Consti 2 Dela Banda Transcription 2008 2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE BILL OF RIGHTS………………………………………………………….. 1

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE……………………………………………………….. 5
POLICE POWER………………………………………………………………… 13
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE……………………………………………….. 17
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES…………………………………………………… 22
EXCLUSIONARY RULE………………………………………………………… 45
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATINS AND CORRESPONDENCE……………… 46
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY……………………………………. 48
FREEDOM OF RELIGION………………………………………………………. 59
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL…………………………….. 67
RIGHT TO INFORMATION…………………………………………………….. 60
RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS……………………………………………. 72
EMINENT DOMAIN…………………………………………………………….. 74
NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE………………………………………………….. 79
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS……………………………………………………. 83
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED IN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION…………… 84
BAIL……………………………………………………………………………… 99
THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED……………………………………………… 108
HABEAS CORPUS………………………………………………………………. 118
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES……………………………….. 123
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION…………………………………… 124
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND
FREEDOM FROM INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE……………………………. 129
PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS…………………………………………………. 131
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR NON PAYMENT OF DEBTS…………………... 133
DOUBLE JEOPARDY…………………………………………………………… 135
EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER………………………… 147
Constitutional Law 2 The Fraternal Order of St. Thomas More
2008 Edition Ateneo de Davao University, College of Law
The Bill of Rights
FUNCTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. To establish government powers 3. To limit government powers
2. To define government powers 4. To distribute powers
BASIC CONCEPTS
Bill – declaration which is made in the Constitution
Bill of Rights – It is the list of rights that the State cannot interfere with.
It does not exhaust all rights of the citizens as other rights are embodied in statutes and
laws. Affirmative rights are not included in the Bill of Rights. It includes only negative rights.
SIGNIFICANCE IN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND RIGHTS EMBODIED
IN STATUTES:
Framers seemed to think that there are rights that are so important and fundamental that they
wanted to place it above the reach of Congress. In effect, Congress cannot pass a law which will amend
or diminish the rights found in the Bill of Rights, above the reach of Partisan politics.
PURPOSE: The Bill of Rights is a restriction on government power. This is an area where the State cannot
interfere.
STRUCTURE: It is placed in the constitution because rights are more important than the laws. It puts
rights in a higher category and limits the power of the government. There are 22 sections in the Bill of rights.
The provisions in sections 1 to 11 generally pertain to rights which everyone can enjoy; sections 12 to 22
pertain to the rights of the accused or persons who are suspected of the crimes.
BASIC PRINCIPLES
1.) The provisions of the Bill of Rights are self-executing. It is immediately effective.
Self-executing means that there is no more need of an implementing legislation before it can be
invoked. This is the distinction between other rights found in the Constitution and rights found in the Bill
of Rights.
The provisions of the Bill of Rights are self-executory because even in the absence of any
legislation, the Bill of Rights can be used as a defense or may be invoked as a cause of action in
litigation without the need of any statute from Congress. So meaning, you can automatically go to
court and have them enforced.
2.) The Bill of Rights can be invoked solely against the State.
The Bill of Rights can only be invoked against the state and not against private individuals. Why?
Let’s go back to the function of the Constitution. The provisions of the Constitutions are intended only
to govern a relationship between the individual and the state. The provision governs a relationship in
another individual is the Civil Code, Revised Penal Code or other laws made by the Congress but NOT
the Constitution.
Rahima S. Ayunan, CB 1
PEOPLE VS. MARTI
Andre Marti and his wife wanted to have some packages delivered to
Switzerland by a forwarding company. In accordance with the SOP of the
company, the company inspected the package. It turned out that the package
contained marihuana which was neatly stashed to avoid detection. A case
was filed against Marti by the State for violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Act. Marti contested that there was an illegal search and invoked his right
against unreasonable search, therefore, the evidences should be held
inadmissible in court.
RULING: The court ruled that he cannot invoke this right because the Bill
of Rights can only be invoked against the State. It governs the relationship
of the State and its citizens. It does not apply to issues between two
individuals (Marti and the forwarding company). The search was conducted
by a private individual and not a peace officer. The police were just
looking as the proprietor did the search of the package.
Query: What if the policeman asks a civilian to conduct a search for him, is this circumvention of the law?
The victim can still invoke his right found in the Bill of Rights. If the search is done by an individual who
is acting as an agent for the policeman, it is as if the policeman himself is conducting the search. The
policeman must first obtain a search warrant to make a valid search.
If the issue concerns private individuals as the parties, they can invoke ordinary statutes, like the civil
or penal code, for example.
3.) Basic human rights are superior to property rights.
PBMLO VS. PBMCI
Union wanted to participate in a demonstration. The management

allowed them on the condition that it should not be during their shift so
that operation will not be hampered. But union wanted all of the members
to participate at the same time and they did. As a consequence, the
management dismissed the officers of the union.
ISSUE: Whether the rights of the workers (right to assembly, expression
and petition for redress of grievances) should be given more importance
over the rights of the management-property rights
RULING: The court ruled in favor of the workers. Human rights enjoy primacy
over property rights. Not all rights are equal. There is a hierarchy of
rights in the Bill.
Basis of the court’s decision:

1. Property rights prescribe, human rights do not.
2. The test for limiting property rights – Reasonable Standard Test
(reasonable relation between the means employed by the law and its
object).
Note: The Doctrines of prescription and estoppels applies only to property rights and not to human rights.
Preferred Rights:
1. Freedom of speech
2. Freedom of the press These are the right so essential to the
3. Freedom of assembly validity of a democratic society.
4. Right to petition
5. Right to religion
LIFE – to live; right against physical harm; right to a good life (reasonable standard of living); right to life
starting from conception.
Any measure that would, even only endanger his health or subject him to unnecessary pain or to
unreasonable physical execution would be subject to challenge.
LIBERTY – the right to do anything which is not injurious to others.
These are the rights not mentioned in the Constitution but are implied as protected in the text of
the Constitution, e.g. right to privacy. It includes others provided by statutes or by other laws. It is not
unbridled license, it is regulated by law. In short, do anything that does not offend the public welfare.
Chief elements:
1. The right to labor
2. The right to contract
3. The right choose one’s employment
4. The right to locomotion (Justice Laurel)
PROPERTY – includes movable and immovable property, tangibles or intangibles (trademarks, stocks,
trade names), vested rights (court judgments, perfected homestead claims)
employment, profession, or trade.
Property may be regarded as anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the
subject of a contract.
Not included as rights are:

1. Licenses, permits and certificates of public convenience, because these are privileges
revocable according to the will of the grantor even without due process.
2. Public office, because it is a public trust.
4.) Provisions of the Bill of Rights have NO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.
The Bill of rights gives rights. It does not punish unlike penal laws. If the law is favorable to the
accused, the provisions of the Bill of Rights have no retroactive application.
FILOTEO, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 263 S 222 (1996)
Accused committed a crime on May 3, 1982. He was investigated by the

police during which he waived his right to a lawyer in writing but without
the assistance of counsel. He is now before the Supreme Court challenging
the admissibility of his confession on the gound that under the 1987
Constitution the waiver of the right to counsel can only be made with the
assistance of counsel.
HELD: Petitioner’s contention that Art. III, Sec. 12 of the 1987

Constitution should be given retroactive effect for being favorable to him
as an accused, cannot be sustained. While Art. 22 of the Revised Penal Code
provides that “penal laws shall have a retroactive effect insofar as they
favor the person guilty of a felony who is not a habitual criminal,” what
is being construed here is a constitutional provision specifically
contained in the Bill of Rights which is obviously not a penal Statute. A
bill of Rights is a declaration of the individual rights and privileges
which the constitution is designed to protect against violations be
government, or by individuals or groups of individuals.
PEOPLE V. DOMANTAY, 307 S 1 (1999)
Accused was charged with rape with homicide. While detained in a

municipal jail, he was interviewed by a radio reporter during which he
confessed to the crime. Two or three meters away from the reporter were
policemen, but no lawyer assisted the accused. Is the confession of accused
to the reporter admissible?
HELD: Yes. The confession is not covered by Sec. 12(1) of BOR. The BOR does
not concern itself with the relation between a private individual and
another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and
the state. The prohibitions therein are primarily addressed to the State
and its agents. In this case, the presence of the police officers 2-3
meters away did not exert undue pressure or influence on accused or coerced
him into giving his confession. Accused could have refused to be
interviewed, but instead he agreed.
SERRANO V. NLRC, 323 S 445 (2000)
Serrano was head of the Security Checker’s Section of Isetann

Department Store. In 1999, as a cost-cutting measure Isetann phased out
the entire security section and engaged the services of an independent
security agency. Thus, it wrote a notice of termination to Serrano effective
on the same day, contrary to the provisions of Art. 283 of the Labor Code
which requires a one-month notice. Was the constitutional right of Serrano
violated?
HELD: No. The employer’s failure to comply with the notice requirement does
not constitute a denial of due process, but a mere failure to observe a
procedure for termination. The reason is that the due process clause is a
limitation on government power, not on private power such as the termination
of employment under the Labor Code. Secondly, the notice and hearing are
required under the due process clause before the powers of organized society
are brought to bear upon the individual. Under Art. 283, however, the
purpose of the 30-day notice is not to give him an opportunity to be heard
on the charge against him, for there is non, but to prepare him for the
eventual loss of his job. Thirdly, the requirement of Art. 282 and Art.
283 of notice cannot be considered part of the due process clause because
the employer cannot be entirely an impartial judge of his own cause.
Due Process Clause
Art. III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprived of life,

liberty, or property without due process of law, xxx
There is no exact definition of “due process” in the Constitution because it might prove constricting
and prevent the judiciary from adjusting it to the circumstances of particular cases and to the ever
changing conditions of society. (JP Laurel)
Due Process continues to be dynamic and resilient, adaptable to every situation calling for its
application.
Quote: “It is a responsiveness to the supremacy of reason and obedience to the dictates of justice”.
(Justice Fernando)
It is a guaranty against any arbitrariness on the part of the government, whether committed by
any of its three bodies. The due process clause protects all persons, natural (citizens and aliens) as well as
artificial (juridical persons).
As applied to due process, DEPRIVATION connotes denial to the right to life, liberty or property.
Deprivation per se is not unconstitutional. What is prohibited is if deprivation is without due process.
Two aspects of due process:

1. Procedural Due Process
2. Substantive Due Process
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
- It simply means that the process is due under the circumstances. It is with regards to the
procedure for implementing a law.
- A mode of procedures which must be followed in the enforcement and application of laws.
- To give chance to a person of fair play or chance against illegal arbitrariness.
- It is in essence “hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment
only after trial.”
Procedural Due Process must be applied in the following: Other proceedings:

1. Judicial Proceedings 1. Deportation and Extradition
2. Administrative proceedings 2. Publication Laws
3. Discipline of students 3. Vague Laws
4. Rule-making by Administrative bodies 4. Appeals
5. Summary Dismissal
Due Process is not needed in the following:

1. abatement of Nuisance per se 4. Contempt
2. Preventive Suspension 5. Rule-Making where no notice and hearing is required
3. Provisional Increases
ANZALDO VS. CLAVE
An additional to the seven cases where procedural due process is applied
in administrative proceedings
Anzaldo was head of one department and he decided a certain case.
The case was appealed to the Office of the President. But the person who
decided the case on appeal was the same person who decided the case in the
first instance affirming his first decision.
RULING: The court held that this is a violation of due process since it
cannot be expected that the person will reverse his own decision. He will
always be biased to favor his own decision. Although this case does not
fall under the seven situations which require procedural due process,
nevertheless this is a violation of due process.
Elements of Procedural Due Process:
a.) In Judicial Due Process
1.) There must be a court or tribunal to hear and determine the matter before it (a court
with power and jurisdiction).
2.) Jurisdiction must be acquired over the person of the defendant and over the
property which is the subject matter of the proceeding.
3.) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.
4.) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Note: There is no violation of due process where a person is not heard because he has chosen
not to be heard
b.) In Administrative Due Process (Ang Tibay Case)

Q: So what do we mean by administrative proceedings?
A: This simply means that there are proceedings in other bodies other than that of the
courts. For instance, if you’re a laborer, you go to the NLRC. The requirements in
administrative proceedings are enunciated in the case of Ang Tibay vs. CIR.
ANG TIBAY VS. CIR

(69 PHIL 365)
There are cardinal primary rights which must be respected even in proceedings of this
character:
1. The right to hearing – it includes the right of the party interested or affected to present his own
case and submit evidence in support hereof.
2. Consider the evidence presented – not only must the party be given an opportunity to present
his case and to adduce evidence tending to establish the rights which he asserts but the tribunal
must consider the evidence presented.
3. Something to support its decision – while the duty to deliberate does not impose the
obligation to decide right, it does imply a necessity which cannot be disregarded, namely, that
of having something to support its decision. A decision with absolutely nothing to support is a
nullity, a place when directly attached.
4. Substantial Evidence – the evidence presented must also be substantial. Meaning, it is more
than a mere scintilla. Such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.
5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least
contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected.
6. Independent consideration – the Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges, therefore,
must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy
and not simply accept the vies of a subordinate in arriving at a decision.
7. Various Reasons and Issues involved in rendering decision – the Court of Industrial Relations
should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reasons for the decisions rendered.
The performance of his duty is inseparable from the authority conferred upon it.
Q: When can we say that evidence is adequate to support a conclusion?

A: By nature, it is not easy to define but the best way to learn this is:
In administrative cases: preponderance of evidence. This means 51% is already preponderance
of evidence.
In criminal cases, what is required is guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Take note that it only says
proof beyond reasonable doubt. It does not say proof beyond reasonable doubt. It does not
mean that the judge is 100% sure of the conviction. There could be a doubt but a doubt should
be reasonable. There will always be doubt.
Q: What about administrative?

