CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES
1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018
Atty. Gil Garcia
March 28, 2019
Saldariega vs Panganiban
We have this accused, si Saldariega, who was charged for
violation of several provisions of RA 9165 (Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act). The ordered hearing was set for that
day but the witnesses for the prosecution were not able to be
present. So, walay evidence during that hearing. Therefore,
the judge issued an order provisionally dismissing the cases. So
nay provisional dismissal with the expressed consent of the
accused, Saldariega. Later on, the state filed a motion to
reopen the cases because two witnesses were ready to testify,
and the motion to reopen this provisionally dismissed cases
was granted.
Now, the accused here argues the case has already been
dismissed: the reopening of cases will be tantamount to
violation of his right against double jeopardy. Is he correct? Of
course not. The provisional dismissal of the case does not
operate as an acquittal because the dismissal was made with
the expressed consent of the accused. Kanang magpa-
provisional dismissal, the accused consents to it. It’s not also
an acquittal because it’s not going on the merits. It’s a dismissal
of the case with the consent of the accused. So, walay valid
termination on the first jeopardy.
The proscription against DJ presupposes the accused has been
previously charged, the case against him is terminated by 1.)
acquittal; 2.) conviction; or 3.) dismissal without his consent.
None of those instances nga na terminate ang double jeopardy
is present here.
There are instances, however, where a dismissal of the case,
even with the consent of the accused, bars a subsequent
prosecution because DJ already attaches. What are those
limited instances where dismissal is already equivalent to
acquittal?
1.) It is a dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence even
if the accused moves for it, therefore he consents to it, it
is a trial on the merits and when it is granted, it amounts
to acquittal;
2.) If it is dismissed by way of motion of the accused nga
na violate iyang right to speedy trial or speedy disposition.
Here, none of those exceptions are present. First, naa bay
demurrer? Wala man. Second, was there inordinate delay that
warranted the dismissal? No! The court said here that the
delay, if any in this case, was reasonable and not inordinate.
So, walay termination of the first jeopardy, and therefore the
continuation of the cases that were provisionally dismissed
would not violate the right against DJ.
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
1
People vs Arguta
There are 2 criminal informations filed against Calipe and
Arguta, charging Calipe two counts of rape, and Arguta with
one. There was the first information where both of them were
charged with rape, and the second which is only Calipe. Later,
the court found both of them guilty in the first information for
the crime of simple rape. The second rape case was dismissed
kay wala na prove ang guilt.
They challenged the decision of the appellate court. Why was
it changed from simple rape to qualified rape? As we already
know, an appeal goes into the open, the entire case is for
review, and the reviewing tribunal can correct errors though
unassigned in the appeal judgment, or even reverse the trial
court’s decision based on grounds other than those that the
parties raised as errors.
The appeal confers upon the appellate court full jurisdiction
over the case and renders that court competent to examine
records, revise the judgment appealed from, increase the
penalty, and cite the proper provision of the penal law.
Here, they cannot complain. In fact, the Court affirmed the
conviction of the accused for qualified rape instead of simple
rape because they appealed it to the appellate court. When
the appellate court found that the ruling was erroneous, it
increased the charge. So, that is the risk. You are penalized by
the trial court and you want it reversed, there is also the risk
that your penalty is increased because you throw your case
into the open when you appeal.
As we also learned, when you appeal, you waive your right
against double jeopardy because you subject yourself again to
the jurisdiction of the appellate court. You are the one who
prayed to change the decision. You cannot claim that there is
double jeopardy if the decision is unfavorable to you.
Assistio vs People
Facts: The accused, Assistio, was charged in violation of the
Cooperative Code of the Philippines. After the presentation of
the evidence of the prosecution, what is the usual thing done
by the accused? He’ll file for a motion to a demurrer to the
evidence. That’s what was done here.
