I am repudiating my previous statement andconfession. With that repudiation, petitioner said “You bring thatdeclaration before the judge. Judge you’re supposed to disqualifyyourself because how can you try this case impartially when youalready know the facts and circumstances as mentioned by theconfession of Reyes against us. Judge said no, I will not disqualifymyself. What did the court say? The petitioners are entitled to the reliefsought for. Respondent judge could not totally immune to whatapparently was asserting before him in such extrajudicial statement. Itwas unlikely that he was not in a slightest bit offended. Oh diba he wasoffended. Why did you repudiate your statement, I did not force you. Hissense of fairness could be easily be blunted because he who attested tothe execution of the statement it cannot be doubted that respondentruled that such extrajudicial statement was executed freely. So that wasin violation of their right to an impartial trial, because the judge alreadyapproved of what has happened. Precisely the Reyes confessed beforehim. So he was supposed to inhibit himself because it was violation ofthe right of the accused to an impartial trial.

8) Right to a Public Trial. Publicity of the trial is necessary to preventthe abuses that may be committed by the court to the prejudice ofthe defendant. Now you have a right to a public trial. Therequirement here in public trial is that as long as the court’s doorsare open to the public, that already suffices the requirement of apublic trial. However, there are instances when the judge canexclude the public from the court room. Especially if there aresensitive cases involving rape or child abuse. So this right againbelongs to the accused and this is cannot be waived. So the judgehere can exclude the public if it is a sensitive case. Like, I was nothere on Wednesday because I have a trial in QC,very funny- rapecase. (rape isn’t funny)

What happened, on the witness stand, very luoy ba because gradeone or grade two lang ang nahuman sa victim. Murag Ilocano manto siya or Ilonggo so she was not good in English. So kindly statewhat happened. Te gidala ko sa sagbutan, okay then the

interpreter would interpret- she was brought in the grassy area.When she started to depict the scene, there were children in thecourt, so the judge said, op because she was about to tell how shewas abused, use a metaphor nalang. Intawon, ning ingon siya ugte gi “metaphor ” ako kaduha. It was really sensitive that the judgesaid, op do not use the literal words, use metaphor. Anyway, rightto a public trial. Hehehehehe #metaphor

9) Right to meet witnesses with a right to confrontation. The right toconfrontation intends to secure the accused the right to be tried sofar as the facts (inaudible) by the witnesses concerned. It wasintended to prevent conviction of the accused upon anex parteaffidavit. Meaning, if you were the accused, you have the right tomeet the witnesses against you. Makita gyud nimo bisan pag nagtestify against you. Why? Because:

a) So that you could cross examine the witnesses who saidthat you allegedly commit the crime and at the same time

b) so that the judge could examine the demeanor of thewitness whether he or she is telling the truth.

10) Right to Compulsory process.This refers to the subpoena . Aperson accused can obtain subpoena from the court in order tocompel the attendance of the witnesses in his behalf . However, youhave to remember but you will learn this later on, if the personresides more than 100 km from the place of the trial, he wasnotbound by the subpoena. But this rule only applies tocivil cases and not to criminal cases. If it is criminal case, crime committed inDavao, even if you are from Manila, element of territoriality, crimeis here and tried here in the courts of Davao then the witness is inManila, can you get the witness? Yes, is it more than 100 km? Ithink yes, but this is a criminal case. Comparing it to a civil case, ifyour witness is in Manila and the civil case is in Davao, even if youare able to get the subpoena from the court, the witness cannot becompelled because it is beyond 100 km. And in the Bar it cameout, it was called theVIATORY RIGHT.

It is the an instance where the witness can refuse to follow

the subpoena because either previously, he already went tothe trial, but the expenses were not paid or precisely becausehe resides more than 100 km from the place of the trial.

So basically those are the ten Rights of the Accused under sec. 14. Nowthe last sentence under sec. 14 refers to TRIAL IN ABSENTIA,Trial in Absentia, if you’ll try to read the last sentence of sec. 14, can trialproceed even if the accused is not present? That is the last sentence.However after arraignment, trial may proceed not withstanding to theabsence of the accused provided that he has duly been notified and hisfailure to appear is unjustifiable.

THREE REQUIREMENTS a) the accused has previously been arraigned ;b) he was notified of the proceedings. Meaning as long as notices

were sent to his last known address that is already sufficient;and

c) His failure to appear isunjustified .