A: Substantial evidence.
Q: Can legislative body render decision by simple saying, “ Ok, fine, whatever, after perusal of
your records, I found you guilty” and not stating the law and the facts?
A: The answer is NO! the Ang Tibay case is now saying that as an element of due process, you
must state the reason for the decision. In a sense, Ang Tibay supplements that regarding
administrative bodies.
MOLANEDA vs. UMACOB

358 SCRA 537 (2001)
Facts: A sexual harassment case. Petitioner complained that he was not furnished with the copy of
Atty. Buena’s notes and recommendation.
Ruling: Petitioner/respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings

and recommendation of any investigating committee created to inquire into the charges filed against
him. He is entitled only to the administrative decision based on substantial evidence made of record
and a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges and the evidence presented against him during the
meeting.
c.) In Deportation Proceedings

What about deportation? It needs due process for the reason that is has a basic consequence
in your life and liberty. The Supreme Court did not set the details of the elements of due process
in deportation case but it is mentioned that it is similar to a criminal case. So, due process in
deportation should conform to the requirements of criminal procedure. So, you need notice
and hearing.
Procedural Due Process:

1.) There must be a preliminary investigation.
2.) The charge must be sated with precision.
3.) The requirements in criminal cases must be followed, not just a summary procedure. (e.g.
bail, trial, etc.)
What about extradition? It happens when we have an extradition treaty with another country. We have
one in Indonesia and the USA. We have one in Australia, with Canada, Hong Kong, but none in Japan
and Malaysia. There are two stages: one is before the deportation. So, what will happen is that the USA
will file a request with the DFA and the request is forwarded to the DOJ and the DOJ studies the
documents. The DOJ determines whether there is enough evidence or probable cause. If there is
probable cause, the case will be filed in the RTC. The RTC will now decide if he will be deported or not.
Q: In deportation cases, is he entitled to due process?

A: The answer is YES and NO. It is NO in the DOJ (Govt. vs. Purganan). Persons undergoing extradition
cases are not subject to due process.
If the DOJ file a probable cause, this is what happens: If the DOJ finds enough evidence, it will be
submitted to the court and there will be a hearing. At the hearing, you will then be entitled to due process.
Evidence will be given by you and you will have the chance to defend yourself.
LAO GI vs. CA
180 SCRA 756 (1989)
Facts: On Sept 3, 1958, the Secretary of Justice found Filomeno Chia, Jr., alis Sia Pieng Hui, to be a Filipino Citizen as it appears
that hid father is a Filipino citizen. However, on October 3, 1980, the Minister of Justice set aside his citizenship on the ground
hat it was founded on fraud and misrepresentation. On March 9, 1981, a charge for deportation was filed with the CID against
Lao Gi alias Filomeno Chia, Jr., his wife and children. In this case, it appears that petitioners are charged with having entered
the Philippines by means of false and misleading statements or without inspection or admission by the immigration authority
at a designated port of entry.
Issue: Whether due process was denied from the petitioners
Held: While it is not disputed that it is also within the power and authority of the commissioner to require an alien to register,
such a requirement must be predicated in a positive finding that the person who is so required is an alien. In this case where
the very citizenship of the petitioner is in issue, there should be a previous determination by the CID that they are aliens
before the petitioners may be directed and required to register as aliens. Although a deportation proceeding does not partake
of the nature of a criminal action, however, considering that it is a harsh and extraordinary administrative proceeding
affecting freedom and liberty of a person, the constitutional right of such person to due process should not be denied. The
charge against an alien must specify the acts or omissions complained of which must be stated in ordinary and concise
language to enable a person of common understanding to know on what ground he is intended to be deported and enable
the CID to pronounce a proper judgment before any charge should be filed in the CID. A preliminary investigation must be
conducted to determine if there is sufficient cause to charge the respondent for deportation.
Petition is GRANTED and the question order of the respondent CID is set aside. CID is directed to continue hearing
the deportation case against the petitioners and thereafter, based on the evidence before it, resolve the issue of citizenship
of petitioners, and if found to be aliens, to determine whether or not the petitioners should be deported and/or otherwise
ordered to register as aliens.
d.) Discipline of Students

ADM VS CAPULONG
(The Lenny Villa Case)
There was a hazing conducted as part of the initiation rites of the

Aquila Legis Fraternity of ADM where the victim, Villa, was an applicant,
and was killed as a result thereof. Students who acted as master auxiliaries
were refused admittance to the school after having been found guilty of
participating in hazing. The decision of the school to dismiss the students
was based on the findings submitted by the Board. The accused contested
that they were not given copies of the school’s rules and regulations. They
were not warned on the conduct to avoid, thus, they were not afforded due
process.
RULING: The court held that this is an exception to due process. Since they
are law students, they cannot use that argument. It was presumed that they
have received a copy or have diligently asked for one. If they were
undergraduates, they would have been treated differently. Hazing was not
defined in the manual but is the same punishable.
Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions are:

1. Students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any accusation against them;
2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the assistance of counsel, if
desired;
3. Informed of the evidence against them;
4. Right to adduce evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authority to hear and decide the case.
Respondent students may not use the argument that since they were not accorded the opportunity to
see and examine the written statements which became the basis of the order, they were denied
procedural due process. Disciplinary cases involving students need not necessarily include the right to
cross-examine. An administrative proceeding conducted to investigate students’ participation in a
hazing act need not be clothed with the attributes of a judicial proceeding. The charge filed is not a
criminal case requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt but is merely administrative in character. It is not
subject to the rigorous requirement of criminal due process, particularly with respect to the specification
of the charge involved. Accordingly, disciplinary charges against a student need not be drawn with the
precision of a criminal information or complaint.
What is most significant in the case of ADMU vs. CAPULONG is the statement of the court that while you
can have a lawyer, you have no right to cross examine the witness against you. So this is what will happen:
the dean will call you and give you the written charge. Then, the dean will tell you, “ OK, answer this with
your lawyer.” Afterwards, he will check your affidavits, your documents and…”you are guilty!” It can be
done because that is summary in nature, no need of actual trial. Take note, however, this would apply
only to disciplinary proceedings, not to cases where you are held accountable for academic deficiency
(QPI).
Q: Do you need due process when an administrative body issued an order?

A: The answer should be distinguished.
Example: Who decides for increase of fare in jeepney? When the order is quasi-legislative, the answer is
NO! When the order is quasi-judicial, the answer is YES!
Q: When do we say that it is quasi-legislative?

A: The answer is when the order generally applies to all. But when an order applies to an individual, it is
considered to be quasi-judicial and you need notice and hearing.
e.) Rule Making by Administrative Bodies
PHILCOMSAT VS. ALCUAZ
PHILCOMSAT was given franchise to operate facilities for satellite

communications. After a few years it was placed under the jurisdiction of
the NTC which had the power of fixing rates. NTC ordered the petitioner to
reduce its rate by 15%. Since the order was issued without notice and
hearing, it was challenged as a violation of due process.
RULING: The court held that the order issued by NTC applies to one
individual. It is quasi-judicial in nature. Henc, notice and hearing are
essential for due process. If the order applies to all, it is rule-making
and therefore quasi-legislative.
It does not need notice and hearing. In this case, since it is only
PHILCOMSAT that is affected by the order, it is entitled to notice and
hearing to have due process. It is quasi-judicial. Likewise the order was
based on petitioner’s financial statement. Therefore, it should have been
given an opportunity to dispute the findings.
Generally, rate-fixing is quasi-legislative but in this case it is quasi judicial because there
was only one entity to be affected by the rate fixing.
Quasi-Legislative - when rules are applicable to all, there is no need for the requirement of
notice and hearing (RULE-MAKING).
Quasi-Judicial – when the rule is applicable only to one individual, notice and hearing is
required(ADJUDICATION).
RCPI VS. NTC
PLDT applied for approval to increase rates for its digital

transmission service facilities. Pending hearing of the main petition, NTC
granted PLDT provisional authority to increase its rates. RCPI, one of
those affected by the increase, questioned the approval as a violation of
due process since it was not notified of the application nor given the
opportunity to oppose.
RULING: It was held that Sec. 16 of the Public service Act allows the
commission to approve provisionally for 30 days the rates proposed without
notice and hearing. Said approved rate is only temporary and subject to
readjustments after final hearing. Hence, notice and hearing are not
required.
f.) Vague Laws
If a law lacks the comprehensive standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, then it is a vague law.
PEOPLE VS. NAZARIO
One of the issues raised was whether the lower court erred in not
declaring the that the ordinance of which he was accused of violating is
null and void for being ambiguous and uncertain (thus, a vague law).
RULING: The court held that a law is vague if it cannot be clarified by

either a saving clause or by construction and if you do not know what
conduct to avoid.
As a rule, a statute or act may be said to be vague when it lacks comprehensible standards that
men “of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.
It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects (1) it violates due process for failure to accord
persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid and (2) it leaves
law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of
the Government muscle. But the act must utterly vague on its face, that is to say, it cannot be
clarified by either a saving clause or by construction. In no way the ordinances at be said to be
tainted with the vice of vagueness. As the actual operator of the fishponds, he comes within the
term manager. He does not deny the fact that he financed the construction of the fishpond
introduced fish fries into the fishponds and he had employed laborers to maintain them. While it
appears that it is the National Government which owns them, the Government never shared in the
profits they had generated. It is therefore logical that he shoulders the burden of tax under the said
ordinance.
Vague laws will give authorities unbridled discretion in enforcing it, and the victims will
never know how or why they violated the law. I almost all cases, courts will resort to the rules of
statutory construction to find the meaning of a statute, which is why it is very rare when it cannot
find any meaning to the statute.
g.) Publication of Laws
TAÑADA VS. TUVERA
The case involves the requirement that all laws must be published in
order to take effect. The court stated that publication of laws is an
element of due process because how can it be effective if people do not
know about its existence.
Laws would entail publication of all laws, including statutes of local
application that are of public interest. Only regulations that are internal
in nature or which regulate the personnel of an administrative agency are
not required to be published.
The clause “unless it is otherwise provided” refers to the date of effectivity and
not the requirement of the publication itself which cannot in any event be omitted.
It is not correct to say that unless the disputed clause publication may be dispensed
with altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend due process insofar as
it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. All
statutes shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin
15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the
legislature. All laws defined shall immediately upon their approval, or as soon
thereafter as possible, be published in full in the Official Gazette, to become
effective only after 15 days from this publication, or on another date specified by
the legislature, in accordance with Article 2 of the Civil Code.
APPEAL
The last item is appeal. This means that you have the right to an impartial tribunal.
SUMMARY IN NATURE. Marcos made PD 803 in which one provision states that an employee
can be summarily dismissed. Aquino repealed that. But there was a problem when DILG
enacted the DILG Act. There was this provision for the police. It stated that police
officers will be summarily dismissed.
GO vs. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

271 SCRA 447 (April 18, 1997)
Go had been a member of the Olangapo Police Department since April 18, 1997. He was
dismissed for alleged involvement in Jai-alai. His house was raided in January and
June 1983. He asked to dismiss the case against his wife and brother with the promise
that jai-alai activities committed in his residence will be stopped. The Fiscal later
dismissed the case for insufficiency of evidence, for failure on the part of the
raiding team to prosecute the case. It was clearly established that Go had the full
knowledge on the existence of jai-alai activities. He was dismissed and he complained
of denial of due process. He claimed that his copy of complaint with supporting
affidavits had been served on him.
Issue: Whether or not Go was denied of due process.
Ruling: Petitioner maintains that he was not served written charges and informed of
the nature of such charges; that no hearing had actually been held by the summary
dismissal board; and that he was not heard. Petitioner’s claim is meritorious. While
PD 971 authorizes summary dismissal without necessity of a formal investigation when
the charge is serious and evidence is strong, Go has the right to be furnished a copy
of the complaint and to file an answer within 3 days. In summary dismissal,
proceedings, unless other fully effective means for implementing the constitutional
requirement of notice and hearing are devised, it is mandatory that charges be filed
in writing and that the affidavits in support thereof are attached to the complaint
because these are the only ways by which evidence against the respondent can be
brought to his knowledge.
The question is this: Is summary dismissal valid? Does it violate the due process of
law? This was answered by the Supreme Court in the case Go vs. NAPOLCOM. Go was a
policeman and he was subjected by a summary dismissal. Concerning summary dismissal,
the respondent shall be informed of the charge against him. This means that he will
be given a copy of the complaint and in addition, he shall be given a copy of all the
evidence against him. Once he is given that copy, he should also be given enough time
to submit his answer and to attack the evidence. This means that he must be given an
opportunity to present his side. Afterwards, the investigator shall implement the law
and if the charge is enough, the investigation can be dismissed. Summary involving
dismissal of policeman is valid. It may not violate the due process of law provided
that the two minimum requirements are met. It is not oonly that the complaint is filed
against you. You still have a chance to answer. It is summary only in the sense that
no actual hearing is convicted.
BASIC ELEMENTS IN DUE PROCESS:
1. Notice – to warn you

