Proper Treatment of Persons Legally Detained or Imprisoned

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 19(2), Article III provides that the employment of physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
2. Purpose of the Right. This constitutional guarantee recognizes the inalienability of human
dignity. Even when a person is imprisoned or detained, and even if he commits heinous crimes,
he is still a person entitled to proper treatment and protection. Paraphrasing it, the Constitution
provides that even if a person is imprisoned or detained, he must be protected against physical,
psychological, or degrading punishment, and is entitled to the use of standard or adequate penal
facilities under humane conditions.

RIGHT AGAINST IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 20, Article III provides that no person shall be imprisoned
for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
2. A debt, as covered by the constitutional guarantee, refers to a contractual obligation by a
debtor to pay money to the creditor. If by reason of poverty or lack of money a person cannot pay
his debt, he cannot be imprisoned by reason thereof. The creditor only has himself to blame if he
voluntarily agreed to lend money to someone who apparently cannot pay or whom he thought
could pay but did not. Nevertheless, although the debtor cannot be imprisoned, his property may
be taken or attached by the court, and then sold at public auction in payment of his debt to the
creditor.
3. Estafa is not covered by this constitutional guarantee. What is punished in estafa is not the
non-payment of debt but the deceit accompanying the act of non-payment.

4. Non-payment of poll tax cannot be a cause of imprisonment. A poll tax is a tax of a fixed
amount imposed on individuals residing within a specified territory, whether citizens or not,
without regard to their property or the occupation in which they may be engaged.
[89] Community tax or residence tax is an example of poll tax. As far as poll tax is concerned,
non-payment is not punished by the government in consideration of the plight of the poor who
cannot even afford to pay it. Poverty could never be a reason for a persons imprisonment. It
must be emphasized, however, that as regards other forms of taxes, non-payment may be a cause
of imprisonment. Failure to pay income taxes is considered a crime (tax evasion), and punishable
under the law by imprisonment.

RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

Meaning of Double Jeopardy
1. Constitutional Provision. Section 21, Article III states that no person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same
act. This is more famously known as the right against double jeopardy.
2. Double jeopardy means that a person is twice put at the risk of conviction for the same act or
offense. The right against double jeopardy therefore means that a person can only be indicted or
charge once by a competent court for an offense. When a person, for instance, has been charged
of homicide and the court acquitted him of the case, he can no longer be prosecuted for the same
offense or act. He can now invoke his right against double jeopardy.
3. There are two types of double jeopardy. The first happens when a person is put twice in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, and the second happens when an act is punishable
by a law and an ordinance at the same time, in which case the conviction or acquittal in either
one of them constitute as bar to another prosecution for the same act.

3. The requisites of double jeopardy are:[90]

(a) A valid complaint or information;
(b) Filed before a competent court;
(c) To which the defendant has pleaded; and
(d) The defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent.
When Double Jeopardy Could Be Claimed
1. Before double jeopardy could be claimed, there must be a first jeopardy. The first jeopardy
attaches only: (a) upon good indictment; (b) before a competent court; (c) after arraignment; (d)
when a valid plea has been entered; and (e) the case was dismissed or otherwise terminated
without the consent of the accused. A case is said to be terminated without the consent of the
accused when there is acquittal or a final decision convicting him.
2. To substantiate therefore the claim for double jeopardy, the following must be proven:
(a) A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the first jeopardy;
(b) The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
(c) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense, or the second offense includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information, or is an attempt to commit
the same or is a frustration thereof.
RIGHT AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER
Meaning of Ex Post Facto Law

1. Constitutional Provision. Section 22, Article III provides that no ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted.
2. An ex post facto law is one which:
(a) Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law which was innocent when done,
and punishes such an act;
(b) Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
(c) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when committed;
(d) Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or different testimony
than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense;
(e) Assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty or deprivation
of a right for something which when done was lawful; and
(f) Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become
entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
[91]
3. Applicable only in Criminal Cases. The constitutional prohibition applies only in criminal
cases.[92] One of the characteristics of criminal law is prospectivity in which only crimes
committed after the enactment of a penal are punishable. It cannot retroact and punish acts which
were not yet criminalized before its passage. The basic rule is that before an act may be
considered an offense or crime, it must first be defined as a crime and a penalty must be imposed
for it under a law passed by the legislative body. An act therefore is not a crime if there is no law
punishing it. In the same vein, a person does not commit a crime, no matter how apparently
illegal it is, if there is no law defining and punishing it. It is for this reason that an ex post facto
law is not allowed because it criminalizes what was not yet a crime during its commission.

