BAIL
(Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights)
All persons, except those charged with
offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired
even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive
bail shall not be required.
(Sec. 13, Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution)
Bail - the security given for the release of
a person in custody of law, furnished by
him or a bondsman, to guarantee his
appearance before any court as required
under conditions specified under the
Rules of Court.
Ratio: Presumption of innocence (Sec.
14, 1987 Constitution)
BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT, WHEN
DISCRETIONARY, AND WHEN DENIED
1) When a matter of right:
a. Before conviction by the MTC;
b. Before conviction by the RTC
of an offense not punishable
by death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment;
c. Before conviction by the RTC
of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment but the
evidence of guilt is not strong
2) When discretionary:
a. After conviction by the RTC of
an offense not punishable by
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment;
3) When Denied:
a. Before conviction by the RTC
of an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment and the
evidence of guilt is strong;
b. After conviction by the RTC
punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment;
c. After conviction by the RTC of
an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or
life imprisonment and the
presence of bail denying
circumstances under Rule
114, Section 5 of the Rules of
Court
N O B A I L I N D E P O R TAT I O N
PROCEEDINGS
It has been repeatedly held that
respondents in deportation proceedings,
which are administrative in nature, do not
enjoy the right to bail. (Harvey v.
Defensor-Santiago, June 28, 1988)
MERE PROBABILITY TO ESCAPE NOT
A REASON TO DENY BAIL
The mere probability of escape does not
warrant the denial of bail; the remedy is
to increase the bail provided it is not
excessive (Zafra v. City of Warden, May
17, 1980)
EXCEPTIONS TO NO-BAIL RULE
1) THAT, ONCE GRANTED BAIL, THE
APPLICANT WILL NOT BE A
1 of 12 | CY
 FLIGHT RISK OR DANGER TO THE
C O M M U N I T Y ( E n r i l e v.
Sandiganbayan)
2) THAT, THERE EXIST SPECIAL,
H U M A N I TA R I A N AND
COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES
INCLUDING, AS A MATTER OF
RECIPROCITY, THOSE CITED BY
THE HIGHEST COURT IN
REQUESTING STATE WHEN IT
GRANTS PROVISIONAL LIBERTY
IN EXTRADITION CASES THEREIN
(Government of USA v. Judge
Purganan, September 24, 2002)
DOCTRINE OF EXHAUSTION OF
A D M I N I S T R AT I V E R E M E D I E S
(Administrative Law)
Whenever there is an available
administrative remedy provided by law,
no judicial recourse can be made until
such remedies have been availed of and
exhausted. (Teotico v. Agda, Sr., May
29, 1991)
Ratio:
1. Administrative authorities
are in better position to
resolve questions addressed
to their particular expertise
and that errors committed by
subordinates may be
rectified by their superiors if
given a chance to do so.
(Sunville Timber Products
Inc. v. Abad, February 24,
1992)
2. Doctrine of separation of
powers enjoins upon the
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
judiciary a becoming a policy
of non-interference with
matters primarily (albeit
exclusively) within the
competence of other
departments (Antolin v.
Domondon, July 5, 2010)
3. Strict enforcement of the
doctrine could relieve the
courts of considerable
number of avoidable cases
that would otherwise clog
dockets (Merida Water
D i s t r i c t v. B a c a r r o ,
September 30, 2008)
4. J u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f
administrative cases is
usually effected through
special civil actions which
are available only when
there is no plain, speedy and
adequate remedy (South
Cross Cement Corp. v.
Cement Manufacturers
Assoc., August 3, 2005)
EFFECT OF FAILURE TO EXHAUST
ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
It results in a lack of cause of action
which is one of the grounds for dismissal
of the complaint.
It may also be dismissed for failure to
comply with condition precedent.
But non-observance is not jurisdictional.
Failure to invoke it in a reply or motion to
dismiss operates as a waiver.
2 of 12 | CY
From Dean Albano’s lecture:
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Exhaustion of
Administrative Remedies:
1. There is lack of Due Process.
2. There is grave abuse of discretion amounting to
Lack or Excess of Jurisdiction.
3. When it pertains to purely legal issues.
The Pangasinan College of Science and Technology
promulgated a program raising funds for as particular
project in their institution. According to the teachers,
anyone will fail to participate will not be able to take
their Final Exams. One child who came from a poor
family failed to contribute. As a result, he failed to take
the Final Examination. That certain child brought an
action for Damages under Article 19 of the Civil Code
before the courts. The contention of the School and
its teachers is that the child failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies when he filed directly to the
court. It must be filed before the CHED. The
contention of the school and its teachers were not
correct because the claim was an action for
Damages. This case involved a legal issue
because the child was not able to graduate
because of his failure to contribute with the
fundraising event o f his school. The CHED
cannot award damages. This is an exception of
the exhaustion of the administrative remedies.
EXTENSION OF MARTIAL LAW
(Constitutional Law, Executive
Department)
The President shall be the Commander-
in-Chief of all armed forces of the
Philippines and whenever it becomes
necessary, he may call out such armed
forces to prevent or suppress lawless
violence, invasion or rebellion. In case of
invasion or rebellion, when the public
safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or
place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law. Within forty-eight hours
from the proclamation of martial law or
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus, the President
shall submit a report in person or in
writing to the Congress. The Congress,
voting jointly, by a vote of at least a
majority of all its Members in regular or
special session, may revoke such
proclamation or suspension, which
revocation shall not be set aside by the
President. Upon the initiative of the
President, the Congress may, in the
same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period
to be determined by the Congress, if the
invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it.
Section 18, Article 7, Executive
Department, 1987 Constitution
AUTHORITY OF THE CONGRESS TO
REVOKE OR EXTEND THE
EFFECTIVITY OF PROCLAMATION:
By majority vote of all its members
voting jointly
The Constitution does not specify the
number of times the Congress is allowed
to approve an extension of martial law
(Lagman v. Pimentel, February 6, 2018)
WITHDRAWAL FROM TREATY
(Constitutional Law, Executive
Department)
TREATY-MAKING POWER OF THE
PRESIDENT in Relation to the issue of
ICC against President Duterte