What was the ground for demurrer? She did not state that
there was no evidence, etc. but rather, that the trial court did
not have jurisdiction over the case. Because of this, when the
RTC read the demurrer, it agreed with the accused and it
dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction and not for failing to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The People of the Philippines appealed the order of dismissal
of the case in the CA. So, the grant of the demurrer to evidence
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES
1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018
Atty. Gil Garcia
was appealed. The accused contended that the grant of
demurrer to evidence is already an acquittal; therefore,
subjecting her to this appeal is already violative of her right
against double jeopardy.
The CA rendered a decision, reversing and setting aside the
RTC’s orders and held to continue the trial. So, she, aggrieved,
went to the SC, challenging this violates her right against
double jeopardy. The right to demurrer to evidence was
already granted.
Issue: Was there was a violation to her right against double
jeopardy?
Held: No because this is a demurrer.
A demurrer to evidence is an objection by one of the parties
in an action to the effect that the evidence which the adverse
party – the State, produced, during the time it was filed, is
insufficient evidence to make a case or sustain an issue.
General rule: When a demurrer to evidence is granted, it is
equivalent to an acquittal. It is, thus, final and unappealable.
Otherwise, it would be violative of the right against double
jeopardy.
Exception: A dismissal of the case, even by way of a demurrer,
does not always amount to an acquittal.
In this case, the dismissal was not an acquittal even if it was
done by way of a demurrer to evidence. It was granted because
the decision dismissing the case was not based on merits. The
court did not look into the whether or not there was evidence
but rather if it had jurisdiction. That’s the basis of the trial
court. It granted the demurrer and dismissed the case, not for
insufficiency of evidence, but for lack of jurisdiction.
So, if the demurrer is not based on the merits and it is
nevertheless granted, it is not equivalent to an acquittal
because the court did not examine the case based on its
merits; therefore, the order dismissing this case by way of
demurrer did not operate as acquittal and therefore that
dismissal can be validly appealed by the state without violating
the right of the accused against double jeopardy.
Acquittal distinguished from dismissal
The Court distinguished here again, dismissal from acquittal.
An acquittal is always based on the merits. The defendant is
acquitted because the evidence does not show that his guilt
has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On the other hand, a dismissal is not decided based on the
merits of the case. It is decided or granted because the court
does not have competent jurisdiction or it was a wrong
venue, etc. i.e. based on the technicality.
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
2
Considering that the dismissal here was not based on the
merits, there is no acquittal, no double jeopardy. Moreover,
the dismissal of the case here was done with the consent of
the accused. But we learned before that even if you file for a
demurrer, even if you consented to it, because you’re the one
filing for it and it was granted, that is an exception to the
dismissal without the consent. It amounts to an acquittal.
Here, it is not equivalent to acquittal because the demurrer
was not decided based on the merits but rather, on the court’s
lack of jurisdiction. So, no double jeopardy.
People vs. Chi Chan Liu
Facts: The police officers went to the place occupied by
Chinese personnel, and when they searched the boat, they
were able to find shabu. This prompted the police officers to
apprehend them and after they were detained, two cases were
filed against them for violation of Section 14 of RA 7659
(importation of prohibited drugs).
The trial court found them guilty for importation of drugs. So
they appealed this case. The CA affirmed RTC ruling.
SC reversed the ruling and found that they were only liable for
possession.
Remember that their charge is importation but the decision
was modified into mere possession. In discussing the case, the
Court had to cite an old case, where it was held by the Supreme
Court that importation necessarily includes possession.
How can you import if you do not possess? So if you cannot be
guilty of importation, there is a possibility that you can be held
guilty for possession of illegal drugs. That case is in People vs
Elcanish, where two informations: possession and
importation, where the court said that the accused cannot be
prosecuted of this other charge because this possession is
included in the importation. So the Court said that there is
double jeopardy actually if you prosecute them for these two
charges because possession is included in importation. Citing
that case the court justified the ruling that even if they are not
liable for importation, they may be held liable for possession.
Arroyo vs People
Facts: Arroyo was charged with plunder before the
Sandiganbayan and so after prosecution presented the
evidence, Arroyo (accused) filed a demurrer to evidence. The
Sandiganbayan, however, did not grant the demurer.