2. Hearing – to give you an opportunity to be heard
WHEN DUE PROCES IS NOT REQUIRED:
1. In cases of abatements of nuisance per se which may be abated summarily without the
necessity of judicial authorization.
Nuisances per accidence need due process but nuisance per se doesn’t need due process.
There are some instances wherein we can define what nuisance per se. The former is the
nuisance at all times and under all circumstances. Another way to define it is be saying
that this is a kind of nuisance that poses danger of threat or immediate danger to life and
property. On the other hand, nuisance per accidence is the opposite. It is solely by reason
of place and time, it becomes a nuisance. For instance, the noise during late at night,
2AM. We consider that as nuisance per accidence because that is only by reason of time,
2AM. However, if it is in the morning, there would be no problem. Therefore, you have NO
RIGHT to go to your neighbor and break the karaoke, radio or anything that is
noisemaker, because of DUE PROCESS.
ESTATE VS CA
Petitioner owned a Quonset building located on a lot of the PPA. The

Quonset was being used to store copra and petitioner had a lease contract
over the lot with PPA. Respondent, the mayor, demolished the building on
the ground that it did not conform with the zoning ordinance which located
the zone for warehouse elsewhere.
RULING: The court held that while the zoning ordinance authorizes
the removal of any property which does not conform to it. It should not be
interpreted as authorizing the summary removal of the Quonset building. If
it does, it would be a contravention of the requirements of due process.
Violation of an ordinance does not empower the mayor to avail of
extrajudicial remedies. On the contrary the LGC imposes upon him the duty
to institute judicial proceedings for violation of ordinance. The authority
to abate nuisances without judicial proceedings applies to nuisances per
se. While the Sangguniang Bayan may provide for the abatement of a nuisance
per se when it is not, the nuisance can only be so adjudged by a judicial
determination. Petitioner ws entitled to an impartial hearing to determine
whether the Quonset building was a nuisance per se.
2. Preventive Suspension of students/workers.
Note: Suspension as a preventive measure does not require notice and hearing, however suspension
as a penalty must require notice and hearing. Notice means to inform you that changes have
been filed against you. Hearing means giving opportunity to defend yourself.
In this case, the Supreme Court stated that only opportunity to be head and not actual hearing.
Hearing can be done in different ways because it involves administrative bodies. If there’s no actual
hearing done, then it is already hearing in its broader sense even if only the papers are being
submitted.
ADM VS CAPULONG
(The Lenny Villa Case)
There was a hazing conducted as part of the initiation rites of the

Aquila Legis Fraternity of ADM where the victim, Villa, was an applicant,
and was killed as a result thereof. Students who acted as master auxiliaries
were refused admittance to the school after having been found guilty of
participating in hazing. The decision of the school to dismiss the students
was based on the findings submitted by the Board. The accused contested
that they were not given copies of the school’s rules and regulations. They
were not warned on the conduct to avoid, thus, they were not afforded due
process.
RULING: The court held that this is an exception to due process. Since they
are law students, they cannot use that argument. It was presumed that they
have received a copy or have diligently asked for one. If they were
undergraduates, they would have been treated differently. Hazing was not
defined in the manual but is the same punishable.
Important points in this case:

 Five requirements to satisfy due process in the discipline of students:
a.) The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of any
accusation against them.
b.) They shall have the right to answer the charges against them with the
assistance of counsel if desired
c.) They shall be informed of the evidences against them.
d.) They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf
e.) The evidences must be duly considered by the investigating committee
or official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the
case.
 The students invoked the Ang Tibay case but the court held that the applicable case
is the Guzman case.
 They also argued that the fifth requirement was not satisfied: their evidence was not
considered. The court ruled that whether or not the evidence entered the process
of decision making or consideration is very hard to prove and that is why the court
said that the fact that it was mentioned as having been considered is sufficient.
3. Provisional Rate Increases
Note: It is not a final decision. It is merely temporary. Hence notice and hearing is not required.
4. Cancellation of the passport of a man accused of a crime
5. Preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges
Note: Preventive suspension is not a penalty, but a measure to enable the disciplining authority to
investigate charges against respondent by preventing the latter from intimidating or in any
way influencing witnesses against him. (Gloria vs CA)
6. Direct Contempt
RIVERA vs. CXC, Land Bank of the Philippines
Petitioner, the manage of LBP, was charged with dishonesty and acts committed
punishable under the Anti-Graft Las and pursuit of private business vocation or profession
without permission required by CSC. Rivera allegedly told Perez that he would facilitate the
processing, approval and release of his loan if he would be given 10% commission. Rivera
was further charge having served and acted, without prior authority required by CSC, as
the personal consultant of Lao and consultant in various companies where Lao had
investments. LBP held Rivera guilty of grave misconduct and acts prejudicial to the best
interest of the service in accepting employment from a client of the bank. The penalty of
forced resignation, without separation benefits and gratuities, was thereupon imposed on
the petitioner.
SUBSTSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Substantive Due Process requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the
persons to his life, liberty and property.
It is not whether or not the law being enforced in accordance with the prescribed manner but
whether or not, to begin with, it is a proper exercise of legislative power.
Substantive Due Process vs. Procedural Due Process

The basic distinction among the two is that procedural due process involves process and substantive due
process involves the content of the law. A good example would be if Congress passes a law saying that
cheating is strictly prohibited and students who will be caught cheating will be shot immediately and that
teachers are required to bring firearms during examinations. It is now the content of the law that is put
into challenge – its fairness and its justness.
Another point that I would like to emphasize, considering that we are looking at the contents of the law:
Can Congress in the same way pass a law when a municipal ordinance is passed? About 98% of the laws
and ordinances are in the exercise of police powers. Maybe about 1% only in the exercise of taxation
power and also about 1% in the exercise of eminent domain.
BAR QUESTIONS:
Q: If the person who decides the case is not the same person who conducted the hearing or investigation,
does it violate due process?
A: In the seven elements of administrative due process, there is no requirement that the same person who
conducted the hearing should also decide the case. The testimonies of the witnesses do not necessarily
have to be given to the same person who will decide on the case. What is important is that all the facts
should be considered by the deciding authority to satisfy due process.
AMERICAN TOBACCO VS. DIR. OF PATENTS
ISSUE: Is there a requirement that the deciding officer must be the one
who should hear the case?
RULING: The court held that due process does not require that the actual
taking of testimony must be by the person who will decide the case. What
it requires is that the deciding officer should consider all the evidences
presented.
Q: What if the lawyer prosecuting the case, the witnesses to the case, and the agency as the decision
maker belong to the same agency, will it violate due process?
A: No, there is no violation as long as the seven elements are met. In fact, this is what is being done in
most agencies, where the judge, jury and executioner is from the same agency. What is important is that
there is no violation of the seven elements enumerated in the Ang Tibay case.
Q: Policemen are conducting drunk-driving tests at random, with the use of a “breathalyzer” gadget. If
you fail to pass the test, your license to drive shall be suspended for 90 days. Does it violate due process?
A1: The taking of something (the license) from somebody should also be considered here. There is a
violation. UP suggested that a post-suspension hearing should be conducted immediately. Of course,
they are aware that this is for the welfare of the people against drunk-driving, which could make the
government’s conduct reasonable. There is compelling interest against drunk-driving. The purpose of the
post-suspension hearing is for determining whether the person is guilty or not. The suspension of the license
shall, in effect, be provisional or temporary. It should not be considered as a penalty. Post-suspension
hearings are very important so there would be no violation of due process.
A2: Another view would be, the license is just a privilege granted by the State which may be revoked
anytime. On the contrary, the suspension of the license for a long time can also deprive a jeepney driver
of his property right. It is not just a license to him but also a means of livelihood. Therefore confiscations
should have due process.
Q: The ERB, in response to public protest, issued a decree containing a schedule of lowering the price of
petroleum products for a period of one year. The oil company objected stating that the period is too long.
Is the conduct of the ERB proper?
A: The conduct of the ERB is not valid because there was no hearing conducted. The decree cannot be
considered also as provisional in nature because the period covered is too long.
Rate-fixing:
When it comes to rate fixing, due process is required after determining if the exercise of power by
the authority was judicial, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative because it affects all oil companies. There
should be notice and hearing first.
Test for substantive due process:
General Rule: If an administrative body exercises quasi-legislative function, there is no need of notice
and hearing.
Exception: If the rules of that body requires notice and hearing and also if there is an opposition to the
decree or provision made by a legislative body.
If there is a law which states that a student caught cheating can be shot immediately, the
question of procedural process cannot be invoked. What should be invoked is substantive due process
as there is obviously something wrong with the law itself.
Test: “Whether the law is a reasonable exercise of Police Power, or an undue interference on the life,
liberty and property.”
The test being set will prevent the passing of laws which are in nature unjust.
Summary:
Procedural Due Process – it concerns procedure or the manner of conduct

Substantive Due Process – it concerns the exercise of Police Power.
Police Power
It is the power of the Government to prescribe regulations to promote health, morals, education,
good order, or safety and the general welfare of the people.
EXCLUSIVE AREAS ON WHICH POLICE POWER CAN BE EXERCISED BY THE GOVERNMENT

(LAWFUL SUBJECTS):
1. Health
2. Morals
3. Education
4. Good Order
5. Safety
6. General Welfare
Law-Making Bodies cannot pass laws which do not concern any of these areas. Otherwise, the laws
passed shall be void.
Q: How do we know whether the exercise of police power is valid or how do we know that the law passed
the test for substantive due process? How do we know that it is a valid exercise of police power?
A: The first test is that the interest of the public generally, as distinguished from that of the general
class, requires such interference. Justice Cruz says that it is the law of subject test. The means are
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon the
individual. Justice Cruz said that this is the lawful method.
CHAVEZ vs. ROMULO
431 SCRA 430 (2004)
Facts: On January 31, 2003, the Chief of the Philippine National Police issued the Guidelines in the Implementation of the Ban
on the Carrying of Firearms Outside of Residence (PTCFOR). Among others, the guidelines suspended the issuance of permits
to carry firearms outside of one’s residence. Does the Constitution protect the right to bear arms? Does the ban on carrying
firearms constitute deprivation of property without due process?
Held: The right to bear arms is a mere statutory privilege, not a constitutional right. The Philippine Constitution contains no
provision similar to the Second Amendment. Similarly, a license to permit authorizing a person to enjoy certain privileges is
neither a property nor a property right. Just like ordinary licenses in other regulatory fields, a license to carry firearm may be
revoked anytime. It does not confer an absolute right, but only personal privilege to be exercised under existing restrictions,
ad such as may thereafter be reasonably imposed. Even if it is assumed that a PTCFOR constitutes a property right protected
by the Constitution, the same cannot be considered as absolute to be placed beyond the reach of the State’s police power.
All property in the State is held subject to its general regulations, necessary to the common good and general welfare.
BASIC PRINCIPLES ATTACHED TO POLICE POWER:
1. It is inherent in the government.

With or without any law or constitutional provision, the State can exercise police power
because it is part and parcel of the definition of a Government.
2. It is primarily exercised by the National Legislature but it can also be delegated to local
governments.
e.g. Ordinances by the city government is an exercise of police power
3. It is the least limitable of all powers.

It is the most compelling of all governmental powers.
4. It enjoys a presumption of validity and constitutionality.

The burden of proof is on those who dares to challenge its validity.
TEST FOR A VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER:

(Whether the law complied with substantive due process)
- applicable only to property rights.
1. LAWFUL SUBJECT – that the interest of the general public over a certain
class requires such interference.
It should serve the public interest and not a particular person or class. It should cover the six
areas of police power. If it goes outside the areas, the law does not have a lawful subject and
can be declared unconstitutional. The welfare of the people is the supreme law.
2. LAWFUL MEANS – that the means are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.
The law must pass two tests:
a.) Rational Connections Test (the reasonable relation between the means and the end)
If that is the law, what should be the method used or the means employed for the purpose?
b.) Unduly Oppressive Test
The law should not unreasonably burden the rights. They shall not be unduly oppressive of
other’s rights. It must conform to the safeguards embodied in the Bill of Rights
Example:
What if there is a law punishing smoking with death after trial?
Lawful Subject : Health
Rational Relation Test : to promote health, smoking must be discouraged
Unduly Oppressive Test : the penalty is very harsh. The law does not satisfy the test because it is
unduly oppressive.
US VS. TORRIBIO
The law in issue prohibits the slaughter of carabaos.