There is no (need for the) concurrence of
the Congress as to the withdrawing
power of the President in the treaty. In
3 of 12 | CY
entering into a treaty, there must be an
concurrence of the majority of the
Congress. However, in withdrawing the
treaty, there is nothing in the Constitution
that provides for such matter. Thus, the
President can unilaterally withdraw our
country in treaties and international
agreements. (Dean Albano, Polirev
August 30, 2018 Lecture)
CAN THE PRESIDENT WITHDRAW
HIMSELF FROM THE ICC BEING THE
SOLE ORGAN OF THE STATE IN
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS?
• There is no express prohibition that
there must be concurrence of the
Congress.
• The President has the discretion in
withdrawing from the ICC because he
is the sole organ of the State in
International relations.
• There is limitation with respect in
entering into treaties or any other
international agreements, but there is
no limitation as to its withdrawal.
• The concurrence of the Congress in
entering into treaties or any
international organisations cannot be
implied in withdrawal of the same
thereof.
(Dean Albano, Polirev September 3,
2018 Lecture)
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
SEPARATION OF POWERS
(Constitutional Law)
The separation of powers and delegation
of powers are considered prelude to the
three departments of the government,
namely: Legislative, Executive and
Judiciary Department.
Under the principle of Separation of
Powers, the powers vested by the
Constitution are not concentrate to only
one department but rather on the three
departments.
W H AT I S T H E P U R P O S E O F
SEPARATION?
• If it is govern by only one department,
it is the very definition of tyranny
(Madison)

• This separation of powers is to
forestall action and to prevent over-
action. If it only concentrates to one
department, that is the very definition
of tyranny. Then, there would be over
action.
• In Separation of Powers, these three
departments cannot interfere with one
another or the powers vested on one
another. Otherwise, there would
violation of separation of powers.