Arroyo went to the Supreme Court to challenged the denial of
the petition for the demurer of evidence which is an
interlocutory order. And then Supreme Court granted petition
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES
1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018
Atty. Gil Garcia
and she was acquitted. Granting, the Court said that the
Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion in
denying her demurrer to evidence.
The Supreme Court granted the demurrer to evidence which
amounts to an acquittal. The Office of the Ombudsman moved
for the reconsideration for the decision of the SC. And for that
MR GMA alleged the decision has effectively barred the
consideration because doing so would amount to re-
prosecution or revival to a charge against her despite the
acquittal.
The grant of the demurer by the SC itself is already an acquittal;
therefore, an acquittal is already final and executory. Now that
the state moves for reconsideration of that acquittal, that
would subject them again to double jeopardy.
Issue: Is there a double jeopardy in this case? Why?
Yes. The Acquittal was effected through demurer of evidence.
The court quoted here the case of People vs Sandiganbayan –
which states that the dismissal of the case on the merits is
tantamount to the acquittal of the accused. Such dismissal of
the criminal case by the grant demurer to evidence may not be
appealed, for to do so would place the accused in double
jeopardy.
But take note that it is a requisite in Rule 65 petition before the
SC that you should have exhausted all the remedies, which
includes the filing of an MR. For instance, if you are already
acquitted, the State before it can go to Rule 65 has to prove
that it has availed of a motion for reconsideration. But here,
the court said that you cannot move for reconsideration
because he is already acquitted.
Why is it that even in MR, you cannot file an MR of an
acquittal?
What happens when you are acquitted? As such, every
acquittal becomes final and immediately upon promulgation
and cannot be recalled for correction or ammendment. The
acquittal is already final and executory. To subject that to
review would violate the person’s rights against double
jeopardy.
So that was what happened to that case. GMA was acquitted
for some magical reason and the MR sustained because it is in
due course that the State should do. The Court stopped
Ombudsman, you can no longer file for an MR because it is
already violative of the right against double jeopardy.
People vs Alejandro
Facts: The accused appellant was charged with two counts of
rape. He raped a 12-year old minor, twice. And so the
prosecution presented the evidence and the minor testified.
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
3
The accused manifested to the open court that he would no
longer present an evidence for the defense and submitted the
case for decision. He did not even defend himself.
The RTC acquitted the accused on July 26, 2011. But RTC
recalled the decision in the same day. Why? There was
acquittal but discovering that there is something wrong, the
RTC reversed the order of dismissal.
Why? What was the cause? Because RTC noted that AAA
testified in court, but in truth and in fact AAA testified and the
order containing the statement of AAA was mistakenly
captioned and attached on another criminal case where
Alejandro was also the accused and as a result of that mistake
Alejandro was acquitted.
He was acquitted because of the faulty records. Upon typing
the order of the court, a wrong case number was typed.
Apparently, this rapist also had several cases in the other
courts. The caption of rape case number was erroneously
typed, so the record that the minor victim testified was placed
in another case.
As the court checked, it discovered that the minor testified.
Because of the inadvertence, it reversed the acquittal and
proceeded with the trial. It said that if that piece of evidence is
considered which was inadvertedly went to another case, it
would have been resulted in the conviction of the accused.
What did the court do to the accused after it reversed the
acquittal? The accused was convicted. Take note that this case,
the reason why the judge reversed the acquittal was because
the prosecution manifested that based on their records, there
is inadvertence: the evidence is just mislocated. It should have
been part of the records. So, by their manifestation, the court
was informed of that misact. And using that piece of evidence,
the accused was convicted.
The accused then appealed to the CA challenging the
conviction. The accused herein alleged that he was already
acquitted and such conviction is tantamount to double
jeopardy.
What happens when there is already an acquittal? Final and
executory.
Issue: Was there double jeopardy in this case?
Held: Yes. The elements of double jeopardy are present in this
case.1.) Valid information; 2.) Court of competent jurisdiction
and the accused was arraigned; and 3.) First jeopardy was
acquitted by way of acquittal, which is final and executory.