Exceptions: 1) Arraignment. At all times, the accused must be present

during arraignment. Why? He is the one who will be arraignedpersonally;

2) During theidentification stage at the trial, the one you see inmovies “who committed the crime, is he in court can youpoint him” kana mao na so that’s the other time when theaccused is required to be present; and

3) During promulgation ofjudgment. If there is judgment theaccused has to be there. Why? If he is not there, he loses all

his remedies under the Rules of Court to appeal of unsa panaatuang mga rights diha noh that we will learn under criminalprocedure. So those are three exceptions: Arraignment,Identification and Judgment.

GIMENEZ V. NAZARENO. Case against A, B and C, trial continued. While trial was going on C wasable to escape but the trial continued with regard to A and B kay naka-escape man si C. On judgment, A and B were found guilty but the judgesaid okay A and B you are guilty but for C, I will hold his sentencebecause he has rights under sec. 14 diba. You have the right to counsel,you have the right to present evidence on your favor, so I will withholdmy judgment as against C. A and B challenged that. SC said the judgeshould also convict C. Why? Because trial in absentia can already set inA, B and C had already been arraigned, notices were sent to A, B and Cat their last known address, he was able to escape therefore his failureto appear is not justified therefore, trial can still proceed despite the


8/18




Page 8 of 18 ~2016~

absence of C and he should be still convicted based on the evidencepresented.

IX) PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION SECTION 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witnessagainst himself.

This is based onpublic policy and humanity.

1. Public policy. If you place the accused in a situation where hecould not invoke the privilege you will be under thestrongtemptation to commit perjury . If you remove sec. 17 and theaccused is on the witness stand or a witness is there “did youcommit the crime?” and you do not have the right under sec.17 the accused will just say “No I did not” and he will commitperjury, he will lie that’s why sec. 17 was put.

2. Humanity, precisely to extort the confession of the accusedvia any form of duress or violence diba. That is why sec. 17was included. You cannot be compelled to be a witnessagainst yourself. Now the scope of this right, remember this,only covers testimonial incrimination. Sec. 17 is onlyapplicable to compulsory oral examination. It is notapplicable to purely mechanical acts. What do you mean bythis? If there is no word uttered, then the privilege does notapplied even if there is some compulsion.

VILLAFLOR V. SUMMER. The accused committed adultery. Now during trial, the judge orderedthe woman to undergo an examination to see if she was pregnant bythe other man. The woman said “Oy if I am found pregnant by anotherman that would mean that I committed adultery. You know the crime ofadultery diba. Diba if you look at the facts, if ma-positive ko na I ampregnant with another man then I committed adultery so I will becomea witness against myself and under sec. 17, I cannot be compelled to be

a witness against myself. So she objected. What did the SC say? It isnot a violation of your right because again sec. 17, only coverstestimonial or compulsory oral examination or this has even evolvedover the years. If one uses his intelligence or imagination he cannot becompelled to such act. But if yous say,purely mechanical act withoutusing anymore your intelligence or your imagination, you can be compelledby the court.

Examples:1) Accused was prosecuted for (inaudible) then when he ran, he

left his shoe parang Cinderella lang. On trial, he was asked toput on the shoe. So kay perfect match man gyud nah. So theaccused said “I will not wear the shoe, I will be a witnessagainst himself.” What did the court say? That is purelymechanical act. You do not use your intelligence orimagination to put your feet on the shoe. Therefore you canbe compelled to wear the shoe.

2) Re-enactment of a crime. The accused is asked “could youremember how you killed this person? “ You are using yourintelligence and imagination, so youcannot do that.

BELTRAN V. SAMSON. In this case, falsification. Falsified ang mga signatures and writing.What did the judge say “accused can you write on a piece of paper aspecimen of your handwriting?” he said “Why?” “Because I will compareyour handwriting with the falsified writing in evidence. Accused said“That’s a violation of my right against self incrimination. Handwriting isthat a purely mechanical act or do you use your intelligence andimagination when you are handwriting? The court said. That is aviolation of right against self incrimination. Why?If magsulat kamechanical ba diay nah, you think about your writing baya diba, so you useyour intelligence, your imagination. Use can use your right under sec. 17.