I S S E PA R AT I O N O F P O W E R
ABSOLUTE?
No. There is more truism in saying that
there is interdependence between these
3 rather than the total separation of the
same.
4 of 12 | CY
Basis: Blending of powers; And checks
and balances
I N C A S E S O F B U D G E TA RY
PROPOSAL, WHAT DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT THE BUDGETARY
PROPOSAL?
It is prepared by the Executive
Department. Then, after the delivery of
the State of the Nation Address, the
President will submit the Budgetary
proposal to the Legislative Department. If
congress adopts into toto, there is
blending of powers with the Executive
Department.
 blending of powers. If the SC ruled that it
If congress reduces or decreases, there
is checks and balance with the
Executive Deparment. On the other
hand, if the president vetoes a particular
item, there is checks and balance with
the Legislative Deparment. If the
president rules to adopt and makes it into
a law, there is blending of powers with
the Legislative Department. After the
veto, the congress overrides the veto,
there is either checks and balance and
blending of powers with the Executive
Department.
HOW ABOUT THE SUPREME COURT/
JUDICIARY DEPARTMENT?
There was a bill during the time of
President Cory Aquino, including an item
appropriating Php 500K as a contingency
fund in order to answer for a particular
situation if there be an increase of salary
of incumbent members of the Supreme
Court, then the retired members of the
supreme court will receive the same
amount. When President Cory Aquino
vetoed that particular item, that law was
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
already 25 years old. On the other hand,
Justice Bengzon of Pangasinan, was
affected and questioned the validity of the
veto to the Supreme Court.
No. The Supreme Court ruled that the
veto was unconstitutional. The court ruled
that you cannot override the veto for
almost decades ago. Otherwise, it is an
ultravires veto. An ultravires veto is
unconstitutional. In this case, there is
blending of powers as well as checking.
Therefore, the role of the Supreme Court/
Judiciary Department is that when the SC
ruled that it is constitutional, that is
is unconstitutional, that is checking with
the Congress or even the President.
(Bengzon v. Drilon)
IN APPOINTING GOVERNMENT
OFFICIAL, WHERE DOES THE
APPOINTMENT COME FROM?
From the Commission of Appointments —
if it approves the appointment, there is
blending of powers. If the Commission of
Appointment disapprove the appointment,
there is checking.
HOW DOES THE SC/JUDICIARY
D E PA R T M E N T I M P L E M E N T T H E
SEPARATION OF POWERS?
The court does not take cognizance of
cases where the issue involves political
question.
2 KINDS OF POLITICAL QUESTION:

1. Truly Political Question — the
courts cannot intervene;

5 of 12 | CY
 2. Not Truly Political Question —
the courts can intervene on the
ground that there is grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or
excess of jurisdiction
IS IT A POLITICAL QUESTION IF THE
ISSUE BEING ASKED IS PERTAINING
TO THE ELECTION RETURNS/
QUALIFICATIONS OF MEMBERS IN
THEIR TRIBUNALS?
In this case, the Supreme Court cannot
rule on this matter. The sole judge of all
contests pertaining to the election return/
qualification of members in their tribunals
will govern ordinarily by the tribunal itself
(Bengzon v. HRET)
BUT SUPPOSE THE PERSON IS NOT
REALLY QUALIFIED ON THE GROUND
THAT HE/SHE IS NOT A NATURAL
BORN CITIZEN. CAN THE COURT
NOW DECIDE?
No, except in Quo Warranto cases.
IF THE PRESIDENT GRANTS PARDON,
I S T H AT R E V I E WA B L E TO T H E
SUPREME COURT?
It depends. If it is done in accordance
with the law, the question of policy is a
political question. However, if the issue
involves violation of the rules, the RPC,
or any law, then, it is reviewable by the
Supreme Court.
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
S E PA R AT I O N O F P O W E R S I N
R E L AT I O N T O T H E C A S E O F
REPUBLIC V. SERENO
Former Chief Justice Sereno contended
that if the Supreme Court will take
cognizance the Quo Warranto
proceedings against me, that is violative
of the principle of Separation of Powers
by the Constitution because pursuant to
the Constitution, the Chief Justice may
only be removed through impeachment
proceedings.
Is it the remedy for you to oust the
Chief Justice? No. The Supreme Court
said that it its not because it is not
exclusive. The wordings of law used the
word “may” in cases of removing officials
through impeachment proceedings.
Moreover, the Supreme Court qualified
their answer as to the issue at hand. If
the appointment is valid, the removal can
only be done through impeachment
proceedings. On the other hand, if the
appointment is not valid, the removal
can be done through qua warranto
proceedings. The court ruled that
appointment of Chief Justice Sereno was
void on the ground of the failure to file her
SALN’s. In relation to this matter, there
can also be quo warranto proceedings as
regards to the position of the President or
Vice President if their appointment/
election is in fact void. Therefore, the
Supreme Court ruled that there was no
violation of principle of Separation of
Powers.
6 of 12 | CY
OTHER RELATED CASES:
Social Justice System V. Dangerous
Drugs Board
The issue in this case is the provision
under RA 9165 which provides that
before the Congress can assume their
office, there must a mandatory drug test.
The Supreme Court ruled that the said
provision is unconstitutional as it is not
provided for in the Constitution. The
Congress can only do that if there is the
valid amendment/ revision of the
Constitution.
Magtajas V. Pryce Properties Corp