Meaning of Bill of Attainder

1. Definition. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without trial. Its
essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial determination of guilt.[93]
2. Two Kinds of Bill of Attainder: (a) the bill of attainder proper which involves the legislative
imposition of death penalty, and (b) bill of pains and penalties which involves imposition of a
lesser penalty.
3. Reason for Prohibition. The prohibition against bill of attainder is animplementation of the
principle of separation of powers. The legislature cannot bypass the judiciary by enacting a law
that punishes an act without need of judicial proceedings. The legislative department should be
confined to its law-making function; it cannot encroach the authority of the courts by prescribing
a law that directly adjudges guilt without judicial determination.
4. Example. In one case, the Court held that the Anti-Subversion Law (R.A. 1700) is not a bill of
attainder.[94] The law declared the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) a clear and present
danger to Philippine security, and thus prohibited membership in such organization. It is not a
bill of attainder because it does not define a crime, but only lays a basis for the legislative
determination that membership in CPP and any other organization having the same purposes is a
crime. It does not automatically secure judgment by mere membership. In operation, the law
does not render unnecessary judicial proceedings. The guilt of the individual members of
subversive groups must still be judicially established.
[1] Bernas, p. 101.
[2] See Bernas, p. 110.
[3] De Leon, p. 130.
[4] See Smith, Bell & Co. v. Natividad, 40 Phil 136.
[5] See Morfe v. Mutuc, L-20387, January 31, 1968.

Bill of Rights
Section 19 to 22
Sec. 19
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall
death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be
reduced to reclusion perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee
or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
Right against excessive fines:
The question as to the amount of the fines that
shall be imposed is one addressed to the sound
discretion of the court. If it keeps within the limits
of a statute, the fine cannot usually be held
unreasonable.
Courts will be justified in declaring a fine
prescribed by a statute excessive only when it is
clearly so, considering the nature of the offense
and the ability of the person punished to pay the
fine.
Rights against cruel, degrading, or inhuman punishments
This right, as contra-distinguished from the right against
the use of torture (Sec. 12[2]), can only be invoked after
conviction for a crime.
1.Form of punishment
Punishment is degrading when it brings shame and

humiliation to the victim, or exposes him to contempt or

ridicule, or lowers his dignity and self-respect as a human
being.
2.Quantity or duration of punishment it is ordinarily not
taken into account in determining whether the
punishment is cruel or inhuman. Hence, the mere fact
that a punishment is disproportionate to the nature of the
offense would not make it cruel or inhuman. But all
punishment greatly disproportionate to the nature of the
offense as to be shocking to the human conscience would
be both cruel and inhuman. Thus, the penalty of life
imprisonment or even death is not cruel nor inhuman
when imposed for treason, parricide, murder and other
heinous offenses especially when aggravating
circumstances attended their commission; but it is cruel
inhuman if imposed for pretty crimes like slander or theft
of small value.
It can be said that punishments are cruel and/or inhuman
when they involve torture or lingering death, such as
burning alive, mutilation, starvation, drowning, and other
barbarous punishment. The punishment of death by
hanging, electrocution, or musketry is not considered
cruel within the meaning of that word as used in the
Constitution. Nor is it inhuman. Destierro or banishment
from a certain locality as a punishment is neither cruel
nor inhuman and so valid.
It is to be lost sight of that to be prohibited by the
Constitution, the punishment need only be cruel,
degrading, or inhuman.
Purpose of the guarantee
The purpose of the guarantee is to eliminate many of the