There is a lawful subject since it might concern public welfare.
Maybe, they are trying to prevent the introduction of infected carabao meat
in the market.
The means employed could be considered unlawful since it violates
property rights as it deprives of income from the sale of the meat by a
farmer.
The law is not oppressive if the means provided allows the slaughter
of carabaos after obtaining a permit from the government.
Q: If the city passes an ordinance prohibiting the renting of hotels or motels on a short time basis, does it
violate property rights of the owner or the right of the customers to rent the rooms for really resting or
sleeping?
A: First, short time should be defined before it can be argued on. If short time is less than eight hours, the
law can be valid if challenged by the hotel owners. If short time is more than eight hours, the ordinance
can or might be considered as oppressive or an unreasonable burden to the owner’s rights (property
rights derived from income).
Note: The tests for the valid exercise of police power are applicable only to those affecting property rights.
Example:
1. property itself
2. freedom of contract
3. ownership of property
4. disposal of property
All laws tend to interfere with property rights but it will only be unconstitutional if the rights of a
person are unduly burdened.
At present, the SC condones the State’s interference with property rights, unlike in the early days
because of the “social justice clause” found in the Constitution. This regulates the property rights in order
to equalize the distribution of wealth. It is now considered constitutional for the State to interfere with
property rights for the welfare of the people.
ERMITA VS CITY OF MANILA
The ordinance being challenged was one which regulated the operation
of hotels and motels. The ordinance required the following: 1) registration
in the lobby should be open to public view; 2) that the mayor can conduct
an inspection of the establishment at any time; 3) prohibits the renting
of the room more than once within 24 hrs; 4) that minors should be
accompanied by their parents or adults.
TAXICAB VS BOT
The law concerns the phasing out of dilapidated taxicabs. The lawful
subject here is public welfare. The lawful method is to phase out old taxis
to ensure public safety. Taxicab owners and operators challenged this by
saying that it affects their property rights.
RULING: The court held that the law is not unduly oppressive, therefore
valid. Six years cut-off time is sufficient for the owners to have
substantial return of their investment.
DEPARTMENT VS SAN DIEGO
San Diego challenged the NMAT rule that one cannot take a medical
course after failing the test three times. The lawful subject here is
health. The rational relation is that the medical profession is intimately
related to life and health and is impressed with public interest.
Restriction of the medical profession is related to health (because doctors
promote health). What is being burdened here according to San Diego is the
right to education.
RULING: The court held that the right to education is not unduly burdened
because if a person fails the NMAT three times, it seems that he is not
fit to be in the medical profession at all.
DEL ROSARIO VS BENGZON
This concerns the Generic Act which was quite an issue in the medical
world. The Act requires doctors to prescribe medicine using generic names
and not to use brand names, which was the common practice before the passage
of the law. Doctors contended that the law burdened their freedom to
contract. The lawful subject is health. The Supreme Court also cited some
constitutional policies wherein the State will promote health and make it
affordable to the people.
RULING: The court held that it is too hard to challenge the presumption of
validity. And since it has constitutional basis, the more it would be
difficult to challenge. With regards the doctor’s argument, the court said
that there is no contract between the doctor and the patient. In fact, the
patient can refuse to buy the medicine prescribed by his doctor. Therefore
the freedom of contract is not involved here. In fact, there seems to be
no case wherein the doctors sued his patient for not following his
prescription.
BALACUIT VS CFI
The ordinance: 1) reduced by ½ the fee for children aged 7-12 years
old to enter into a movie house; 2) prohibited theater owners from selling
tickets beyond the seating capacity; 3) prohibited owners from selling a
ticket to two persons. The lawful subject used as basis is general welfare.
What is burdened is the property right of the theater owners.
RULING: The court held that the fee paid to enter movie houses represents
property rights. The theater owners should have the right to sell their
tickets in whatever way they want to. Interference on the right to sell
tickets was not validated. As to #2 and #3, the court ruled them to be
valid because they affect public safety which fell within the scope of
police power. What is being avoided is the overcrowding of movie houses.
They comply with Substantive Due Process.
YNOT VS IAC
Pres. Marcos promulgated an EO which prohibited the inter-provincial

movement of carabaos and carabeefs. Anyone caught violating the law will
have his carabao and carabeef confiscated. The purpose of the law is to
prevent indiscriminate slaughter of carabaos so that they could be
preserved for agricultural use by the farmers. The lawful subject is general
welfare since the Philippines is an agricultural country. The farmers need
them for farming instead of using machineries. (The country was in an
energy crisis)
RULING: The court held that there was a lawful subject which is general
welfare. However, the method chosen by the government has no logical
connection with the purpose of the law. Prohibiting the inter-provincial
transfer of carabaos would not prevent their indiscriminate slaughter. The
carabaos can still be killed anywhere without even transferring them.
Note: The test for a valid exercise of police power applies only to property rights (Philippine Booming Mills
Case) whereas, in human rights, the test applicable is the Clear and Present Danger Test.
With the adoption of the Social Justice Clause of the Constitution, the courts now can tend to
explain that the Police Power is simply construed broadly to justify the intrusion into property rights (this is
an abandonment of the Laissez Faire Principle). Property rights can now be easily invaded by police
power.
Equal Protection Clause
Art. III, Sec 1. xxx nor shall any person be denied

the equal protection of the laws.
This means the equal protection of all persons before the law, also known as justice. The book of
Cruz states that the law does not demand absolute equality but it merely requires that all persons shall be
treated alike under like circumstances and conditions, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed.
Equal protection clause simply prohibits two things:

1. it prohibits giving favors
2. it prohibits setting someone disadvantages.
Giving equal treatment to persons under different circumstances can result to injustice.
The clause prohibits laws which are unfair, discriminatory, motivated by favoritism, hostility,
prejudice and partiality. It prohibits favoring and discriminating individuals.
It is otherwise known as the PRINCIPLE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION.
It is also important that there is equal protection, not only in the contents of the law, but also in the
administration of the law. The law protects all persons, natural as well as judicial. Artificial persons,
however, are protected only insofar as their property is concerned.
CLASS LEGISLATION
– These are laws which tend to violate the equal protection clause.
CLASSIFICATION
– The grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different
from all others.
– These are laws that set apart a group of persons. However, this does not necessarily mean
that all laws which tend to classify are unconstitutional. Not all violates the equal protection
clause.
Example: The RPC classifies criminals from other persons but it does not violate the
clause.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID CLASSIFICATION:

1. It must rest on a substantial distinction.
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law. It should be relevant to the purpose of the law.
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only. It must apply indefinitely, as long as the problem
sought to be corrected continues to exist.
4. It must apply equally to all members of the class.
If the law passes the tests, then it passes the test for equal protection. If any test is missing, it is
unconstitutional.
Some classifications may pose some problems, like gender. But we cannot question the law
outright, take the maternity law for example. It is important that when you classify, it must be relevant
some purpose and the method used must have some logical bearing to the purpose. It must also apply
indefinitely while the problem continues to exist.
ICHIONG VS. HERNANDEZ
There is substantial distinction between aliens and Filipinos since

alien’s loyalty to the country is transitory in nature which is motivated
only by some kind of personal interest.
The purpose of the law is to prevent aliens from engaging in business
in the Philippines. It is observed that there is alien dominance in retail
trade. That is the reason why the law intends to give it back to the
Filipinos.
It also applies to all members of the class, except to Americans,
since they are covered by the Parity Amendment found in the 1935
Constitution. This provision authorizes Americans to engage in all trade
in the country. The classification also has relevance to the lawful subject
and method.
PASEI VS DRILON
What was questioned was the order by the DOLE which prohibited
temporarily the sending of female domestic abroad. The law was challenged
as violative of the equal protection clause since it singled out domestic
helpers who are female only.
RULING: The SC ruled that there is valid classification since it is the

females who experience the various abuses abroad. The female domestic
workers are those who live with their employers, unlike entertainers, and
it is their houses where most abuses occur. They are very susceptible to
maltreatment. The ban is germane to the purpose of the law which is to
protect them. The law applies to all members of the class. It will apply
as long as there are female domestic workers abroad
But the law would have a different effect if the prohibition is applicable only to one country. It
seems that it will be invalid, although, it was not really address by the court. Nobody raised the
geographical problem as violating the equal protection clause. But this may be justified by raising the
substantial distinction.
If the law will state that, from now on, no workers can go abroad. It becomes a “substantive due
process” issue, not an equal protection clause problem anymore.
ORMOC SUGAR COMPANY VS TREASURER
An ordinance was passed imposing tax specifically on sugar produced

by Ormoc Sugar Co.
It violated the equal protection clause because there is a
possibility that somebody might put up a new sugar company. In effect, the
law will still apply singly to Ormoc Sugar Company because it was
specifically sated so.
RULING: The court held that the ordinance violated the equal protection
clause. It did not satisfy requirement #3. The law was only limited to
existing conditions. Although Ormoc Sugar was the only sugar miller at the
time, the ordinance should also cover for other future sugar millers.
Presently, the law does not cover other future millers.
Q: How will you cure the ordinance?

A: “All sugar produced in Ormoc will be taxed” – In this manner, it will not be limited to existing conditions
only.
A case cited in Bernas’ book saying a law was passed which prohibits women from becoming
bartenders. And the American SC upheld the law as valid and constitutional on the basis that the purpose
of the law is to protect the morals of the women. However, the prohibition may not be as acceptable
today as it was in the past. The existence of female pilots and military officers are some proofs of the
changing outlook of the society.
NUÑEZ VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Nuñez claimed that the PD minimizes the constitutional rights of the

public officers. What the law imposes is that public officials are to be
tried by the Sandiganbayan for cases concerning their position or office.
If an appeal is made by the official, it goes straight to the SC unlike
ordinary citizens, whose cases can still be appealed in the CA. Nuñez
claimed that the law is discriminatory since public officials have only
one chance to appeal (certiorari), while others have more remedies. It
should be noted that the SC only deals with appeals with questions of law.
RULING: The court held that the law did not violate the equal protection
clause. There is a substantial distinction since public officers occupy a
position different from others: Public office is a public trust. It is also
germane to the purpose of the law. It can also apply inefinitely and it
applies to all members of the class.
The right against violations of the equal protection is provided in the Constitution. However, the
creation of the Sandiganbayan is also provided in the Constitution. There seems to be a conflict between
the two provisions in the Constitution. But because there is a specific provision also in the constitution that
equal protection must give way to the other provisions in the Constitution, the creation and function of
the Sandiganbayan must be upheld.
Thus, when a law is passed by Congress has constitutional basis for favoring certain sectors of the
society, it will be difficult to challenge it by using the equal protection clause as your own basis to
invalidate the law passed.
CHUA VS. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
In 1988, in order to bring about the reorganization in the government,

an early retirement law was enacted. The law covered regular, temporary
casual and emergency employees who have rendered at least 2 years of
consecutive service. Chua, who was hired and rehired 4 times, has worked
with the government continuously for 15 years as a contractual employee.
And she applied for early retirement. She was refused the benefits of the
law because under existing civil service law she was classified as a
contractual, and her tenure is co-terminous with the project. She was not
considered as included in the law. She contested this being violative of
the equal protection clause having no substantial distinction among casual
temporary, emergency and contractual workers.
RULING: The court ruled in favor of Chua, the law violates the equal
protection clause. However, the court did not declare the law null and void
for being unconstitutional. Usually, it will. The court merely explained
the law in another manner, it injected contractual workers as included in
the law.
There is no substantial distinction between a co-terminous employee and a

casual employee when in fact the former should enjoy better treatment than
the casuals since they are in plantilla.
VILLEGAS VS. HIU CHIONG
An ordinance was passed imposing a P50.00 working fee for permits to

aliens who wish to work in Manila. This was a revenue raising program of
the City of Manila.
RULING: The court held that it violated the equal protection clause because
it did not indicate as to the particular class of aliens who are required
to pay for working permits. The ordinance was applicable to all, whether
the alien is a lowly worker or a highly paid executive or a rich
businessman.
The decision is an exception to the general rule that there should be no class legislation. But failure
to classify the aliens according to their financial standing would seem a violation of the equal protection
clause because it would be favorable to the rich and burdensome to poor aliens.
Equal protection means, “equal should be treated equally and unequal, unequally.”
If the fee is only regulatory, for example P5.00, it will be constitutional because it is minimal and
the fee will only be used to defray expenses for the registration of aliens working in the Philippines.
PEOPLE VS. CAYAT
There was a law which prohibited native non-Christians from drinking

foreign liquor. A native was caught drinking imported wine and he was
charged. He challenged this being violative of the equal protection clause.
RULING: The court held that the law is not violative of the equal protection
clause. The substantial distinction is the degree of civilization between
Christian and non-Christian tribes. The court also said it was germane to
the purpose of the law. The purpose of the law was to keep peace and order.
Experience showed that these become trouble-makers after getting drunk on
imported liquor. They are not used to drinking imported liquor and they
get easily drunk with it. Requirement No. 3 was satisfied. The law is
effective indefinitely. There will be classification as long as there is a
difference in the two groups. But concerning the 4th requisite, that it
will apply to all members of the class, it seems that it is prejudiced to
natives who are already educated. This law may not be applicable nor
acceptable nowadays. It will be discrimination towards a group or class of
people.
BAR QUESTIONS:
Q: One person challenged the law requiring people to undergo subsidiary imprisonment for failure to pay
the fine or bond on the ground that it prejudicially classifies the people according to property (economic
status).
A1: UP’s suggested answer is that the RPC is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection
clause. People who are more fortunate never have to serve the additional jail term while those who are
not as fortunate have to serve the subsidiary imprisonment without any choice. The (UP) contended that
classification based on economic status is not a substantial distinction.
A1: The equal protection clause does not compel the eradication of every disadvantage caused by
indigents. Therefore, classification based on economic status can be a valid substantial distinction in a
way. This is another way of looking at the problem as presented also by UP, although some people do
not accept this kind of argument.
Q: DECS issued a circular prohibiting or disqualifying anyone who fails for the fourth time in the National
Entrance Examination in the College of Dentistry. Does the circular deprive a flunker for the fourth time his
right to education?
A: This concerns substantive due process. There is a lawful subject which is to serve public interest. There
is a lawful means. There is rational relevance to the subject. It does not unduly burden other people’s
rights.
Q: Did the circular violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
A: There is substantial distinction of people who wants to become a dentist from other professions, for
example, future engineers or accountants. The example is important because it concerns a vital
profession which deals with people’s health. This does not violate the equal protection clause because it
does not demand that we should all be subjected to the same exam or procedure. Dentistry entrance
exam cannot be given in the same way as the College of Law entrance exams are given.
Searches and Seizures

Art. III, Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure

in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things seized.
“The sanctity of a person’s house is a time-honored hallmark of all free societies”
Section 2 covers:
- search warrant
- arrest warrant
- warrantless arrest
- warrantless searches
- exclusionary rule
Scope of the Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and to privacy of
communications and correspondence:
1.) It is available to all persons, including aliens, natural or juridical.