Is it not that the judgment of acquittal here is rendered based
in a mistaken notion? Is it not a ground to reverse that
acquittal? The mistake did not change the fact that there is
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES
1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018
Atty. Gil Garcia
already a judgment of acquittal. A judgment of acquittal is final
and unappealable.
The Court said that it is clear in this case that the accused has
already been acquitted. And there are only two grounds to
reverse an acquittal:
1. There is deprivation of due process, or mistrial; and
2. There has been grave abuse of discretion under
exceptional circumstances.
In this case, the mistake which resulted to the acquittal of the
accused was only by way of manifestation by the prosecutor.
You cannot do that. There must be a proper filing of the
petition alleging or proving the two exceptional grounds. The
prosecution should have filed a petition for certiorari under
Rule 65. Furthermore, there was no allegation of the two
abovementioned grounds in the manifestation. The two
grounds were not proved.
Therefore, the acquittal was proper and the state cannot
anymore question that, otherwise it will violate the right
against double jeopardy.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Article III, Section 15:
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the
public safety requires it.
Writ of Habeas Corpus, defined:
It is an order issued by a court, directed to a person detaining
another, commanding it to produce the body of this prisoner
at a designated time and place, and to explain the cause of
detention.
There are 4 cases under the rule that you can file a petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus:
1. If you are detained without charges;
2. When the prisoner has served sentence but is not
released;
3. In custody of children; or
4. When a patient is detained in the hospital for the
failure to pay the bill.
There are also other instances where it can be applied for:
1. When a person is unlawfully denied constitutional
freedom;
2. When a person is denied of due process;
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
4
3. When the restraints are voluntary and unnecessary;
4. Where deprivation of freedom which is originally valid
becomes, later on, invalid or arbitrary until if there is
a favorable evidence against a convicted felon or
convict.
Under the provision, the privilege can only be suspended only
if there is rebellion or invasion and the public safety requires
it.
Effect of the writ of habeas corpus to bail:
As a rule, the right to bail is not suspended even if the privilege
of the writ is suspended. You can still file for bail.
When can you avail of the Writ?
1. So you can avail of the writ of habeas corpus when
you are detained without a charge. As we said earlier,
which happens when you are detained for a
commission of a crime and you are not charged within
a prescribed period.
2. The detention becomes illegal after that number of
hours if you are still not charged before the courts.
So after that, you may already file for petition of writ
of habeas corpus.
3. When sentence has been served.
4. When you are detained and you are enslaved for
payment of debt. Because as we already know, no
one can be imprisoned for non-payment of debt. So if
your are imprisoned by your creditor, your family can
file a petition to free you.
What happens if the court issuing the writ directs that person
to produce you before the court and explain why you
detained such person.
What if the person directed by the writ does not obey the
directive of the court? He will just say “ I don’t care”
The non-production of the person is sufficient ground to make
offenders liable in contempt of court. So you may be charged
for contempt of court.
Instances where you cannot be allowed or discharged
through a writ of habeas corpus:
1. If the person is in custody of an officer and is under a
process by a court or judge;
In other words, his custody is not illegal. You are
detained because your case went through a trial, and
you are convicted. Therefore you are supposed to be
incarcerated.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES
1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018
Atty. Gil Garcia
2. Or you have a case pending before the court and
unable to file bail. In other words, the detention is
legal so you cannot ask for the writ of habeas corpus
for your release. When the person is charged with or
convicted of a crime. If he is imprisoned under lawful
judgment.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus as compared to the Writ of
Amparo:
1. As to scope of remedy: Writ of Amparo is writ of
protection. It is wider in scope because it is a remedy
against life, liberty, and security. On the other hand, writ
of habeas corpus is only limited to liberty.
2. As to applicability: In writ of Amparo, it applies not only
to actual violation of such rights but also to threatened
violations. On the other hand, a writ of habeas corpus will
only be issued if there is proof of actual deprivation of
liberty.