Now coverage of this right, if you look at it, the privilege against selfincrimination extends to criminal but also to civil and administrativecases. However, the difference there is: IN CRIMINAL CASES, THEACCUSED CAN ALTOGETHER REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND.Case: People v. A. A can altogether say “I will not take the witnessstand” so the prosecution on trial say, “A please go to the witnessstand” he can say that “That will violate my right against selfincrimination.” Some authors call that a “Prohibition of Inquiry” kanagthe accused can refuse to take the witness stand. However, with regardto civil cases, and administrative cases, you cannot refuse to take thewitness stand but you only have the option to refuse to answer if andwhen the question becomes self incriminating.

When does it become incriminating? When it tends to establish anyguilt against you, that is when you can say that the question isincriminating. So forcriminal cases, you can refuse to take the witness stand.

In Civil and administrative cases refuse to answer only when thequestion is incriminating. That is when you can invoke your right. This is

applicable to all kinds and types of proceeding.PEOPLE V. CODILLA.Accused here charged of rape. When he was on the witness stand, hewas asked to address himself before the public and not in the privateroom. According to the complainant when she was raped, she struggleagainst the man and there are scratches and bruises against him. Sothe court said, okay you undress I will see if there are bite marks orscratches. Accused said “No if I will undress and if you will see bitemarks and scratches, I will be becoming a witness against myself.Canhe be asked to remove his clothes? Again, go to the guidelines. Removingof clothes, is that a purely mechanical act or does that involveintelligence or imagination. Court said, you can be forced to removeyour clothes. That isnot a violation of your right.

Paraffin Test. Diba to know if ikaw ang nagbaril, naa man nay mgacertain chemicals that the police used. Can they force you to go to aparaffin test to see if you were actually the one who use the handgun?Yes. Because they are not subjecting you to use your intelligence orimagination. That isa purely mechanical act.

CHAVEZ V. CA.Accused here was charged with theft of a motorcycle. The prosecutioncalled the accused to the witness stand. The judge said okay you cantake the witness stand and you can only refuse to answer if and whenthe question become incriminating. The accused questioned that. SCsaid, the accused can altogether refuse to take the witness standbecause that will be a violation of his right against self incrimination.

USE IMMUNITY V. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY 1. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY, this is the type of immunity

granted when if the person is compelled to testify is now(inaudible)to any liability or the acts under investigation. So ifwe say transactional immunity, just take note, it is animmunity granted wherein a person who is compelled totestify, diba you cannot be compelled to testify againstyourself but if you are granted with immunity, it depends onthe type of immunity. In transactional immunity, the person isnow compelled to testify but he is free from any and allliability for acts under investigation.This is granted by theperson whose testimony is necessary and he is now immunefrom criminal prosecution for any offense.

Examples for this are:a) the Social Justice in Human Rights. The Commission on

human Rights can grant immunity.b) An Act declaring forfeiture in favor of the state.c) The anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

2. USE AND PROOF IMMUNITY is the type of immunity where aperson is forced to testify and answer intimidating questionsbut those answers cannot be used against him, only what hesaid but pwede ang other evidence can still be used againsthim. That is use and proof immunity. However,he is not freealtogether from the liability if there are other evidences notbased on his testimony. Meaning for use and proof immunity,

only his testimony, diba he was compelled to testify, what hetestified cannot be used against him but others pwede.

Example: A, B, C and D are accused and D is the state witness, if D isgranted use and proof immunity. This testimony cannot beused in any matter with the criminal prosecution in thatparticular case and this testimony cannot be used to convicthim but this does not mean that he cannot be convictedbecause it is only his testimony that cannot be used, otherevidences can still be used against him. So broader gyud angtransactional immunity, ang use immunity kadtong what yousaid, what you testified mao ra to ang dili pwede magamit.Okay!


9/18




Page 9 of 18 ~2016~

Review on Privilege against Self-Incrimination: It only applies tocompulsory testimonial self-incrimination and does not include purelymechanical acts

X) RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy

disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial,or administrative bodies.

This is not a repetition of right to speedy trial under Sec. 14. One of the10 trial rights of the accused includes the right to a speedy trial. Why isit reflected again in Sec. 16?

If you look at it,Sec. 16 is broader than the right to speedy trial. Why? Itis because Sec. 14 only refers to cases during trial stage. Whereas,section 16 on the right to speedy disposition of cases does not onlyapply to criminal cases. It even applies to judicial, quasi-judicial, oradministrative bodies. The right to speedy disposition of cases, is notonly available during trial, but in any stage or in all phases of theproceedings. So this provision is broader. That’s why you also have pertinent constitutional provisions concerning the right to speedydisposition of cases that are not only found in the Bill of Rights, butthroughout the Constitution. Example given, the ff provisions:

Art. 8 SECTION 15.1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution

must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months fromdate of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reducedby the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiatecourts, and three months for all other lower courts.