barbarous and uncivilized punishments formerly known,

the infliction of which would barbarize present civilization.
Examples of such punishments are those inflicted at the
whipping post or in the pillory, burning at the stake,
breaking on the wheel, disemboweling, and the like.
Application of penalties or punishments
The Constitution mandates that the employment of
physical, psychological or degrading punishment against
any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions
should be dealt with by law. (Sec. 12[2].) This
contemplates the improper, unreasonable, or inhuman
application of penalties or punishments (Sec. 12[1]) on
persons legally detained.
Improper of the death penalty
1.Commutation of death penalties already imposed
Sec. 19 abolishes the death penalty. It shall not be
inflicted unless Congress decides to reinstate it for
compelling reasons, involving heinous crimes in which
case it shall apply only to such crimes subsequently
committed. Death penalties already imposed upon the
affectivity of the new Constitution were automatically
commuted to reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
2.Crimes considered heinous the Constitution does not
define what are heinous crimes but they can be said to
cover offenses that are exceedingly or flagrantly bad or
evil or those committed with extreme cruelty as to shock
the general moral sense, such a treason, parricide, drugtrafficking, murder, robbery with homicide, rape with
homicide, killing a person in stages, etc., especially if the
crime is committed against children or defenseless

people.
1)Arguments against death penalty the proponents of
the abolition of the death penalty are of the opinion that:
a)It is cruel and inhuman for the convict and family who
are traumatized by the waiting even if it is never carried
out;
b)There is no conclusive evidence from penologists that is
has a special deterrent effect on criminality;
c)It deprive the convict of a chance of rehabilitation and
reformation, death being irreversible;
d)There is always a possible a possibility of error in
condemning a person to death; and
e)The state has no right to deprive a person of his life;
God is the giver of life and only He can make it.
2) Arguments in favor of death penalty those who
advocate the retention of death penalty say:
a) It is not cruel and inhuman because the manner by
which it is executed (now be lethal injection) does not
involve physical or mental pain nor unnecessary physical
or mantel suffering, and it is imposed only for heinous
crimes;
b) It does discourage others from committing heinous
crimes and its abolition will increase the crime rate;
c) A convict by his own acts has forfeited hid right to life
and shown his moral incapability to be rehabilitated and
reformed;
d) Its imposition is filled with numerous legal safeguards;
and
e) The State has the absolute right to take the life of a
person who has proved himself a great menace to society
by way of self-defense and as an example and warning to
others.

People v. Echegaray (CRIM1)

People of the Philippines v. Leo Echegaray y Pilo
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Leo Echegaray y Pilo,
Defendant Appellant
Per Curiam
Doctrine: Neither excessive fines nor cruel, degrading or inhuman
punishment
Date: February 7, 1997
Ponente: As it is a Per curiam decision, the court is acting collectively &
anonymously.
Facts:
'
'

'

'
'
'

The SC rendered a decision in the instant case affirming the conviction of

the accused-appellant for the crime of raping his ten-year old daughter.
The crime having been committed sometime in April, 1994, during which
time Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7659, commonly known as the Death Penalty
Law, was already in effect, accused-appellant was inevitably meted out the
supreme penalty of death.
The accused-appellant timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration which
focused on the sinister motive of the victim's grandmother that precipitated
the filing of the alleged false accusation of rape against the accused. The
motion was dismissed as the SC found no substantial arguments on the
said motion that can disturb the verdict.
On August 6, 1996, accused-appellant discharged the defense counsel,
Atty. Julian R. Vitug, and retained the services of the Anti-Death Penalty
Task Force of the Free Legal Assistance Group of the Philippines. (FLAG)
A supplemental Motion for Reconsideration prepared by the FLAG on
behalf of accused-appellant aiming for the reversal of the death sentence.
In sum, the Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration raises three (3) main
issues: (1) mixed factual and legal matters relating to the trial proceedings
and findings; (2) alleged incompetence of accused-appellant's former
counsel; and (3) purely legal question of the constitutionality of R.A. No.
7659.
Issue/s: WON the death penalty law (RA no. 7659) is unconstitutional

Held: No.
Wherefore, the motion for reconsideration & supplemental motion for
reconsideration are denied for lack of merit.
'

'