3. As to whom it may be instituted against :A writ of amparo
may be instituted against a public official or employee or
a private individual or entity while the latter as a rule may
only be invoked against the State.
Note however that the Writ of Amparo is applicable only to
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances.
The landmark case for the Writ of Amparo is the case of
Villavicencio vs Lucban
Facts: There were prostitutes in Manila and rounded up. They
were all contained in vessel. They did not know where they
were going. They were deported to the island of Mindanao.
When they were released, their concerned relatives went to
the Supreme Court. By way of a petition for habeas corpus,
they wanted these people to go back to Manila
. they have been in prison. They are prevented from exercising
There were several argument against this petition and among
others: They were not the proper parties because those who
were affected should be the ones to file the case; They were
not in actual custody because the women here were free to
roam around Mindanao.
So there is no legal custody or any detention to speak of
warranting the granting of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus.
So let’s go first to the authority of the Mayor and the Chief of
Police.
Did they have any basis to effect that deportation?
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
5
No. There is no law that allows them to do the deportation.
How can you therefore deport? What should be the basis? It
should be based on a law or a lawful order.
Here, the Court said that there is no law empowering the
Mayor or the Chief of Police to deport prostitutes. In fact it is
violative of the Revised Penal Code for any public officer not
authorized by law to deport these individuals. Even for lepers,
a law is necessary with more reason to prostitutes. Even if they
are considered lepers according to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, the proper remedy here is the writ of habeas corpus.
It is the speedy and immediate remedy to relieve persons form
unlawful restraints and as best and only sufficient defense of
personal freedom.
1st Issue: Did the petitioners (relatives of the deported) have
standing in Court?
Held: Yes. They have standing in Court because it is impossible
for the deported women who are already in Mindanao to file
the petition themselves. Therefore, the petition may properly
be submitted by these relatives in behalf of the deported
women.
2nd Issue: WON there was detention because according to the
State, they were not under restraint: being able to freely look
around in any part of Mindanao.
Held:
What does the Writ of Habeas Corpus protect or relieve you
from? It is indispensable that there must be a restraint of
liberty. Your liberty must be restraint or restricted because the
essential object or purpose of the writ is to inquire with all
manner involuntary restraint.
Here, they were involuntarily restraint. The forcible taking of
these women from Manila by officials of the city, who handed
them to other parties, deposited them in a distant region,
deprived them of movement or motion, just as effectively as
the liberty of going when and where they please, because they
are stuck in Mindanao.
Even they were not imprisoned but this circumstance deprived
effectively of your locomotion.
In Re: Gonzales
Facts: We have mutineers here from Oakwood Mutiny. They
were charged with coup de etat before the court and they
posted for bail. That application of bail was granted before the
court. The court ordered the person detaining them to release
them but they were not released. The State contested that
grant of bail by the court. It went to the CA.
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES
1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018
Atty. Gil Garcia
On the other hand, the accused were still not released. They
filed a petition for habeas corpus before the CA. The State
sought the dismissal of the petition for habeas corpus because
nag doble na ilang kaso. There is already a pending application
for the grant of bail, on the one hand. And this petition for the
writ of habeas corpus, seeking the release, which basically has
the same effect.
The court said that this petition for habeas corpus cannot be
granted because the mutineers here committed forum
shopping. In any case, the reliefs they are asking in their
petition for habeas corpus is similar to the effect sa katong
pending case for the grant of bail. Therefore, they should not
have filed the petition for habeas corpus because the relief
they are seeking is the same relief they are asking for in the
certiorari case involving their bail.
Moreover, the main issue in both cases boils down to whether
the accused should be released on bail.
Veluz vs Villanueva
Facts: Eufemia, a 94-year old widow, was living with her
nephew Veluz. Later on, Luisa and Teresita took this old
woman from the custody of Veluz. Because of this, Veluz went
to court and challenged the purported detention of Eufemia by
way of petition for writ of habeas corpus before the CA.
The CA denied the petition because they failed to prove any
unlawful restraint committed by those people who to Eufemia.