2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision orresolution upon the filing of the last pending, brief, ormemorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the courtitself.

3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to

this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shallforthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record ofthe case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certificationshall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered orissued within said period.

4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, thecourt, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have beenincurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the caseor matter submitted thereto for determination, without furtherdelay.

Art. 7, SECTION 18, PAR. 3The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by anycitizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial lawor the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, andmust promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

Also, the Constitutional Commissions have their respective mandatorydeadline. So if you look at it, in the cases before the

SUPREME COURT 24 mos LOWER COLLEGIATE

COURTS12 mos

LOWER COURTS 3 mos from the time they aresubmitted for decision

Again, delays are allowed because of certain reasons. You have to knowhow long the delay is, or the reason, malay mo nagkasakit yung judge;or the invocation of the accused, ‘diba, this right is waivable. If theaccused does not invoke his right, it is deemed waive. And the prejudicecaused by the delay of the case. Just take note of the mandatoryperiods.

These periods are mandatory for the judges; but for the judges, it ismerely directory.Meaning, if nilampas let’s say, for 12 months. IS thedecision no longer valid? The decisions are still valid even if renderedoutside of the periods. SC said that speedy disposition is characterizedas one which is free from vexatious, oppressive, or inordinate delays.

DIMARUCUT V. PEOPLE Criminal case convicting him of frustrated homicide. He asked for timeto file brief. Wala nakafile ug brief. When you’re on appeal, the higher

court will ask you to make of an appellant’s brief. It’s actually asummary of all your arguments in support of your petition. In this case,he asked for several extensions of time to file brief citing severalreasons, syempre nadugay. In this case, I think it’s more on the gross

negligence of counsel. In this case, the party blame his lawyer for theloss of the case. HELD:To constitute negligence as a violation of yourright, it must not be mere simple negligence, but gross negligence onpart of the counsel. For a claim of counsel’s gross negligence toprosper, nothing short of clear abandonment of the clients cause mustbe shown. Here, petitioners counsel failed to file the appellants brief.While this omission can plausibly qualify as simple negligence, it does

not amount to gross negligence to justify the annulment of theproceeding below.

ANGELES V. SEMPIO-DIY Case of two judges. Here, It is the stance of the complainant that JudgeSempio Diy merely sat on the cases for an unreasonable length of timeand failed to resolve them within the constitutionally prescribed 90-dayperiod thereby violating the right to speedy disposition of cases.HELD:There was a clear violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases.But again, according to Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of JudicialConduct, really admonishes all judges to dispose of the court'sbusiness promptly and decide cases within the period specified underthe Constitution. IF you are not able to decide the case within themandatory periods, you will be subject to disciplinary proceedings. Butin most jurisprudence that I’ve read, usually they’re just admonished,not really terminated from service. In this case, respondent JudgeSempio Diy was ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in observing thereglementary period for disposing of motions.

RAYMUNDO V. ANDOY Here, this is a BP 22 case, a hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration.Here, it was always delayed and reset to further dates. Here, theproblem was, BP 22 falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure---What do you mean by that? Summary? Diba with dispatch, fast. Andbecause it was delayed for so long, it went against the nature of theproceeding which is supposed to be fast, and yet, because of thedelays, the judge was not able to sign it within the 30-day reglamentaryperiod after the last pleading was filed.HELD:The Constitution

mandates that all cases or matters filed before alllower courts shall bedecided or resolved within 90 days from the time the case is submittedfor decision. Judges are enjoined to dispose of the courts businesspromptly and expeditiously and to decide cases within the period fixedby law. Failure to comply with the mandated period constitutes aserious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedydisposition of their cases a lapse that undermines the people’s faith andconfidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it todisrepute. This constitutional policy is reiterated in Rule 3.05, Canon 3of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires a judge to dispose of thecourts business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

XI) . SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

A. What acts cannot be criminalized?1. Mere beliefs and aspirations (Sec. 18, p.1)2. Debts and Civil Obligations (Sec. 20)3. Acts which when done were innocent (Ex-post Facto Laws;

Sec. 22)

SECTION 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by

reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

This is included in freedom of thought similar to Freedom of Religion.Freedom to believe is absolute, but freedom to act based on such beliefis subject to State regulations. Because of Sec. 18, just because youengender some political belief or aspiration, you cannot be detained orimprisoned SOLELY---the word there is SOLELY, if you just believe, it’sokay but if you act upon such belief, that’s another story. Just like if youare a political prisoner, you cannot be detained solely for what youbelieved in. Actually, if you are a member of the communist party of thePhilippines, that in itself alone na communista ka, you cannot bedetained solely because of that. Like in your criminal law 2, in rebellion,once you act based upon your belief, now that’s another story. That’swhy the RA 1700 was already repealed. Under this Anti-Subversion Law,mere membership is already punished. But this is already repealedbecause it violates several constitutional provisions such as Sec. 18.

SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or nonpayment of a poll tax

The meaning of debt here is contractual obligation that is civilobligation. In common parlance we here “Ah, wala ma’y makulong sautang”. That’s what it’s meant. This section 20. Is that true? Yes,actually. I used to be counsel for certain credit card companies. Some


10/18




Page 10 of 18 ~2016~

people ask me “Atty. Why am I imprisoned…” Diba, when you have acredit card, and you don’t pay, usually the credit card companiesthrough the lawyers, send demand letters and we warn them that theycan be imprisoned. Is that true? Yes, partly. Because under the AccessRegulations Device Act, if you have not declared that you changed youraddress, that creates a presumption that you are running away from theCredit Card Company. How will they send you the bill when you’ve

already changed your address? That can be a ground for imprisonment.

LOZANO V. MARTINEZHe was convicted for violation of BP22. He challenged said law becausehe said that diba “I have a loan from you, as payment I issued to you acheck. Isulod ang check after 1 month. But when the creditor puts it inthe bank, it was dishonored for having been withdrawn againstinsufficient funds”. Some people call it DAIF or its drawn against closedaccount. So here, Lozano challenged it saying “Am I not beingimprisoned here, for failing to pay my debt?” HELD:Not a violation.Why? Under BP 22, you are not being imprisoned or charged becauseyou did not pay a debt. But thegravamen of the offense is the issuanceof worthless checks. Remember, checks are not mere contracts, but arecommercial instruments which the public and the banking system hasthe right to rely on. Because of checks, diba na smoothen ang businesstransactions, and if you issue worthless checks, that will of courseaffect the commercial or business transactions. That is why, under BP22, you are not imprisoned because you did not pay a debt, but becauseyou issued a worthless check.

RE: POLL TAX This refers to residence certificates-yang cedula. You canget that from your city hall, sa inyong barangay. But you cannot beimprisoned for nonpayment of polltax.

AGBANLOG V. PEOPLEMalversation. If you are a public officer charged with the custody ofpublic funds, and you failed to account for that, there is a presumptionthat you have malversed the public funds. That is one exemption from

presumption of innocence under Sec. 14.PEOPLE V. NITAFAN Again, BP 22 but this involves a memorandum check. Basically, it is stilla check but says that the drawer has to pay the payor without any othercondition. It’s still a check because it is still d rawn against the draweebank. Diba ang check ang essence is to tell the bank to pay you. I amthe drawer, I will pay you. The drawee is the bank. I will tell the bank totell the payor. It’s not merely a promissory note which is basically an “Iowe you, and I will pay you soon” which may or may not be notarized.But in a memorandum check, it’s still a check and still a violation of BP22. Will this violate section 20? NO. because it only involves civilobligations.

VERGARA V. GEDORIOPetitioners here are tenants of property. They were cited in contemptfor failure to heed the order of the court to pay monthly rentals. Theysaid that they did not know where to pay the rentals. Despite that thecourt ordered them to pay a fine and undergo imprisonment until andunless they comply with the orders of the court. Violation of Section 20?HELD:. Debt, as used in the Constitution, refers tocivil debt or one notarising from a criminal offense; it means any liability to pay arising out ofa contract, express or implied. They payment of rentals is covered bythe constitutional guarantee against imprisonment. Just take note ofdebt and civil obligations:it only involves obligations that are civil in natureand cannot be invoked against the State.

SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall

be enacted.

2 conceptsa) Ex post Facto Lawb) Bill of Attainder

An EXPOST FACTO LAW among others is one which changes thepenalty and inflicts a greater punishment than what the law providesannex to the crime when committed. There are six instances whereinthe SC said that it is an expost facto legislation.