Ratio:
Accused-appellant first claims that the death penalty is per se a cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment as ruled by the United States (U.S.)
Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia. To state, however, that the U.S.
Supreme Court, in Furman, categorically ruled that the death penalty is a
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment, is misleading and inaccurate.
1 The issue in Furman was not so much death penalty itself but
the arbitrariness pervading the procedures by which the death
penalty was imposed on the accused by the sentencing jury.
Thus, the defense theory in Furman centered not so much on
the nature of the death penalty as a criminal sanction but on the
discrimination against the black accused who is meted out the
death penalty by a white jury that is given the unconditional
discretion to determine whether or not to impose the death
penalty.
2 Furman, thus, did not outlaw the death penalty because it was
cruel and unusual per se. While the U.S. Supreme Court
nullified all discretionary death penalty statutes in Furman, it did
so because the discretion which these statutes vested in the
trial judges and sentencing juries was uncontrolled and without
any parameters, guidelines, or standards intended to lessen, if
not altogether eliminate, the intervention of personal biases,
prejudices and discriminatory acts on the part of the trial judges
and sentencing juries.
accused-appellant asseverates that the death penalty is a cruel, inhuman
or degrading punishment for the crime of rape mainly because the latter,
unlike murder, does not involve the taking of life.
1 In support of his contention, accused-appellant largely relies on
the ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Coker v. Georgia::
"Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in
terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to
the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve
the unjustified taking of human life. Although it may be
accompanied by another crime, rape by definition does not
include the death of or even the serious injury to another
person. The murderer kills; the rapist, if no more than that,

does not. Life is over for the victim of the murderer; for the rape
victim, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not
over and normally is not beyond repair. We have the abiding
conviction that the death penalty, which 'is unique in its severity
and irrevocability' x x x is an excessive penalty for the rapist
who, as such, does not take human life"
2 The U.S. Supreme Court based its foregoing ruling on two
grounds:
1 first, that the public has manifested its rejection of the
death penalty as a proper punishment for the crime of
rape through the willful omission by the state legislatures
to include rape in their new death penalty statutes in the
aftermath of Furman;
1 Phil. SC: Anent the first ground, we fail to see
how this could have any bearing on the
Philippine experience and in the context of our
own culture.
2 second, that rape, while concededly a dastardly
contemptuous violation of a woman's spiritual integrity,
physical privacy, and psychological balance, does not
involve the taking of life.
1 Phil. SC: we disagree with the court's predicate
that the gauge of whether or not a crime
warrants the death penalty or not, is the
attendance of the circumstance of death on the
part of the victim. Such a premise is in fact an
ennobling of the biblical notion of retributive
justice of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth".
The Revised Penal Code, as it was originally promulgated, provided for the
death penalty in specified crimes under specific circumstances. As early as
1886, though, capital punishment had entered our legal system through the
old Penal Code, which was a modified version of the Spanish Penal Code
of 1870.
Under the Revised Penal Code, death is the penalty for the crimes of
treason, correspondence with the enemy during times of war, qualified
piracy, parricide, murder, infanticide, kidnapping, rape with homicide or with
the use of deadly weapon or by two or more persons resulting in insanity,
robbery with homicide, and arson resulting in death.
The opposition to the death penalty uniformly took the form of a
constitutional question of whether or not the death penalty is a cruel,

unjust, excessive or unusual punishment in violation of the

constitutional proscription against cruel and unusual punishment
Harden v. Director of Prison- "The penalty complained of is neither cruel,
unjust nor excessive. In Ex-parte Kemmler, 136 U.S., 436, the United
States Supreme Court said that 'punishments are cruel when they involve
torture or a lingering death, but the punishment of death is not cruel, within
the meaning of that word as used in the constitution. It implies there
something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere
extinguishment of life.
People v. Limaco- "x x x there are quite a number of people who honestly
believe that the supreme penalty is either morally wrong or unwise or
ineffective. However, as long as that penalty remains in the statute books,
and as long as our criminal law provides for its imposition in certain cases,
it is the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law regardless of
their private opinions,"
Article III, Section 19 (1) of the 1987 Constitution simply states that
congress, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, may re-impose
the death penalty. Nothing in the said provision imposes a requirement that
for a death penalty bill to be valid, a positive manifestation in the form of a
higher incidence of crime should first be perceived and statistically proven
following the suspension of the death penalty. Neither does the said
provision require that the death penalty be resorted to as a last recourse
when all other criminal reforms have failed to abate criminality in society
what R.A. No. 7659 states is that "the Congress, in the interest of justice,
public order and rule of law, and the need to rationalize and harmonize the
penal sanctions for heinous crimes, finds compelling reasons to impose the
death penalty for said crimes.
Heinous crime is an act or series of acts which, by the flagrantly violent
manner in which the same was committed or by the reason of its inherent
viciousness, shows a patent disregard and mockery of the law, public
peace and order, or public morals. It is an offense whose essential and
inherent viciousness and atrocity are repugnant and outrageous to a
civilized society and hence, shock the moral self of a people.
The right of a person is not only to live but to live a quality life, and this
means that the rest of society is obligated to respect his or her individual
personality, the integrity and the sanctity of his or her own physical body,
and the value he or she puts in his or her own spiritual, psychological,
material and social preferences and needs.
Seen in this light, the capital crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention for ransom resulting in the death of the victim or the victim is