Is the determination of whether or not
Gambling is immoral a justiciable
question?
 However, it is silent as to the manner of
No. The Supreme Court cannot entertain
such petition because it is a question of
policy that the Congress must determine
such issue.
Arroyo V. De venecia


In the case at bar, the members of the
Congress were tasked to discuss their
reports which included that of the Report
of the Conference Committee of Sin
Taxes. De Venecia invoked that the report
be adopted considering there are no
objections thereto. However, Joker Arroyo
disagreed and contended that De
Venecia failed to collect the yeas and
nays. The Supreme Court ruled that there
is no rule to take the yeas and nays with
respect to the report of the Conference
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
Committee of sin taxes in adopting such
report. The only requirement is to take
objections, if any. Further, the Supreme
Court ruled that it cannot interfere as it
involves purely political question.
Baguilat Jr. V. Alvarez
This case deals with the election of other
officers of the lower house. Under the
rules of the House of Representative, it
provided for the manner by which the
House Speaker or the Senate President
may be elected by a vote of the majority
of the members of the Congress. Under
the same paragraph, it stated that the
Congress may also provide for the
manner for the election of other officers.
The Supreme Court ruled that for the
election of the house Speaker as well as
the Senate President, the Constitution
prescribes for that manner of election.
electing of the minor officers such as the
majority floor leader, minority floor leader
and other officers because there is no
continuity of the rules as will be
determined by the Congress. Hence, the
manner thereto is treated as a political
question. Thus, the Congress will have
to promulgate their respective rules as to
the election of other officers.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
(Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights)
No law shall be passed abridging the
freedom of speech, of expression, or of
the press, or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.
(Sec. 4, Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution)
7 of 12 | CY