1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law andwhich was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;

2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when

committed;3) changes the punishment and inflicts agreater punishment than

the law annexed to the crime when committed;

4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon

less or different testimony than the law required at the time ofthe commission of the offense;

5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only , in effect

imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something whichwhen done was lawful; and

6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to

which he has become entitled, such as the protection of aformer conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.

Essentially, it is a criminal law with a retroactive effect that is prejudicialto the accused. It is a law which makes an act criminal when at the timeit was committed it was not yet criminal. But because of that law, I amprosecuted for violation of such law.

Example:A law which prohibits urinating in sidewalks. And then my neighbor sawme urinating last week; and there’s a law which provides “Those whowill urinate in public shall be imprisoned for 10years.” So my neighborfiles a case against me. That law is an expost facto law. Why? At thetime that I committed it, it was not yet prohibited/crime.

SALVADOR V. MAPA President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 creatingthe Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans.There was also a Memorandum No. 61 which fixed the functions of thecommittee on behest loans. What is a behest loan? Diba, that AO 13created to look at it. It’s basically a loan granted by the government atthe behest of a certain previous government official. Several loanaccounts were referred to the Committee for investigation, including theloan transactions between Metals Exploration Asia, Inc. (MEA), nowPhilippine Eagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI) and the Development Bank of thePhilippines (DBP). After examining and studying the documents relativeto the loan transactions, the Committee determined that they bore the

characteristics of behest loans, as defined under Memorandum OrderNo. 61 because the stockholders and officers ofPEMI were knowncronies of then President Ferdinand Marcos; the loan was under-collateralized; and PEMI was undercapitalized at the time the loan wasgranted. AO 13 is challenged for being an expost facto law.‘

HELD:No. It was not a criminal law. The constitutional doctrine thatoutlaws an ex post facto law generally prohibits the retrospective penallaws. Penal laws are those acts of the legislature which prohibit certainacts and establish penalties for their violations; or those that definecrimes, treat of their nature, and provide for their punishment. Thesubject administrative and memorandum orders clearly do not comewithin the shadow of this definition. Administrative Order No. 13 createsthe Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, andprovides for its composition and functions.It does not mete out penaltyfor the act of granting behest loans. Memorandum Order No. 61 merely provides a frame of reference for determining behest loans. Not being penallaws, Administrative Order No. 13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 cannot becharacterized as ex post facto laws.

PEOPLE V. CASTAThe crime of murder was committed by Casta on August 20, 1989which wasbefore the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 on December31, 1993 amending Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code on murder,raising the penalty to RP to death from RTMax-Death. Prior to itsamendment the penalty for the crime of murder under Article 248 of theRevised Penal Code was reclusion temporal in its maximum period todeath.

HELD: In light of the greater penalty that attaches under theamendment, the previous penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximumperiod to death will have to be imposed in order not to run afoul of theconstitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws. Under Section 22of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no ex post facto law or bill ofattainder shall be enacted. An ex post facto law, among others, isonethat changes the penalty and inflicts a greater punishment than what thelaw annexed to the crime when committed - the situation that wouldobtain if the amendment under Republic Act No. 7659 would be applied.

NASI-VILLAR V. PEOPLE Illegal recruitment occurred in 1993. There wasa law RA 8042 which criminalizes illegal recruitment. But this only tookeffect in 1995. However, illegal recruitment was already punished hereunder the Labor Code. Take note,it is not an expost facto law if it applies prospectively.


11/18




Page 11 of 18 ~2016~

BILL OF ATTAINDER: It is basically a legislative act which inflictspunishment without judicial trial. It is a law saying na this is yourpunishment, without any trial.

What the characteristics? LLP(1) Their convictions or sentences pronounced by thelegislative

department instead of the judicial department(2) The sentenced pronounced or the punishment inflicted isdetermined byno previous law or rule

(3) That the investigation of the guilt of the accused if such wasmade is not generally conducted in his presence

Elements

(1) There’s a law imposing a penal burden to a certain individual oreasily ascertainable members of a group

(2) That the penal burden is imposed directly by law without judicialtrial

Example:For all those who urinate in public, automatically if you’re caught, you’reimprisoned for 10 years. That violates the very essence of separation ofpowers. That is a bill of attainder. The judiciary is supposed to imposethe penalty/punishment upon you, not the legislative branch.