raped, tortured, or subjected to dehumanizing acts; destructive arson

resulting in death, and drug offenses involving minors or resulting in the
death of the victim in the case of other crimes; as well as murder, rape,
parricide, infanticide, kidnapping and serious illegal detention where the
victim is detained for more than three days or serious physical injuries were
inflicted on the victim or threats to kill him were made or the victim is a
minor, robbery with homicide, rape or intentional mutilation, destructive
arson, and carnapping where the owner, driver or occupant of the
carnapped vehicle is killed or raped, which are penalized by reclusion
perpetua to death, are clearly heinous by their very nature.
SC: the death penalty is imposed in heinous crimes because:
the perpetrators thereof have committed unforgivably execrable acts that
have so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal acts with severely
destructive effects on the national efforts to lift the masses from abject
poverty through organized governmental strategies based on a disciplined
and honest citizenry
they have so caused irreparable and substantial injury to both their victim
and the society and a repetition of their acts would pose actual threat to the
safety of individuals and the survival of government, they must be
permanently prevented from doing so
People v. Cristobal: "Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy
of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply
wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which
every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim
for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act xxx an outrage upon decency and
dignity that hurts not only the victim but the society itself.

SEC. 20.
No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of
a poll tax.
Meaning of debt
Debt, as intended to be covered by the constitutional
guarantee, mean any liability to pay money arising out of
a contract, express or implied.

Basis and purpose of prohibition against imprisonment for

debt
1)The prohibition was brought about by the force of public
opinion which looked with abhorrence on statutes
permitting the cruel imprisonment of debtors. The control
of creditor over the person of his debtor has been
abolished on humanitarian considerations. One should
not be punished on account of his poverty.
2)The Constitution seeks to prevent the use of the power
of the State to coerce the payment of debts. Moreover,
the government is not s proper party to private disputes.
It should not render it said to one who deems himself
aggrieved by imprisoning the other for failure to pay his
debts.
But if the debtor has property, the creditor has the right
in a civil case to have such property attached (i.e., taken
into legal custody) as a means of enforcing payment of
the debt.
Prohibition limited to contractual obligations only
The inhibition was never meant to include:
1)Damages arising in action ex delicto (criminal actions),
fro the reason that the damages recoverable therein do
not arise from any contract entered into between the
parties, but are imposed upon the defendant for the
wrong he has done and are considered as a punishment
therefore; and
2)Fines and penalties imposed by the courts in criminal
proceedings as punishments for crime.
In other words, debt, as used in the Constitution, refers to
civil or contractual debt or one not arising from a criminal
offense. A person may be imprisoned for failure to pay
tax as it is not a debt.

Meaning of poll tax

A poll tax (or personal or capitation tax) is a tax of a fixed
amount imposed on individuals residing within a specified
territory, whether citizens or not, without regard to their
property or the occupation in which they may be
engaged.
The community tax (formerly residence tax) is in the
nature of a poll tax.
Basis and purpose of prohibition against imprisonment for
non-payment of poll tax
1)The constitutional right is a measure dictated by a
sense of humanity and sympathy for the plight of the
poorer elements of the population who cannot even
afford to pay their cedula or poll taxes, now community
tax.
2)It also seeks to prevent the State from utilizing its
coercive power to compel the payment of the tax
especially due from those without a financial means.
But a person is subject to imprisonment for violations
other than for non-payment of the community tax (e.g.,
falsification of the community tax certificate), and for
non-payment of other taxes if so expressly provided by
the pertinent law.
SEC. 21
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment
for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and
an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Meaning of right against double jeopardy
The right against double jeopardy means that when a