2.) This right is personal, and may be invoked only by the person entitled to it.
3.) The right extends not only to the privacy of one’s home but also to his office. It also covers papers
and other effects.
As a GENERAL RULE, premises may not be searched nor may the papers and effects be seized, EXCEPT
by virtue of a valid warrant.
PROBABLE CAUSE
- defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the object sought in connection
with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. (J. Escolin, Burgos vs Chief of Staff, pp.
134 Cruz).
o Evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt is not required, unlike in criminal cases.
o There is probable cause when it is more likely than not that the object being searched is
kept in that place
SEARCH WARRANTS
- An order of a judge in writing directed to a peace officer commanding him to search a particular
place in order to confiscate matters which are related to a crime.
PRINCIPLES FOR A VALID SEARCH WARRANT:
1.) as to the subject

The Constitution requires that the object being searched should be specified in the search
warrant. Otherwise, in a general warrant, the authority will not know what to get and what not get
during the search.
2.) as to the place

The place to be searched should also be specified or described in the warrant. Failure to
do so will make the warrant general.
3.) it must alienate to one specific offense
PROCEDURES IN OBTAINING A SEARCH WARRANT?

1. The judge should issue a warrant based on probable cause.
2. The judge must examine the witnesses personally.
3. The examination must be by means of searching questions.
4. The warrant must entertain specific descriptions as to object, as to place and the
requirement that it shall only be for one crime or one offense. It is not enough that you
suspect the person. You need to support it with affidavits of witnesses. Submit it to the
judge can now issue a search warrant if there is probable cause.
REQUISITES OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT:
1.) It must be based on probable cause.

What is probable cause? There are circumstances that make a prudent man
conclude that the object to the searched is in that place to be searched. He should be
reasonably convinced that the object to be searched is that place and the object is there
more likely than not. It should not be based on suspicion. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
is not required.
CORRO VS. LISING
- Search of the Philippine Times with search warrant based on two

affidavits filed by the witnesses
o Affidavit of Col. Castillo submitted to the judge contained:
We found that the said publication in fact commenced distrust
and hatred against the government of the Philippines and its duly
constituted authorities defined and penalized under Art. 142 of the
RPC as amended by PD1835.
o The other witness, Lt. Ignacio stated in his affidavit:
The said periodical published by Corro contains article leading
to cite distrust and hatred for the authority of the Republic
of the Philippines or any of the duly concerned authorities.
The judge issued the search warrant based on the 2 affidavits.
This was challenged before the SC arguing that there was no probable cause.
RULING: The court held that the above statements do not amount to probable
cause. The statements do not contain facts for conclusions of law. The
statements do not contain facts for conclusions of law. The statements are
only conclusions determined by the witnesses and not by the judge.
Q: How will you cure the defect?

A: Quote contents of the newspaper in the affidavit or attach copies of the newspapers. With this, facts
would now be presented to the judge and not only in the conclusions of the officer.
Q: Based on the statements made by the witnesses, does it satisfy the definition of probable cause?
A: No, it does not satisfy the definition of probable cause
2.) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.

This requirement is that it should be personal examination of the judge to the witness. When
the constitution says it is personal, the constitution means it literally. In one case, I think the judge
was busy so he called the clerk of court. It was null and void because the judge did not personally
examine.
BACHE VS. RUIZ
The police went to a judge to a judge to apply for a search warrant.

Since the judge was busy. He designated the clerk of court to examine the
witnesses and to write down his findings. After his trial the judge took
the oath of the witnesses to verify the truthfulness of their answers to
the searching questions of the clerk. The judge issued the search warrant.
Was probable cause personally determined by the judge?
RULING: The court ruled that there was no personal examination by the
judge. It was not sufficient even if he studied and ratified the affidavits.
The judge should personally determine probable cause.
3.) The determination must be made after the examination under oath or affirmation on the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce (not after the investigation)
This requirement also means that the determination must be by means of serching
questions. And again there are no clear parameters. But the only guideline is indirect. The
court only requires that “Do not ask leading questions.” Leading question is a question
which suggests to the witness the answer.
4.) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
The warrant must contain specific description as to objects, as to place, and as to the
offense. If a warrant fails in these requirements, we call this as General Warrant and it is null
and void. It is useless. This means that the objects taken under that warrant cannot be used
as evidence.
Purpose:
- to prevent the peace officer from exercising discretion as to what are to be seized, otherwise, he
can seize anything he wants.
PRUDENTE VS. DAYRIT
During evacuation in Leyte, Prudente allowed the evacuees to be

housed on the Polytechnic University. The police applied for a search
warrant alleging the existence of firearms in the school. The judge
commanded to make an immediate search anytime in the day or night of the
premises of Polytechnic Univ. of the Philippines, more particularly in the
office of the Dept. of Science and Tactics at the ground floor and other
rooms at the second floor.
Lawyers of Prudente got hold of a copy of the examination of the
witness by the judge. They discovered that the judge did not ask searching
questions, but only leading questions in which the witness only answered:
yes sir.
RULING 1: In the first issue, the Court ruled that this is not a general
search warrant. It appears that if the general place follows the particular
place, there is no violation of the Constitution as long as the place is
under the control of the same person. It would be different if the search
is to be conducted on a condo building, you cannot search anymore the other
condo units which are not owned by the same person. Usually a search warrant
must be specific of the place to search and the object to be seized. This
is to prevent the peace officers from exercising discretion as to what are
to be seized. Otherwise, he can seize anything he wants which are void and
unconstitutional.
RULING 2: As to the 2nd issue, the court ruled that the warrant is void
because the judge did not ask searching questions, but leading questions.
It would seem that the judge knows more about the alleged crime than the
witness. In addition, was found that the witness did not hve personal
knowledge of the facts regarding the crime than the witness. In addition,
it was found that the witness did not have personal knowledge of the facts
regarding the crime. His affidavit contained statements like “…I have been
informed and have good reason to believe…”, “…with regards to the
statement…”, “…the undersigned has verified the report…” therefore
acquiring personal knowledge, the court held that nothing in the
verification was made. It did not satisfy the requirement of searching
questions.
COLUMBIA VS. FLORES
The judge issued a search warrant for violation of the Decree on

Protection of Intellectual Property against FGT Video Network, a licensed
video tape distributor. In addition to video tapes, posters, and journal,
it is also ordered the seizure of:
xxx
c.) television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders, tape head
cleaners, accessories, equipment and other machines and paraphernalia or
materials used or intended to be used in the unlawful sale, lease,
distribution, or possession for purpose of sale, lease, distribution,
circulation or public exhibition of the above-mentioned pirated video
tapes.
RULING: The court ruled that these articles and appliances are generally
connected with, or related to a legitimate business not necessarily
involving piracy of intellectual property or infringement of copyright
laws. Hence, including these articles without specification and/or
particularly that they were really instruments in violating the Anti-Piracy
Law makes the search warrant too general which could result in the
confiscation of all items found in any video store.
General warrants:
General warrants are unconstitutional and are considered inadmissible in the court. Failure to
comply with the restrictions of a valid search warrant is that it must alienate to one specific offense
only.
Q: If in just one search conducted, the court issued a warrant charging the accused of violation of
PD1866 or the Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc. Does it violate the Constitution requiring that the
warrant should be for one specific offense only?
A: No. The reason given by the court pertaining to etc. is it stands for ammunition.
Others would object to the ruling made since the judge was not the one conducting the search.
It was not for the judge to give his reason for issuing a warrant similar to a general warrant. What is
stated in the warrant should be specific that the authority conducting the search will have little
chance of committing an error in the process.
Another doctrine would say that there is no need to specifically mention the provision violated if
the law itself contains closely related provisions (like firearms and explosives). But it will differ if the
charge would be, “crimes under the RPC”. (too broad)
Three types of a general warrant:
When it fails to describe:

1. the object to be seized
2. the place to conduct the search
3. to what specific offense it is related to
STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO
Note: This case was also in the exclusionary rule.

Stated in the warrant: The above items are subject to the offense, stolen
or embezzled, or intended to be used as a means to commit offenses violating
CB laws, tariffs and customs laws, The Internal Revenue Code, and the RPC.
RULING: There was no specific offense mentioned. There is a need to mention

only one specific offense. Otherwise, it will be considered a general
warrant.
In related offenses, there is no need to mention specific provisions on offenses. (ex. PD 1866 covers
firearms, explosives, etc.)
Q: Is this a general warrant as to the offense?

A: Yes, because it mention 4 laws. In fact, one of the laws stated is sufficient enough to invalidate the
warrant because one law covers hundreds or thousands of offenses. The warrant should be specific
as to the offenses.
TO ISSUE A SEARCH WARRANT, THE JUDGE SHALL: (RULE 112, SEC. 6, RC)
1.) Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding
the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof.
2.) If on the basis thereof, he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require
the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him arriving at a conclusion as to the
existence of probable cause.
Note: While he could rely on the findings of the fiscal, he is, nevertheless, not bound thereby.
Note: It is not the duty of the judge to personally conduct the evaluation. It is sufficient that he follows
established procedures by personally evaluating the reports and supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor (ENRILE VS. SALAZAR and SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR, pp. 137)
Note: the requirement of probable cause is not applicable in proceedings which are not criminal in
nature. Deportation is purely administrative (SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO)
PEOPLE VS. DICHOSO
The court issued a search warrant for violation of the Dangerous
Drugs Act. It directed the peace officer to search and seize the following:
a.)marijuana, b.)shabu, c.)and paraphernalia. The accused challenged the
constitutionality of the warrant on the basis that it covers three articles,
making it a general search warrant. He claimed that the warrant failed to
specify the thing to be seized.
RULING: The court ruled that this is not a general search warrant. The
offenses involved, or the objects subject for seizure belong to the same
class. Therefore, the officer does not need one warrant for each item.
SALAZAR VS. ACHACOSO
In line with the power granted by Art. 38 of the Labor Code, the
Secretary issued a warrant to conduct a search in a particular property,
in connection with the crime of illegal recruitment.
RULING: The court held that the PD which was later incorporated in to the
Labor Code as Art. 38 was unconstitutional. Under the Constitution, only
judges can issue search warrants.
MALALUAN VS. CA
The RTC judge of Caloocan issued a warrant to search for loose

firearms, in a particular house located in Quezon City. As a result of the
search, the accused was charged for violation of PD 1866. The accused
raised the issue of validity of the warrant that the Quezon City is no
longer under the jurisdiction of the Caloocan RTC judge. Therefore, if the
warrant is void, the search is invalid and all those confiscated cannot be
held admissible in court.
ISSUE: Is the warrant valid or not?
RULING: The court ruled that the warrant is valid. They resorted to BP129
which grants jurisdiction to all the courts. It states that all processes
in court are valid and effective all over the Philippines.
A problem will arise if one judge issues a warrant which is later found to be defective.
Following the procedures of court, the suspect must file a case in court, before the same court and
judge who issued the warrant, to quash that warrant it will be an inconvenience to the party
charged if the warrant was issued in Batangas and he is in Davao City.
BP 129 took into consideration the possibility that the judge in your local court could be
controlled by a syndicate. Justice in your favor will be impossible.
But, you cannot get a warrant anywhere anymore if there is already a case filed in one
court. This is the only limitation to the rule that a warrant must be acquired from the same court.
PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT:

1. Petition for a search warrant before a judge and such must be supported by your affidavit.
2. The judge must personally examine the complainant and his witness in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath.
3. The facts must be personally known to them. Hearsay is not allowed.
SILVA VS. PRESIDING JUDGE
The deposition of the witness in support of the application for search

warrants proceeded as follows:
Q: Do you personally know M/Sgt. Ranulfo Villamor Jr., the applicant of a

search warrant?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Do you have personal knowledge that the said premises subject of the
offense stated above and other proceeds or fruit of the offense used or
obtained are intended to be used as means of committing the offense?
A: Yes sir.
Q: Do you know personally the person(s) who have the property in his/their
possession and control?
A: Yes sir.
Q: How did you know all their(sic) things?