PEOPLE V. FERRER This involves the membership in CPPNPA. However in this case, I don’tlike this case very much because the SC upheld the validity of the Anti-Subversion Act. Again, this was already repealed. But here, this wasupheld and put there several qualifications. Because under this law, youcan be punished if youknowingly become a member of the Communist-Party of the Phil. Here, the SC saidknowingly . So if you do not know,there was no conspiracy, say to overthrow the gov’t, you will not bepunished for its violation. So they put there several qualifications. So just because you are a member of the CPPNPA, you are notautomatically a criminal. You are still allowed to undergo trial. But

altogether, this Act has since been repealed.REPUBLIC V. RMDCThe Mines and Geosciences Board, granted a license to mine marbledeposits in the mountains of Biak-na-Bato in Bulacan. Pres. Aquinocame up with PP No. 84 to cancel the said licenses. It was challengedfor being a bill-of-attainder.HELD:It is stressed that at the timePresident Aquino issued Proclamation No. 84 on March 9, 1987, shewas still validly exercising legislative powers under the ProvisionalConstitution of 1986. Section 1 of Article II of Proclamation No. 3, whichpromulgated the Provisional Constitution, granted her legislative power“until a legislature is elected and convened under a new Constitution.”The grant of such power is also explicitly recognized and provided for inSection 6 of Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution.

It is settled that an ex post facto law is limited in its scope only to matterscriminal in nature. Proclamation 84, which merely restored the areaexcluded from the Biak-na-Bato national park by canceling respondents’license, is clearly not penal in character.

BOCEA V. TEVES Attrition act of 2005. There is a law saying that if the BIR reach theirrevenue targets, they will be given bonus. At the same time, if the BIR isnot able to meet their target, they will be sanctioned and terminated.Members question if it is a bill of attainder for providing a punishment ifthey will not reach the quota.HELD:R.A. No. 9335 does not possess theelements of a bill of attainder. It does not seek to inflict punishmentwithout a judicial trial.R.A. No. 9335 merely lays down the grounds for thetermination of a BIR or BOC official or employee and provides for the

consequences thereof. The democratic processes are still followed andthe constitutional rights of the concerned employee are amplyprotected.

B. WHAT PUNISHMENTS CANNOT BE IMPOSED? 1) Involuntary Servitude2) Excessive Fines3) Cruel. Degrading and Inhuman Punishments4) Indefinite Imprisonment

1. Involuntary Servitude SECTION 18. (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shallexist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the partyshall have been duly convicted.

This does away with slavery. If you don’t want to w ork for anyone, youcan resign.EXN Pilots. Usually, the airline company will pay for your

education. Say, in the contract, you’ll have to work for 10 years torecover what has been spent for you for 10 years. This was challengedactually, when a pilot wanted to move to greener pastures like one pilotwho wanted to move to Cathay Pacific kay nauyab niya isa ka FA. TheCapt. Now wanted to get away w/ his previous company and invokedArt. 18.HELD:There is a recognized exception where the company hasto recoup certain expenses.

Or of course, if you’re a criminal, you cannot say you do not want to goto jail because that is involuntary servitude. That is a recognizedexception.

Some companies will not allow you to resign because according tothem, your services are still needed and they will have to provide for anecessary replacement for you. Can they do that? No, that violatessection 18.

SARMIENTO V. TUICO Asian Transmission Corporation fired Sarmientowho was a Union Leader because he was carrying a deadly weaponinside the work premises. This led the other union members held astrike and all of them did not go to work. Under the Labor Code, theDOLE can assume jurisdiction in such a case. In this case, DOLEassumed jurisdiction in the conflict and ordered that pendinginvestigation, the workers must not go on strike and return to theirrespective works. Workers invoked section 18.HELD:Return-to-WorkOrder is valid and does not constitute Involuntary Servitude. ***So that’sone recognized exception, if the DOLE assumes jurisdiction over alabor-conflict. In that case, if they do not return, they can be terminated.The worker can of course give up his work, thus severing his ties withthe company, if he does not want to obey the order; but the order mustbe obeyed if he wants to retain his work even if his inclination is tostrike.

2. Excessive Fines SECTION 19. (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, norcruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither

shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compellingreasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall bereduced to reclusion perpetua.

When is it Excessive? Factors to Determine1) Financial Condition of the Convict2) Amount fixed should be within the limits established by law3) Mitigating or Aggravating circumstances at the crime4) Death Penalty5) Right to be protected against physical, psychological, or

degrading punishments

If the amount is so disproportionate to the offense committed. Natureof the offense must be taken into account.