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND
NATIONAL SECURITY
Where a fictitious suicide photo and letter
were published in newspapers of general
circulation expressing disappointments of
the Roxas administration and instructinga
fictitious wife to teach their children to
burn pictures of the President, SC held
that such act constitutes inciting to
sedition. It suggests or incites rebellious
conspiracies or riots and tends to stir up
the people against the constituted
authorities, or to provoke violence from
opposition groups who may seek to
silence the writer, which is the sum and
substance of the offense under
consideration. (Espuelas v. People,
1951)
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND
LIBEL
(The) national community standard as
basis of what is defamatory; Not
belonging to a royal house does not
constitute libel. In a community like ours
which is both republican and egalitarian,
such an ascription, whether correct or
not, cannot be defamatory. It is to the
standards of the national community, not
to those of the region that a court must
refer especially where a newspaper is
national in reach and
coverage. (Bulletin Publishing v. Noel,
1988)
Where the defamation is alleged to have
been directed at a group/class, it is
essential that the statement must be so
sweeping or all-embracing as to apply to
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
every individual in that group or class, or
sufficiently specific so that each individual
in the class or group can prove that the
defamatory statement specifically pointed
to him, so that he can bring the action
separately, if need be. (Newsweek v.
IAC, 1986)
As the size of these groups increases,
the chances for members of such groups
to recover damages on tortious libel
become elusive. This principle is said to
embrace two important public policies:
(1) Where the group referred to is
large, the courts presume that no
reasonable reader would take the
statements as so literally applying
to each individual member; and
(2) The limitation on liability would
satisfactorily safeguard freedom of
speech and expression, as well as
of the press, effecting a sound
compromise between the
conflicting fundamental interests
involved in libel cases.
(MVRS v. Islamic Da’Wah Council of
the Phil, 2003)
ACTUAL MALICE STANDARD FOR
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND MATTERS OF
PUBLIC INTEREST
Even if the defamatory statement is false,
no liability can attach if it relates to official
conduct, unless the public official
concerned proves that the statement was
made with actual malice— that is, with
knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false
or not. (Vasquez v. CA,1999 citing New
York Times v. Sullivan, 1964)
8 of 12 | CY
SC ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR NO.
08-2008
Implements a rule of preference for the
imposition of fine only rather than
imprisonment in libel suits.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE
RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Being a public figure does not
automatically destroy in toto a person’s
right to privacy. The right to invade a
person’s privacy to disseminate public
info does not extend to a fictional
representation of a person, no matter
how public a figure he/she may be.
(Lagunzad v. Soto, 1979)
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND
EXPRESSION INCLUDES FREEDOM
TO FILM AND PRODUCE MOTION
PICTURES AND TO EXHIBIT THEM
The fact that such film production is a
commercial activity is not a
disqualification for availing of freedom of
speech and expression. The right to
privacy cannot be invoked to resist
publication and dissemination of matter of
public interest. The intrusion is no more
than necessary to keep the film a truthful
historical account. Enrile is a public figure
because of his participation as a principal
actor in the culminating events of the
EDSA revolution. (Ayer Productions v.
Capulong, 1988)
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AND THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Due to the delay in the disposition of his
original case, Cabansag asked for help
from the President through a letter
addressed to the Presidential Complaints
and Actions Commission (PCAC). He
was charged for contempt because such
complaint should have been raised to the
Secretary of Justice or SC instead. SC
ruled that for his act to be contemptuous,
the danger must cause a serious
imminent threat to the administration of
justice. It cannot be inferred that such act
has "a dangerous tendency" to belittle the
court or undermine the administration of
and impartial reading of B.P. No. 880 thus
readily shows that it refers to all kinds of
public assemblies that would use public
places.
FREEDOM PARKS
B.P. 880 provides that every city and
municipality must set aside a freedom
park within six months from the law’s
effectivity in 1985. Section 15 of the law
provides for an alternative forum through
the creation of freedom parks where no
prior permit is needed for peaceful
assembly and petition at any time.
Without such alternative forum, to deny
the permit would in effect be to deny the
right to peaceably assemble.
(WHEN MAYORS DO NOT ACT ON)
PERMIT APPLICATION (TO RALLY)
There is a need to address the situation
adverted to by petitioners where mayors
do not act on applications for a permit
9 of 12 | CY
and when the police demand a permit
and the rallyists could not produce one,
the rally is immediately dispersed. In such
a situation, as a necessary consequence
and part of maximum tolerance, rallyists
who can show the police an application
duly filed on a given date can, after two
(2) days from said date, rally in
accordance with their application without
the need to show a permit, the grant of
the permit being then presumed under
the law, and it will be the burden of the
authorities to show that there has been a
denial of the application, in which case
the rally may be peacefully dispersed
following the procedure of maximum
tolerance prescribed by the law. (Bayan v.
Ermita, 2006)
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
(Constitutional Law, Bill of Rights)
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.
(Sec. 21, Bill of Rights, 1987 Constitution)
WHAT ARE THE TWO KINDS OF
DOUBLE JEOPARDY? EXPLAIN.
Our Bill of Rights deals with two (2) kinds
of Double Jeopardy. The first sentence of
Sec. 21 ordains that no person shall be
put in jeopardy of punishment for the
same offense. The second sentence
provides that if an act is punishable by a
law or ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to
another prosecution for the same act.
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
The first speaks of the same offense and
the second speaks of the same act.
(People vs. Relova citing the ruling in
Yap v. Lutero)
JEOPARDY ATTACHES ONLY WHEN:
1. Valid Indictment