person is charged with an offense and the case is

terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any
other manner without the express consent of the
accused, the latter cannot again be charged with the
same or identical offense.
The guarantee protects against the perils of a second
punishment as well as a second trial for the same
offense.
1)Requisites
under present law and jurisprudence, the accused is
placed in double jeopardy if the following conditions are
present:
a)He has been previously brought to trial;
b)In a court of competent jurisdiction (i.e., court having
jurisdiction);
c)Under s valid complaint or information (i.e., sufficient in
form and substance to sustain a conviction);
d)He has been arraigned (see Sec. 14[2].) and pleaded
(either guilty or not guilty) to the charge;
e)He has been convicted or acquitted or the case against
him has been dismissed or otherwise terminated without
his express consent; and
f)He is being charged again for the same offense.
2)Rule in case of mistrial
The right cannot be invoked where a petition for a
declaration of a mistrial is granted on the ground that the
proceedings have been vitiated by lack of due process,
e.g., the prosecution and the judge who tried and decided
the case acted under the compulsion of some pressure
which proved to be beyond their capacity to resist and
which not only prevented the prosecution from offering all
the evidences which it would have otherwise presented,

but also predetermined the final outcome of the case. A

re-trial becomes necessary.
Right to appeal in criminal cases
1)The government has no right, therefore, to appeal from
a judgment of acquittal.
2)The accused, after having been convicted, may appeal
to a higher court, but the latter may raise the penalty
imposed on him by the lower court and such is not
second jeopardy.
Existence of double
jeopardy
Classes of double jeopardy
It is to be observed that the provision deals with two
classes of double jeopardy.
1) For the same offense
under the first sentence, the protection is against
double jeopardy for the same offense and not for the
same act, provided he is charged with a different offense
(so an act may give rise to more than one offense) expect
if the act is punished by a law (enacted by a local
legislative body) in which case conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution
for the same act.
2) For the same act
the second sentence contemplates double jeopardy of
punishment for the same act (e.g., illegal construction)
and it applies although the offenses charged are different,
one constituting a violation of a statute and the other of
an ordinance.
SECTION 22.
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Meaning of ex post facto law
An ex post facto law is one which, operating

retrospectively
1)Makes an act done before the passage of a law,
innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such act; or
2)Aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it
was committed; or
3)Changes the punishments and inflicts a greater
punishment than what the law annexed to the crime,
when committed; or
4)Alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less
testimony than or different testimony from what the law
required at the time of the commission of the offense, in
order to convict the offender.
Characteristics of ex post facto law
They are:
1)Ex post facto laws relate to penal or criminal matters
only (civil interests are protected by the non-impairment
clause);
2)They are retroactive in their operation; and
3)They deprive persons accused of crimes of some
protection or defense previously available, to their
disadvantage. Ex post facto laws are absolutely
prohibited unless they are favorable to the accused.
An example of an ex post facto law is a statute declaring
as usurious and unlawful, the rate if interest provided in a
contract which was not usurious under the laws in force
at the time of the execution of the contract. Note: Usury
is no longer punishable by law.
Meaning of bill of attainder
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts
punishments without a judicial trial.
If the punishment is less than death, the act is called a
bill of pains and penalties. It is included within the

meaning of bill of attainder as used in the Constitution.

Purpose of prohibition against bill of attainder
The prohibition against the enactment of bills of attainder
is designed as a general safeguard against legislative
exercise of the judicial function, or simply, trial by
legislature.
1)In a case where a law passed by the United States
Congress declared in one of its sections that three
government employees named therein were not to
receive any salary after a certain date because of their
subversive activities, the U.S. Supreme Court held that
the enactment was in the nature of a bill of pains and
penalties, the Congress assuming the role of a judge and
giving no hearing to the parties. Hence, the provision was
void.
2)A law passed declaring members of an association
guilty of subversion and subjecting them to imprisonment
is unconstitutional because it convicts and penalizes
without the benefit of judicial trial.
3)But the detention of a prisoner for a certain period
pending investigation and trial is not a punishment; it is a
necessary extension of the well-recognized power of the
State to hold a criminal suspect for investigation.
2)A law passed declaring members of an association
guilty of subversion and subjecting them to imprisonment
is unconstitutional because it convicts and penalizes
without the benefit of judicial trial.
3)But the detention of a prisoner for a certain period
pending investigation and trial is not a punishment; it is a
necessary extension of the well-recognized power of the

State to hold a criminal suspect for investigation.

E
E