A: Through discreet surveillance
RULING: The court held that the abuse deposition did not only contain long
questions but it was also very broad. The questions propounded to the
witness were not probing but were merely routinary. The deposition was
already mimeographed and all that the witnesses had to do was to fill in
their answers on the blanks provided.
Asking of leading questions to the deposition and conducting of an
examination in a general manner would satisfy the requirements for issuance
of a valid search warrant.
ARREST WARRANTS
PROCEDURES TO OBTAIN AN ARREST WARRANT:
1.) A case must be filed before the city prosecutor’s office against the person accused. This
must be supported by your affidavit, evidences, other relevant documents to the case.
2.) The fiscal will give the accused a chance to file his counter-affidavit if he thinks that a crime
was actually committed.
3.) The accused submits his counter-affidavit.
4.) The fiscal studies the documents and conducts a preliminary investigation. The preliminary
investigation is to find out whether there is probable cause to hold the person accused for
trial. If the fiscal believes that there is probable cause, he will submit all the evidences,
affidavits, and other documents to the judge.
5.) If the judge will agree that there really is probable cause, he will issue the warrant of arrest.
(The judge is allowed 90 days to study if there is probable cause.)
BASIC STEPS BEFORE AN ARREST CAN BE ISSUED:
1.) It must be determined if there is probable cause to hold a person for trial
o This is a job of the City Prosecutor’s Office, which falls under the executive
department. The Prosecutor belongs to the Dept. of Justice, which is under the
Office of the President. (#1 & #2 procedure)
2.) It must be determined if there is probable cause to issue an arrest warrant

o This is the duty of the judge which is a judicial function. (#4 procedure)
SOLIVEN VS. MAKASIAR
This is the famous libel case filed by former Pres. Aquino against
Luis Beltran. Beltran questioned the issuance of the warrant. He said the
judge did not “personally examine” the witnesses, which is
unconstitutional. In an arrest warrant, the judge may rely on the evidences.
He need not call the witnesses.
RULING: The court said that the judge need not personally conduct the
investigation because it will duly burdensome on the part of the judges if
they will be required to do so. They will not have enough time to conduct
the trial, which is their main responsibility.
LIM VS. FELIX
The killing of Congressman Espinosa happened in Masbate. The fiscal

conducted a preliminary investigation to find out if there was probable
cause to hold the accused for trial. And he found out that there was.
During the pendency of the case before the RTC of Masbate, the SC approved
a petition for a change in venue to Makati. The judge, on the certificate
alone, which was issued by the prosecutor, determined that there was
probable cause. The accused challenged the validity of the warrant. He
argued that the judge should make a personal determination as to the
existence of probable cause to issue the warrant.
ISSUE: Whether the judge can issue a warrant based on the certificate
alone. Can it be considered valid?
RULING: The court ruled that the warrant is void. Before the fiscal can
conclude that there is probable cause, he should first examine all the
evidences, documents presented to him, and all of those should be attached
on the certificate stating that there is sufficient ground that the accused
should be put on trial. In this case, there was nothing attached to the
certificate stating that there is sufficient ground that the accused should
be put on trial. In this case, there was nothing attached to the
certificate. The Constitution underscores that the judge should determine
if there is probable cause basing on all the facts and evidences, and not
on the certificate alone.
In the case of arrest warrant, the judge need not call the witnesses for
questioning. He may rely on the record submitted to him by the fiscal. But
he must not rely solely on the resolution or certification of the fiscal.
The resolution must be supported by other evidence which led to the filing
of the case. In the case of a search warrant, the judge must personally
examine the witnesses himself to determine probable cause.
Q: Can the judge decide to disregard all evidences presented and the certificate issued by the fiscal and
order the witnesses to testify before him? Can he also require more evidences before he decide?
A: The judge can because he has a wide discretion to decide on the matter. He is not bound to decide
on the recommendation given by the prosecutor.
PANGANDAMAN VS. CESAR
There was a shooting incident which killed 5 people. After the

incident and after preliminary investigation, the Lanao judge issued a
warrant for the arrest of 14 individuals and 50 John Does. Not one of the
50 can be identified by the witnesses, but it seems that the number was
about the number of people who participated in the shooting.
ISSUE: Is a John Doe warrant valid?
RULING: According to the court, a John Doe warrant is void. The Constitution
requires that there must be specific description or designation of the
person to be arrested. John Does warrants are general warrants.
PEOPLE VS. VELOSO
A search warrant was issued for an establishment designated as the

“Parliamentary Club” which was believed to be a gambling den. The search
warrant identified the owner. They also recovered gambling paraphernalia
hidden in his pocket. The accused questioned the warrant being a John Doe
warrant. There was not exact description of the person to be arrested.
ISSUE: Is this a violation of the Constitution?
RULING: According to the court, this is not a violation of the Constitution

because it describes the John Doe. The police can also identify him by the
following designation written in the warrant who is the owner of the
establishment.
Descriptio Personae:
General Rule:
John Doe warrants are void
Exception:
When it describes the particular person who will be arrested, also known as
descriptio personae
MUÑEZ VS. ARIÑO
Sometime in 1989, a mayor issued a search warrant for a number of

people. The mayor was sued for usurpation of judicial function but the
judge dismissed the case. Then, the complainant sued the judge for ignorance
of the law. The SC stats that the mayor cannot issue a warrant, only a
judge can.
Q: Can the President issue a warrant?

A: Yes, but only for deportation and after there has been final judgment by the court against the alien.
The arrest warrant is served for the deportation of the alien, not for the purpose of conducting a hearing
or investigation.
Q: Will it not go against the Constitution that only the judge can issue an arrest warrant?
A: It does not. The only exception to the general rule is the President can also issue an arrest warrant. The
basis for this is his foreign relations as part of his executive functions as stated in the Constitution. It is the
final judgment which grants him the power to issue the arrest and the deportation.
WARRANTLESS SEARCH
General Rule:
All warrantless arrests are void and all evidences obtained from these are held inadmissible
as evidence in court.
Exceptions:
1.) Search incident to a lawful arrest
2.) Consented search
3.) Search in plain view
4.) Stop and Frisk (Terry Search)
5.) Search in moving vehicle
6.) Search in the enforcement of Custom laws
7.) Search during exigency
I. SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST:

Note: If the arrest is unlawful, the search is also unlawful
Search is valid only in the following cases:

a.) If the search is in connection with an arrest by virtue of an arrest warrant
b.) If the search is in connection with a valid warrantless arrest.
NOLASCO VS. PANO
Nolasco and another companion was arrested while aon board on the
jeepney at around 11:30AM at the intersection of Mayon & Margal St. At
around 12:00nn of the same day, there was also a search conducted on the
premises of 239-B Mayon St., which was believed to be the residence of the
two. There was no mention of the distance where the two incidents happened.
When they were arrested, there was only one warrant of arrest for one
person. The operatives also had a search warrant but it turned out that
the warrant was void.
ISSUE: whether the subsequent search conducted can be justified as an
incident to a lawful arrest by virtue of an arrest warrant.
RULING: In the first case, the court ruled that the warrantless search
conducted was valid. According to the court, it was incident to a lawful
arrest because the search was conducted within the general vicinity of the
place where the arrest had taken place – this is as to the element of
place. As to the element of time, the 30 min gap was still allowable. (This
was based on the old doctrine of incident to a lawful arrest).
In the motion for reconsideration, the court already declared this doctrine
illegal. The court ruled that a search incident to a lawful arrest is only
valid if it is conducted on: (1) the person of the accused; and (2) the
premises within his immediate control – that is to search him of weapons
and evidences of the crime. With regards to time, the search should be
contemporaneous with the arrest. Meaning, the search should be conducted
simultaneously with the arrest. (Immediately after or during)
PEOPLE VS. MUSA
The police conducted a “buy-bust operation”, an instance where in a

warrantless arrest is considered as legal (Selling marijuana is a valid
ground for a policeman to make an arrest, even without a warrant). The
incident took place in the sala of the accused. The policeman used marked
money during the operation. While they were looking for the money, they
found a plastic bag in the kitchen which after opening, contained marijuana.
ISSUE: Can the arresting officers raise the issue that this was incident
to a lawful arrest? Since the accused was a dealer of marijuana. Therefore
the marijuana found should be admissible as evidence.
RULING: The search was not incident to a lawful arrest because the marijuana
was not obtained in the person of the accused nor in the place within his
immediate control. It would be valid if Musa were in the kitchen when the
bag was found.
2 Purposes of the search incident to a lawful arrest:
1.) In order to find out if the accused has a weapon in which he can use for escaping
2.) To find out, whether the search is conducted at his body or in the place within his immediate
control, there are matters which are related to, or instruments of the crime.
Note: Policemen are not allowed to go to other rooms to fish for evidence unless they are merely
following the accused to prevent him from escaping. Evidences incidentally obtained, can be held
admissible in court.
Principles for a valid warrantless search:

1.) The person should be committing a crime.
2.) The search should be an incident to a lawful arrest (there is a valid arrest warrant)
Principles for a search incident to a lawful arrest:

1.) The search should be contemporaneous to the arrest
2.) The search should be in the person or in the premises where the person has immediate control.
SUMMARY:
The search incident to a lawful arrest is valid when: 1) There is a valid arrest warrant, or the person
is actually committing the crime; 2) The search must be limited to the person of the accused or to the
place within his immediate control; 3) The search must also be contemporaneous with the arrest.
II. CONSENTED SEARCH:
- It is also called a waiver. The person allows that a search can be conducted. He waives his
rights against unreasonable searches.
Note: This can only be applied if the search is on the house, as a house is a man’s castle, and
therefore they should not be invaded by police authorities unless there is compelling reason, and if
they will comply with some stringent requirements.
General Rule:
A waiver, before it can be considered as valid, should be expressed (verbally or
orally), Mere silence does not constitute a consent to a warrantless search. Courts indulge in
the presumption against waiver of a constitutional right. The burden of proof that there was
waiver of such right rests on the prosecution.
Exception:
An exception is the Exala Case, where silence means consent.
Requisites:
1.) The person must possess such right. It must appear that the right exists
2.) The person has knowledge of the existence of such right.
3.) The person has the intention to relinquish such right
Note: All requisites must be present to be a valid waiver. The police must prove clearly and
convincingly by evidence that the person searched has waived his constitutional right.
PEOPLE VS. EXALA
This is a strange decision. An exception to the general rule against

implied waiver.
The accused was searched in a moving vehicle in a checkpoint. When
the accused was searched, he just kept quiet.
RULING: The court held that the fact the person did not object means that
he has consented or has waived his right against unreasonable searches.
The new doctrine is: Implied waiver can be done by not objecting to the search. Silence means implied
consent.
The Exala decision is not en banc. This is a problem because one division cannot reverse the decision of
another division
LOPEZ VS. COMMISSIONER
The NBI searched a room in Skylark Hotel, which was occupied by

Veloso. The NBI did not possess a warrant at that time. When they knocked
and entered the room, there was a woman inside who introduced herself as
the wife of Veloso. When the agents stated their purpose, the woman gave
them consent to search the place. In effect, they confiscated the illegal
documents and firearms, which they used as evidence in court against Veloso.
Veloso contested this because the woman in the room had no right to give
the consent for the policeman to enter the room.
RULING: The court ruled that the consent given by the woman is sufficient
to validate the search. It would be awkward if the agents would require
the woman to produce her marriage license to prove his identity. On the
other hand, this has been modified by the next case.
PEOPLE VS. DAMASO
The PC conducted a search on the house rented by the accused, who

was believed to be a member of the NPA. The PC had no search warrant. That
time, only the helper was present. She gave them the consent to enter and
search the house and rooms wherein they obtained firearms. The accused
challenged the admissibility of the evidences.
RULING: The court stated that the evidences are inadmissible. Only the
person whose rights will be invaded can give the consent to a search. Only
Damaso can waive his rights. Consent can also be given by a person
authorized to do so. Such authorization must be expressly given by the
owner to a caretaker.
VEROY VS. LAYAGUE
Here was a report that there were rebels in the house of Veroy.
During that time, Veroy was out of town. To conduct the search, the police
asked the permission from Veroy, through a long distance call to search
the house for rebels. In effect of the search, they were able to recover
firearms, but there were no rebels.
ISSUE: Are the firearms admissible in court, even if the warrant was for
the search of rebels?
RULING: The court held that the firearms were not admissible as evidence
since the warrant was for the search of rebels, not firearms. There was a
prior justification for the intrusion. On the other hand, the police did
not come across the guns inadvertently since they were inside the drawer.
This also does not make the illegality of the guns readily apparent.
What if the rebel is holding the firearm, can the police take the firearm too? Or if the search was for the
firearm and some rebels happened to be there, can they not arrest the rebels? (Take note of the case of
People vs. Evaristo)
PEOPLE VS. BARRIOS
The accused, while carrying a carton, boarded on a bus ahead of two

policemen. He then placed the box under his seat. At a certain stop, one
of the policemen opened the box when the accused went down and found
marijuana. Upon reaching their destination, one of the policemen went to
the back and asked the passengers “Who is the owner of this box?” but
nobody answered. They arrested the accused.
RULING: The court held that the evidence is not admissible because there
was no probable cause to justify the search. It is very normal to carry a
box. He was not acting suspiciously.
III. SEARCH IN PLAIN VIEW:
Requisites:
1.) There must be a prior justification for the intrusion. Meaning the police officers should have a right
to be there in the first place.
Ex:
a. A crime is being committed
b. There is consent to the search
c. There is a valid search warrant
d. There is a valid arrest warrant
2.) The police must come across the evidence inadvertently or accidentally.
3.) The illegality must be readily apparent.
PEOPLE VS. EVARISTO
The police while on patrol heard gunfires. They saw Rosillo in the
act of firing his gun in the air. When they tried to approach him, Rosillo
ran away and entered a house. The police followed him. When they came to
the house, they asked Evaristo, the owner, about the suspect’s whereabouts.
Evaristo replied that Rosillo was no longer in the house. Anyway, the
police were able to get Evaristo’s consent to conduct a search of the
house. It turned out that the house was full of firearms.
ISSUE: Are the evidences recovered admissible in court?
RULING: The court ruled that they are. The police had prior justification
for the intrusion since they were given consent by Evaristo. They also came
across the guns inadvertently, and the illegality of the objects are readily
apparent.
COMPARING the case of People vs. Evaristo with the case of Veroy vs. Layague:
In both cases, the police were looking for persons. They were also able to recover firearms. In the
Evaristo case, the evidences were found in the sala which were in plain view of the policemen. In the
Veroy case, the gun was found inside a closed drawer.
The difference in the location of the guns when they were found is very significant according to
the court. Meaning, in the Veroy case, it is implied that the policemen were already looking for guns not
just rebels. The policemen had no right to open the compartments when their authority was only to look
for rebels.
But if the search was for firearms and the policemen found marijuana inside a cabinet, it is
considered as search in plain view. Naturallym they will have to open compartments to find firearms – this
is a valid reason for the intrusion.
PEOPLE VS. MUSA
- (People vs. Musa, supra)