PEOPLE V. DELA CRUZHe sold meat for 30 cents/kilo but there was an executive order whichlimits only for 20 cents. He admitted overpricing it for 10centavos. Sobecause of this, he was meted a penalty of 2 mos. He claims it to beexcessive. HELD:What you are selling is an important ingredient and itis possible that you would be earning not only centavos but eventhousands. Hence, the national policy in profiting in foodstuffs. Thedamage could be greater. The imprisonment is not excessive.

PEOPLE V. DACUYCUY4670 or Magna Carta for Public School Teachers. The fine was fixed butas to the imprisonment, the law lets the judge decide whatimprisonment shall be imposed. This was struck down preciselybecause of the lack of standards and just leave it to the court fordiscretion. That should not be allowed. It was also an undue delegationof legislative power.

AGBANLOG V. PEOPLE Malversation. The treasurer failed to account for 21k pesos. He wasconvicted sometime in the 80s. He malversed was 21k. He invokedinflation and contended that 21k is now small and that as aconsequence, the penalty is now deemed excessive because of inflationand is now obsolete.HELD:Your remedy is not against the courts but tothe legislative department/Congress to amend law. Otherwise, we’ll justhave to apply what is stated in the law.

3. Cruel, Degrading, and inhuman punishments Any punishment is in some sense cruel. What makes it objectionable isthat if it is degrading or inhuman. When cruel? When it is flagrantly andplainly oppressive and wholly disproportionate to the nature of the


12/18




Page 12 of 18 ~2016~

offense as to shock the moral sense of the community or when itinvolves torture or lingering death

Example:penalty for urinating like 10 years, it is cruel for it shocks the moralsenses of the community.

1) Those which public sentiment will regard as cruel and

obsolete (refers to the form of punishment)Example : crucifixion, stoning to death, boiling in oil, insertinga durian in the anal orifice

2) Those which are disproportionate to the offense as to shockthe moral senses of the community.Example: Massacre of a family and the penalty is only 1-30days (disproportionate)

3) It usually involves so much pain and suffering that civilizedpeople cannot tolerate.

PEOPLE V. ECHEGARAY Prosecuted for the rape of his own child. He now claims that deathpenalty is cruel, excessive, and inhuman punishment in violation of hisconstitutional right Held: Precisely because this is a heinous crimewhich involves rape of your own daughter. Under RA 7659, "x x x thecrimes punishable by death under this Act are heinous for beinggrievous, odious and hateful offenses and which, by reason of theirinherent or manifest wickedness, viciousness, atrocity and perversityare repugnant and outrageous to the common standards and norms ofdecency and morality in a just, civilized and ordered society." Therefore,death penalty should be allowed. Why? In the first place there is alreadya law and congress already published it. And the court will just apply thelaw.

Lethal Injection, Cruel? NO. it does not involve torture, or any lingeringdeath. In fact, you die in a peaceful manner.

PEOPLE V. TONGCO He was sentenced to 27 years due to Estafa. The penalty depends onthe amount. If you look at it, it is not harsh, excessive, or out ofproportion because the penalty is provided for by the law.

LIM V. PEOPLE AND PEREZ CASE Just take note that the purpose for the law indeed clearly in theincrease of the penalty was motivated by a laudable purpose thateffectuates the suppression of an evil which undermines the economicgrowth of a country. So just really look at the form. But as to theseverity, if it is fixed by law, usually the court will decide as to what thepenalty really is.

4. Indefinite Imprisonment

C. THE PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDYSection 21. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by alaw and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under eithershall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the sameact.

In a movie, she was accused of killing her husband. She went throughtrial. She was convicted and then she got parole because she alreadyserved the minimum sentence and then she was able to get out of jail.All this time, the husband staged his death. When she found out, shecame hunting for her husband because she’d already served the time in jail. So when she already confronted her husband, she said “I’m going tokill you.” He said, “If you are going to kill me, the police are outside andthey are going to charge you with my murder.” But she said, “That’salready double jeopardy. I already killed you before. I served the time.Even if I kill you now, I can no longer be prosecuted.” Meaning, a personhas the right, under Section 21, in that he or she cannot be put twice in jeopardy in an offense.

The right against double jeopardy basically prohibits the prosecution forany person for a crime of which he has been previously acquitted orconvicted. The object is to set the effects of the first prosecutionforever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall no longer thereafterbe subject to the dangers and anxiety of a second charge against himfor the same offense.

REQUISITES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY - AVSS1) The 1st jeopa

2nd part bill of rights

Documents