2. Competent Court

3. Valid Arraignment
4. Valid Plea Entered

5. Case is dismissed or otherwise
terminated without the express consent of
the accused.
When the accused pleaded guilty to the
offense of imprudence resulting to
physical injuries, he cannot be charged of
the crime of imprudence resulting to
homicide because the crime of reckless
imprudence is a single offense, its
consequences on persons and property
are material only to determine the
penalty. (Ivler vs. San Pedro, November
17, 2010)
In order to successfully invoke the
defense of double jeopardy, the following
requisites must be present: 1) first
jeopardy must have attached prior to the
second; 2) first jeopardy must have been
validly terminated; 3) second jeopardy
must be for the same offense, or the
second offense includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the
information, or is an attempt to commit
the same or is a frustration thereof. In the
case at bar, there is no double jeopardy
because the information was filed by a
person who had no authority to do so and
hence, it was not valid. Crime occured in
Mabalacat, Pampanga. Prosecutor of
10 of 12 | CY
Angeles City, Pampanga filed the
information. (Cudia vs. CA, January 16,
1998)
NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR TRIAL
PREVIOUSLY CONDUCTED BY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS BECAUSE
TRIAL OF CIVILIANS BY MILITARY
PROCESS IS NOT DUE PROCESS
During the Martial law, President Marcos
created the Military Tribunals. But during
the Marcos regime, even civilians were
charged, tried and acquitted or even
convicted by the Military tribunals. In this
case, Olaguer was charged and
convicted. However, the Supreme Court
ruled that the Military Tribunals do not
have jurisdiction over the civilian
authority. Thus, the proceeding that was
conducted for Olaguer before the Military
Tribunals were void because for absence
of jurisdiction over the person and over
the case. The court ruled that the case
decided by the Military Tribunal did not
produce any legal effect. And thus, there
is no double jeopardy. (Olaguer vs.
Military Commission)
X WAS CHARGED WITH AN OFFENSE.
UPON HIS MOTION, THE CASE WAS
DISMISSED. CAN HE INVOKE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY IN CASE HE IS CHARGED
WITH THE SAME CASE?
No. As a rule, he cannot invoke double
jeopardy because he moved for the
dismissal, he waived the right to
interpose it. He prevented the State from
presenting evidence and the court from
POLI WOLLY WANA
4D 2019-2020
pronouncing his guilt or innocence.
(People v. Tagle, 105 Phil. 126)
SUPPOSED IN THE QUESTION
ABOVE, THE ACCUSED INVOKED THE
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL, CAN HE
INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN CASE
HE IS CHARGED AGAIN?
Yes, as an exception to the rule (People
v. Robles)
IF THE CASE HAS BEEN DULY
UNDULY PROLONGED AND IF THE
ACCUSED MOVES TO DISMISS ON
THE GROUND OF VIOLATION TO HIS
RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL, THERE
WILL BE DOUBLE JEOPARDY. IS THE
RULE ABSOLUTE?
No, because there are exceptions to the
said rule:
1. When the delay is caused by
the accused as it would be a
mockery of justice to allow him
to benefit out of his wrongdoing
or tactical maneuvers (People
v. Jardin)
2. W h e n h e a g r e e d t o a
provisional dismissal even if he
invoked speedy trial (People v.
Gines, May 27, 1991)
RELIGION DISQUALIFICATION V.
CANCELLATION OF COC
11 of 12 | CY
THREE TERM LIMIT RULE
(Law on Public Officers)
REQUISITES
To constitute a disqualification to run for
an elective local office, the following must
concur:
1. that the official concerned has
been elected for three
consecutive terms in the same
local government post
2. that he has fully served three
consecutive terms
(Abundo v. COMELEC, 2013)
RULES ON APPLICATION OF THE
THREE-TERM LIMIT
1. I n c a s e o f s u c c e s s i o n or
involuntary severance or
interruption:
• It will not apply in cases where
an officer takes possession of
an office because he is not
considered to have fully served
his term (Borja v. COMELEC,
September 3, 1998)
3. In case of abolition of office due to
conversion of local government
unit’s status
• Not considered as an
interruption as there is no
break as local chief executive
( L a t a s a v. C O M E L E C ,
December 10, 2003)
4. In case of preventive suspension
of official
• Not a term-interrupting event
as the elective officer ’s
continued stay and entitlement
to the office remain unaffected
( A l d o v i n o v. C O M E L E C ,
December 23, 2009)
5. In case of election protest
• If unseated during the same
term — interruption
• If unseated after the service of
full term — not an interruption

2. In case of winning a recall election

to replace his successor
• An elective official, who has
served for three terms and did
not seek the elective position
for what could be his fourth
term, but later won in a recall
election, had an interruption in
the continuity of the official
service for he had become in
the interim, a private citizen
( A d o r m e o v. C O M E L E C ,
February 4, 2002)

POLI WOLLY WANA

4D 2019-2020 12 of 12 | CY