RULING: the court ruled that this was not a search in plain view. The
police did not come across the evidences inadvertently. There was prior
justification for the intrusion but it is limited only within the immediate
vicinity. Also, the illegality was not readily apparent since it was inside
a plastic bag.
Observation:
Therefore, search in plain view would seem that there was no search at all. The officer would have
just come across the evidence.
An observation it would seem to be an exception to the rule: “If the object to be seized is
specifically described in the search warrant, the police would have no authority to confiscate other
objects even if they come across the object in plain view. It will not be held admissible in court. (This is just
an observation on the decisions made by the court on the example cases. This is not binding.)
This exception is considered advantageous for us citizens since the officers cannot just seize an
object which is not specified in the warrant.
PEOPLE VS. DEL ROSARIO
The policemen had a search warrant for the seizure of shabu and their
paraphernalia. When the police entered the house, they found a gun and a
cup filled with bullets on top of the television set.
ISSUE: Are these admissible in court?
RULING: Basing on the Musa case, they should be held as admissible in

court. But according to the court, they are not. The authority given by
the court was only to obtain the shabu and paraphernalia. They had no
authority to get the firearms and ammunitions. The warrant specifically
defines the object to be searched. It would seem that there should be some
modification in the requisites of search in plain view.
NOTE: The possession of parts of a gun will also hold a person liable under the crime of illegal possession
of firearms.
IV. STOP AND FRISK (TERRY SEARCH):
The idea seen here is that the person is not on board a vehicle nor inside his house, the person can
just be walking and the police will stop and search him.
POSADAS VS. CA
Posadas was carrying a buri bag. When he was stopped by the police,
he tried to run away but he failed to escape. The police found guns and
ammunitions inside his bag. The police reasoned that he was acting
suspiciously and that he was acting suspiciously and that is why they
searched him.
RULING: The court ruled that the search was valid. There was probable
cause(acting suspiciously) for the police to conduct the search. The
suspect was looking side-to-side and he tried to flee when the police
stopped him.
PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE
The police received a phone call that there were three suspiciously
looking men at a street corner in Tondo. The police found 2 men looking
side-to-side, and one had his hand on his abdomen. When the police
approached them, the two tried to flee. The police caught up with them and
they were searched. The police found a .38 caliber pistol with 6 live
ammunitions.
RULING: The court ruled that the firearm was not admissible as evidence.
The search was not valid since there was no probable cause. When the court
tried to look at the facts how the police arrived to the conclusion that
the suspects were acting suspiciously, they found it insufficient. Looking
side-to-side or holding one’s abdomen does not necessarily constitute
acting suspiciously.
As to the illegal possession of firearm, the court ruled that the police
had no personal knowledge that the suspect was actually carrying a gun at
that time. Subsequent discovery of the firearm will not cure the illegality
of the search.
In both cases of stop and frisk, a person can be subject to a search if he is acting suspiciously.
Acting suspiciously would be a basis for the probable cause. The problem that arises now is on how the
term acting suspiciously shall be determined or defined.
It would have been different if Mengote were caught loitering in the dark, not in broad daylight
like in the Posadas case. There would have been a clear significance between the two incidents
happening in daytime. So right now there is still no clear distinction of who is acting suspiciously and who
is not. Acting suspiciously will still have to be defined by decisions.
V. SEARCH IN MOVING VEHICLE:
Searches of moving vehicles are considered legal. They are regarded as one of the traditional
exceptions to the constitutional requirement for a search warrant.
The reason for this is because moving vehicles can easily be removed from one locality to another.
It will be difficult for the officer to obtain a warrant because the vehicle may already be gone by the time
he gets one.
Reasonable Warrantless Searches In Searches Of Moving Vehicles:
1.) The police can simply look at the vehicle
2.) The police can draw aside the curtain of a parked vehicle
3.) The police can flash a light inside the vehicle.
NOTE: According to the court, extensive searches can also be allowed. However, there should be
probable cause before extensive searches can be conducted without a search warrant.
There is probable cause if:

a. There is reasonable belief that the motorists is an offender
b. The vehicle contains instruments of a crime
Examples of extensive searches: (These are prohibited without the warrant if without probable
cause)
1. Body searches
2. Inspection of vehicles other than visual inspection, e.g. opening of the compartments, ordering
the passenger to alight from the car
VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA
The government put up check points in Manila because some problems

in peace and order. Valmonte sought to dismantle these check points for
being unconstitutional. The police conducted arbitrary searches on the
vehicles and the passengers without a valid warrant.
RULING: The court upheld the constitutionality of the search because

removing it will hamper the police from performing some of their functions.
PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEADT
The police received a report that a foreigner from the Sagada will
be riding a bus carrying marijuana. The police immediately put up check
points and inspected the buses coming from that direction. During the
checks, they saw a Caucasian matching the description. The police noticed
a bulge on his waist. When they asked for his passport, he did not comply.
They then ordered him to turn of the pouch on his waist. The police found
it to contain marijuana.
ISSUE: Is the marijuana admissible in court?
RULING: The court held that the search was legal.
1. There was probable cause based on the report
2. The accused acted suspiciously since he refused to give his
passport.
3. There was a bulge on his waist.
The search was also valid since this was a search of moving vehicles.
Requiring a warrant gives the suspect time to flee.
PEOPLE VS. BAGISTA
The NARCOM received a report that a person is transporting marijuana.

The report described the person as a woman, 5’2” in height, about 25 years
of age, with short curly hair. The agents put up check points and conducted
extensive searches on the buses. In one of the buses, they saw a woman
matching the description sitting quietly at the rear, with a bag on her
lap. When they searched the bag, they found marijuana.
RULING: According to the court, the evidence is admissible. There was
probable cause based on the report which also gave a description of the
suspect.
COMPARING the case of People vs. Malmsteadt with the case of People vs. Bagista:
The two cases suggest that in the case of search of moving vehicles, you can be searched without
a warrant provided there is probable cause.
The Malmsteadt case is the authority for the view of what probable cause means: that there is a
report and a person is acting suspiciously in order to authorize the search.
In the Bagista case, probable cause is satisfied the moment there is a report that will give
jurisdiction even if the person is not acting suspiciously.
PEOPLE VS. EXALA
There were several people including Exala riding a jeepney and they
were stopped in a checkpoint. While the police were conducting a routine
check and asking questions, they noticed a black leather bag with budging
sides. An officer asked what the contents of the bag were but nobody
responded. The police noticed the demeanor of the accused hanged. They
become suspiciously quiet and nervous as if they were trying to connect
something. When the bag was opened, the police found it to contain
marijuana.
RULING: According to the court, the evidence is admissible. There was

probable cause since the accused were acting suspiciously. They did not
seem to be acting normally which gave the police a reason to an exclusive
search. Likewise, there were no protests and objections regarding the
search. It was an implied waiver of the right against unreasonable searches
and seizures.
NOTE: As a general rule, there is no waiver if the consent is just implied. The Exala case is an exception to
the rule. This is where the conflict arises. It seems silence means consent. And it would also seem that not
objecting to a search makes you suspicious.
NOTE: A rule would be: “Silence means consent”. But if the circumstance is so intimidating, the court ruled
that mere silence will not be regarded as consent
PEOPLE VS. CLAUDIO
There was a police officer who aboard a bus bound for Olongapo. While
he was riding, there was a woman who boarded the bus and seated in front
of the officer. However, the woman placed her bag at the rear seat of the
bus she sat. This act of the woman raised the suspicion of the policeman.
At the next station, when the woman went down to the bus maybe just to
relieve herself in a CR. The policeman went to the bag and placed his hand
inside the bag. When he smelled his fingers, it smelled like marijuana. He
did not immediately arrest the woman. At the next bus stop, the policeman
unboarded the bus at the same time he also invited the woman to the police
station. In short he arrested the woman. In the station they searched the
bag and they found marijuana.
ISSUE: Is the marijuana admissible based on the facts presented?
RULING: In search of moving vehicle, you can only conduct extensive search
if there is probable cause. According to the S, the evidence is admissible
since the search was done in the police station. The police had reason to
do the search and arrest because he already knew that she is already
committing a crime, she was already carrying marijuana. The court ruled
that it was a search incident to a lawful arrest.
Q: If you are the lawyer for the woman, what possible defenses can you use to declare that the evidence
was inadmissible?
A: You can ague that the search was not done in the station but rather it was done on board the bus.
When the policeman put his hand inside the bag he was already conducting a search which he has no
right to do.
Q: If you were the lawyer of the government, how will you argue that the search is valid?
A: Since the search conducted was an extensive search, you’ll have to argue that there is a probable
cause. Probable cause will constitute the suspicious conduct of the accused by putting her bag at the
backseat, which is quite an unusual practice for a passenger.
Q: The question would be at what point can you say that the police is already conducting a search which
can already raise a constitutional issue?
A: When the police inspect, or look for evidences for a crime, and in doing so starts to intrude or invade
into the privacy of an individual. It is not enough that he is looking for evidence.
PEOPLE VS. BARRIOS
The accused, while carrying a carton, boarded on a bus ahead of two

policemen. He then placed the box under his seat. At a certain stop, one
of the policemen opened the box when the accused went down and found
marijuana. Upon reaching their destination, one of the policemen went to
the back and asked the passengers “Who is the owner of this box?” but
nobody answered. They arrested the accused.
RULING: The court held that the evidence is not admissible because there
was no probable cause to justify the search. It is very normal to carry a
box. He was not acting suspiciously.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT:
What the Bill of Rights is trying to do is balance the conflicting rights of the State against the
individuals and the individuals against the State. Rightists only tend to interpret the provisions in favor
of the State while the leftists tend to interpret them in favor of the people.
Rule 1: When the crime concerns national security like rebellion, sedition, inciting to sedition,
proposal to commit rebellion, you use the UMIL decision. That is the loose interpretation of the time
element, or the idea that the crime has just committed and also the idea of what is “personal
knowledge.”
Rule 2: When the issue concerns other crimes aside from the national security you stick to the stricter
rule. Crime has just been committed would mean there is immediacy of the crime when it
happened up to the time of the arrest. “personal knowledge” is derived from the personal
experience.
GUAZON VS. DE VILLA
The police a few years ago, were conducting “zonal searches” to look
for rebels. What the police did was just select a certain locality and then
condone it. They knocked on the houses and then conducted searches on the
abodes and its occupants anytime, even at night. The petitioner tried to
stop this through the court because he believes it to be unconstitutional.
RULING: The court ruled that the police can still do it but they must be
careful not to violate any human rights. The court did not actually legalize
it but they did not also say that the evidences obtained from these
operations be admissible in the court. Evidences shall be admissible under
these warrantless searches only if they fall under the seven exceptions.
The court stated that they cannot actually stop the “saturation drives”
but the court never intended to expand the exceptions to warrantless
searches
VI. SEARCH IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTOM LAWS:
A traditional exception to the search without a warrant for the same reason as search in moving
vehicles is the search in the enforcement of custom laws because smuggled goods can easily be
transported and taken out, or brought to another locality and out of the jurisdiction of one court. It would
be difficult to enforce the law if the police must first obtain a search warrant.
PAPA VS. MAGO
Customs Authorities received information that there were misdeclared

or undervalued goods which were to be released in the port of Manila. This
prompted to put up surveillance. They saw two trucks presumably full of
goods and which they immediately pursued. Without the benefit of a search
warrant, they seized the items loaded in the truck.
ISSUE: Is the search permissible? Is it legal?
RULING: According to the court, it was a search under Tariffs And Customs
Code and it can be done without a search warrant provided there is probable
cause. The court provided several requisites where you can conduct
warrantless searches under the Tariffs and Customs Code.
4 Requisites for a Valid Warrantless Search under the Tariffs and Customs Code:
1.) It must be conducted by persons exercising authority under customs law.

- Only the customs police. Ordinary police or military do not possess this authority. Although some
of the members of the Sta. Ana police have been conducting searches, under this, they are not
allowed but only if they are deputized by the customs police.
2.) There must be probable cause.

- According to the Mago case, a mere report is sufficient to constitute probable cause. Acting
suspiciously is not necessary.
3.) The search must be limited to persons, vehicles, vessels (ships), aircrafts, land enclosure (fenced
places), warehouse, stores, and also dwelling houses.
- In dwelling house, the probable cause might require more stringent reason or cause.
4.) Only dutiable or prohibited goods can be seized.