Who were those people, anyway? They were the legally
adopted children of Eufemia. They have established that they
have the legal custody of this person, therefore, the writ shall
not be granted.
It went to the SC to challenge the decision of the CA. What
does Writ of Habeas Corpus cover?
Two instances contemplated by the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
1. Deprivation over such liberty through illegal
confinement or detention; or
2. Withholding of the custody of a person entitled to
that custody.
Apparently, you can use this Writ of Habeas Corpus to regain
custody over someone.
The restraint must be proved to be illegal and involuntary. But,
if you file a petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus as to the
person claiming that you should be the one having custody or
that the detention is illegal, you have to prove the following:
1.) The court will inquire – you will have to prove that this
person is being restrained of his liberty in the first
Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot
6
place. If it is shown that there is restraint of liberty,
we now go to the 2nd inquiry;
2.) The cause of the detention – if the cause is illegal, the
writ will be granted. If the cause is not illegal, it is
found to be not unlawful, then the writ will not be
granted. That is, again, based on the discretion of the
court.
Here, as the person praying for the release of this person, he
has the burden of evidence to prove that: First, the restraint
by the adoptive children of Eufemia is illegal; and second is that
Veluz was the one who has the proper legal custody. If it is
proved that there is restraint, the restraint must be illegal,
which the Veluz did not do.
Fletcher vs Director of Bureau
Facts: This person was convicted for an offense and he was
serving his sentence. He was convicted with prison sentence
for 12 to 17 years. But, he claimed that his penalty was
commuted to 9 years to 12 years. Since he was serving his
sentence for 14 years, he filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus.
His petition was opposed by the SolGen on the ground that the
petition filed by this person was not signed nor verified by it or
a person on his behalf or his purported counsel. There is a
formal defect in the petition. It is the verification of this
person.
The court said that in petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, the
rules shall be liberally constructed. The technicality of
procedural infirmities may be set aside so that there will be
proper disposition of the case without really dwelling with the
technicalities.
The petition for writ is required to be verified but the defect is
in form and it is not fatal. Therefore, it will not unduly confine
the writ of habeas corpus in the prison walls of technicality.
Nevertheless, the court said that he was not entitled to the
writ because he was legally confined. He was also confined
because he had another case pending. The writ cannot be
issued when the custody over the person is by virtue of judicial
process or valid judgment. In the first place, he was convicted.
The commutation of his sentence was not proved. In any case,
if it was commuted, he can ask for his release by way of an
application for parole. But he had a pending case and that is a
ground for denial. In any angle you see, he cannot be released.
Ampatuan vs Macaraig
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II LECTURE NOTES 7

1- SANCHEZ ROMAN 2018

Atty. Gil Garcia
There is this policeman who was apprehended because he was
involved in the killing of COMELEC officials. So he was detained
and subjected to inquest. Later on, he was subjected to
another investigation by the Police Director General and he
was given to the regional director to be under restrictive
custody.

The wife of this person went to court and filed a petition for
writ of habeas corpus because they claimed that there is an
unlawful withholding or restraint of liberty of her husband.

The court said that there was no illegal restraint here because
he was validly under restrictive custody. Take note of the
reckoning point of the legality of one’s detention. The court
will determine the period on when the detention should be
reckoned: whether such detention is illegal or not – is at the
time of the filing of the application for the writ. Because it
would be possible that the restraint of liberty, initially not
valid, is valid upon filing. The validity of the restriction should
be determined at the date of the filing.

So, the writ will not be issued if the custody of the person is by
virtue of judicial process or valid judgment, or if it is not illegal.

In this case, the legal custody was effected by way of an order

of this Police Director General. He was placed under this
protected custody which he is able to do so under RA 6975,
and that constitutes a valid argument for his continued
detention. Therefore, that restraint is not a form of illegal
detention or restraint of liberty. He was validly under
restrictive custody – a nominal restraint beyond the ambit of
habeas corpus petition.

Andamon / Casia / Flauta / Lastimosa / Milana / Paclibar / Picot