- Meaning, these are items subject to tariffs duties and taxes. Or goods which are prohibited that
are entering the country.
VII. SEARCH DURING EXIGENCY:
PEOPLE VS. DE GRACIA
Accused was charged with illegal possession of firearms which was

obtained from a warrantless search. The search was conducted at the height
of the coup attempt in 1989. The authorities were conducting searches and
surveillance as counter-measures to stop the activities of the rebel forces
in one of the searches, the officers were able to obtain firearms from the
accused.
ISSUE: Whether the evidence obtained is admissible considering the search

was without a warrant.
RULING: According to the court, they will allow searches without the warrant
because it was an abnormal time and the police do not have the opportunity
to secure a search warrant. In this case, the judge even testified that
his court was not always open because of the tension existing at that time.
But this is just a very exceptional circumstance.
WARRANTLESS ARREST
In warrantless arrests, the general principles are basically the same with warrantless searches.
Meaning, all warrantless arrests are illegal. One can be subjected to criminal prosecution for doing
warrantless arrests. However, there are also exceptions to make warantless arrests valid.
3 Exceptions for a Valid Warrantless Arrests:
1.) When in the his presence, the person to be arrested: (In Flagrante Delicto)
a. Has committed
b. Is actually committing, or
c. Is attempting to commit an offense
2.) When an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of
the facts that the person to be arrested has committed it. Meaning, this is knowledge derived from
his sensed perception. It must have just been freshly committed.
3.) When the person to be arrested is an escapee after final judgment or a person temporarily
confined while his case is still pending.
PEOPLE VS. GO
On July 2, 1991, Rolito Go shot Maguan, a student. As a result of

the investigation, the police immediately identified Go as the killer. The
police conducted a manhunt for the arrest of Go. On July 8, Rolito Go,
after reading in the newspaper that there was manhunt for him went to the
police station while being accompanied by his two lawyers. It turned out
that the witnesses to the shooting were also there. The witness pointed to
him as the killer which prompted the police to arrest him on the spot.
ISSUE: Whether Rolito Go was validly arrested.
RULING: Applying the principles of the law, the crime has not just been
committed since a few days had already lapsed. The police also had no
personal knowledge of the fact that he committed the crime. Their knowledge
was just based on the statement of the witnesses. To say that the crime
has just been committed, there must be immediacy of the time which is from
the commission of the crime up to the arrest. Personal knowledge of facts
means that his knowledge must be derived from his own personal sensed
perception, not knowledge derived from investigation, nor from witnesses,
nor from any secondary sources.
PEOPLE VS. MANLULU
At about midnight of May 29, the accused shot and stabbed and agent
of the NARCOM to death. At around 7pm of May 30, Manlulu was arrested by
policemen based on information given by an eyewitness. The police did not
have a warrant of arrest.
ISSUE: Can the State argue that the crime has just been committed,
considering that 19 hours had lapsed?
RULING: according to the court you cannot arrest a person after 19 hours
without a valid warrant of arrest. There was also no personal knowledge
since the info was from a witness.
UMIL VS. RAMOS
This is a consolidation of about 8 or 9 cases. What are important

are the cases of Nazareno and Dural.
Dural Case:
On Jan. 31, 1998, there were two CAPCOM soldiers who were killed by
Dural in a shootout in Quezon City. On Feb. 1, Dural was arrested based on
information that he was a member of the sparrow unit. He was arrested in a
hospital while undergoing treatment. Only a few hours had lapsed.
Nazareno Case:
Nazareno was charged with the killing of a person which took place
on Dec. 14, 1998. On Dec. 28, he was arrested. 14 days had lapsed. The
arrest of Nazareno was based on the statement by an arrested suspect who
implicated Nazareno.
ISSUE: In the 2 cases, have the crime just freshly been committed? Did the
officers have personal knowledge of the facts to the crime to constitute
the arrest as valid? (Take note that there is a significant difference in
the time element)
RULING: The court ruled the arrests as valid. In the Dural case, the police
got the identity of the killer at about 5am. The arrest was made by 7am.
The court said that the crime had just been committed , only 2 hours and
20m minutes had passed after learning of the suspect’s identity. The
authorities acted immediately after having the knowledge. In this case,
the court ruled that “personal knowledge” can be made up of “personal
knowledge of probable cause”. It was not personal knowledge of facts
anymore.
Personal knowledge of probable cause can be made up of 2:
1. That there were reasonable grounds of suspicion based on actual
facts.
Basis:
i. There was a confidential information which led to the arrest
of the accused
ii. There was actually a crime that happened: 2 soldiers were
killed in the shootout.
iii. There was actually a wounded person, who happened to be the
accused, being treated in the hospital.
2. That the police must be acting in good faith when conducting the
arrest. There is always a presumption that the police are performing
their duties regularly.
NOTE: There seems to be an inconsistency here because the personal knowledge given here in the Umil
case is derived from investigation and “personal knowledge of probable cause”. Note also that it has
been observed that personal knowledge in non-political cases is usually derived from personal sensed
perception. Also, the 14 days that passed in the Nazareno case still considered that a crime was just
“freshly committed.”
Continuing Offense Doctrine:

These are crimes which are not instantaneous.
- Even without the requisites this doctrine can still be invoked in continuing offenses. An example of
this is the case of Garcia vs. Enrile.
- Under this doctrine, the offenses like rebellion, insurrection, subversion, conspiracy, and proposal
to commit such crimes (Crimes against National Security), are crimes in the mind. Meaning, you
are in Flagrante Delicto at all times as long as you are a rebel and you continue to follow that
belief, and you can be arrested at any time.
- Other examples of this doctrine are squatting and tax evasion. This doctrine seems to favor the
accused at one point since he can only be charged of one offense. On the other hand, the
doctrine can also be prejudicial to the accused since he can be arrested anytime in his life.
NOTE: This doctrine does not clearly specify that it only applies to crimes of national security. Therefore,
there is a reason to believe that this doctrine could be applicable to cases similar to the above case.
Remember the case where the accused stole several roosters. The judgment was favorable to him since
he was convicted of a continuing crime because he had only one criminal intent. But it also implied that
he can be arrested even after a long period of time, the crime being a continuous one.
For exam purposes only, if the case involves crimes against national security the Umil case shall be used –
the loose interpretation of the time element.
PEOPLE VS GERENTE
At 2pm of April 30, 1995, Clarito Blace was killed. At 4pm, the
police learned of the killing and after which they immediately went to the
hospital only to find out that the victim was pronounce DOA. The police
went to the crime scene where they found a piece of wood with blood stains
and a hollow block. They were able to interview an eyewitness to the
incident who identified the accused as the killer. The police went to the
house of the accused where they found him sleeping, and they arrested him.
ISSUE: Was the arrest valid? Did the police have personal knowledge of the
facts?
RULING: The court ruled that the arrest was valid. The crime has just been
freshly committed. The police had personal knowledge because they saw the
victim dead in the hospital and they also saw the instruments of the crime.
(the wood and the hollow block). The police had also interviewed the
eyewitness.
NOTE: The problem with “personal knowledge” here is that it was not derived from personal sensed
perception but from an interview. They had knowledge that a person had been killed but they had no
knowledge on who did it. This is a reversal of the decision in the Umil case. Therefore there is still no
standards fixed with regards to the time element. It will still depend on the facts of the case. There is still
no jurisprudence on this matter.
Exclusionary Rule
Art. III, Sec. 3(2). Any evidence obtained in

violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
When the Exclusionary Rule can be invoked:
1.) When the search is warrantless and it does not fall in any of the 7 exceptions.
2.) When there is a warrant but it was void.
NOTE: Items confiscated which are illegal per se will not be returned but are forfeited in favor of the
government.
STONEHILL VS. DIOKNO
The court issued several warrants, 42 in all, to search the houses

and business addresses of Stonehill and of the members of his board.
Stonehill was known to engage in various illegal activities. Unfortunately,
all the warrants were declared null and void for the reason that they were
general warrants. The warrant stated that the objects to seize were to be
used as evidence for violations of the Tariff Laws, Internal Revenue Laws,
Central Bank Laws, RPC, and etc.
RULING: The court ruled that evidences obtained from Stonehill’s residences
cannot be held admissible in any proceeding against him. The court however,
declared that evidences obtained from his offices can be used against him.
The reason for this is section 2 can only be invoked by the person whose
rights have been invaded. Evidences obtained from the corporation, being a
different person and entity from Stonehill, can be held admissible in
court.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence
Art. III, Sec. 3(1). The privacy of communication

and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or
order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Communication and Correspondence includes the following:
1.) Letters
2.) Telephone calls
3.) Telegrams
4.) Other messages
These are subject to restrictions under the following situations:
1.) It may be restricted by the court

– The court may still issue an order of the seizure of correspondence.
2.) It may be limited by law
– Congress may do so only under 2 situations: when public order and safety so requires.
RAMIREZ VS. CA
This is an annulment case based on the ground of psychological

incapacity. In the trial, plaintiff presented as evidence 3 cassette tapes
of conversation between the spouses.
ISSUE: Whether this can be admitted as evidences in court.
RULING: The court ruled by virtue of the Constitution, the evidences can
be admissible in court since the bill of rights can only be invoked by an
individual against the State (Marti case). In the light of RA4200 (Anti-
Wire tapping law), this cannot be admitted as evidence. RA4200 was intended
to strengthen the provisions of the Constitution and to expand its cover
of applications, even to individuals, not only to the State. Under the law,
any communication secretly obtained, including the tape recorded
conversations without authority of both parties in a private conversation.
Hence cannot be held as evidence. However this does not include listening
using extension telephones. The Act admits recorded conversations as
evidence of both parties have knowledge of the fact that they are being
recorded. Recording private conversations without the knowledge of the
other can also hold a person criminally liable. The Act only applies to
private conversations and also with the use of electronic gadgets.
BAR QUESTIONS:
Q: Pursuing reports that prohibited drugs are being smuggled at night time, the So. Luzon Comm. set up
checkpoints at the end of Cavite coastal road to check passing motor vehicles. A 19 year old boy was
stopped by the officers and without objections, his car was searched. The back of his car yielded
marijuana. The drug was immediately confiscated and the boy was brought to the station for questioning.
Was the warrantless search legal? Was there also probable cause based on the facts given?
A: This is a case of an extensive search. In search of moving vehicles, extensive search is
only allowed if there is probable cause. Similar to the Bagista case, the search was also based on
a general report. There was no probable cause to conduct an extensive search.
Q: Some police operatives acting under a lawfully issued search warrant, conducted a search for firearms
in X’s house, located at #10 Shaw Blvd. The police recovered 10 kilos of cocaine instead of firearm. Is the
evidence admissible?
A: The doctrine of “plain view” can be used by the police (similar to People vs Del Rosario
case).
When evidences not held admissible in the court
1. When the search is warrantless and it does not fall under the 7 exceptions
2. When the warrant is void
3. When the search is valid but the object taken is not what is specifically described in the
warrant
Q: Supposed the police officers recovered the unlicensed firearm in an adjacent lot, Lot #12, which still
belongs to X, will it be admissible?
A: No, because the warrant specifically indicates that the place to be searched is #10
and not #12. The police have no right to search for other places.
Q: On the basis of a report and confidential information, the various electronic equipments which were
illegally imported into the Phil. were found in the bodega of G Corp. in Cebu. The collector of customs of
Cebu issued in the morning of Oct. 27, 1988 a warrant for the seizure of the electronic equipments and
stated that the Tariff and Customs Code were violated. Is the seizure valid?
A: It is valid. Also enumerable are the requisites for a valid warrantless search by customs
personnel.
Q: John learned that the police were looking for him in connection to a rape of an 18 year old girl. He
presented himself to the police desk sergeant about a week later. It so happened that the victim was at
the station. Upon seeing him, she immediately pinpointed John as the rapist. He was immediately arrested.
Is the arrest valid?
A: No. It is not a valid warrantless arrest. The police had no personal knowledge. The crime has not been
freshly committed. One week had already passed. It is important that the two requisites must go together
unless the case involves a crime concerning National Security. The immediacy of the crime with the arrest
is imperative.
Freedom of Speech or Press and Assembly
Art. III, Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging

the freedom of speech, of expression, or the press, or
the right of the people to peaceably to assemble and
petition the government for redress of grievances.
INTRODUCTION:
Under the American Constitution, this is known as the 1st amendment rights. It includes the freedom
of religion (Under the Philippine Constitution, the freedom of religion is found elsewhere in the Bill of Rights).
Freedom of expression is not found in the American Constitution itself but the American SC has stated that
the first amendment includes the freedom of expression.
Section 4 is not absolute. The rights under this section are preferred rights.
Freedom of Speech, Press, and Expression is important to the vitality of a Democratic Society. It is
defined as the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or
punishment.
Acts Protected Under Section 4:

1. Political Speeches
2. Self or Artistic Expression
3. Commercial Speech (Ads, etc.)
4. Scientific information
5. Symbolic Speeches (pins, etc.)
6. Picketing
Acts not covered (according to jurisprudence)

1. Seditious speeches
2. Libelous Speeches
3. Obscene Speeches
4. Contemptuous Speeches
Coverage of Section 4:
1. Forms of restrictions or Elements of Freedom of Expression

2. Tests on restrictions
3. Contempt, libel, & obscenity
4. Assembly and petition
I. FORMS OF RESTRICTIONS OR ELEMENTS OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION:
1. Freedom from Previous Restraint or Censorship

2. Freedom from Subsequent Punishment
Freedom from Previous Restraint or Censorship
- Government Restriction on forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination.
Forms of prior restraint:
1. Censorship
2. Closures
3. Court injunctions
4. System of Issuance of Permits and Licenses
General Rule: All exercise of Police Power bears a presumption of Constitutionality
Exception: in cases of Prior Restraint. In this case, all exercises of prior restraint on the part of the
government suffer from punishment of unconstitutionality. The burden of proof is on govt.
to provide its constitutionality or that it is extremely necessary in order to overcome the
presumption. This is because these rights are vital to democracy.
Exception to the exception:

1. in times of war (Near vs. Minessota)
2. When the COMELEC exercise its power to regulate mass media for election purposes.
(Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 & NPC vs. COMELEC)
In this case, the presumption of unconstitutionality does not apply. The burden of proof is upon the
person restrained that he is doing something proper or legal. The act of the govt. in restraining is
presumed to be valid.
NPC VS COMELEC
RA 6646 or the Electoral Reforms Law provided that it is illegal for

any newspaper, radio, or tv to sell or give free space or time to anybody
for election or campaign purposes. Instead, the law allowed the COMELEC to
buy said space and time and allot them free of charge among the candidates.
This was challenged by NPC. Art. IX-C, Sec. 4 of the Constitution was used
as the basis of the law which empowers the COMELEC to supervise and regulate
franchise or permits for the operation of mass media to ensure equal
opportunity, time and space among candidates. This was, however challenged
as violative of freedom of expression.
RULING: The court held that the technical effect of this provision (Art
IX-C, Sec. 4) is to remove any presumption of invalidity of the prior
restraint. Since the Constitution itself authorizes COMELEC to regulate
mass media for election purposes, the presumption of unconstitutionality
disappears. It is authorized by the Constitution itself.
Q: Since there is authority from the Constitution, how do we try to evaluate the validity of the law?
A: The court ruled that the only thing to consider here is whether the law constitutes a permissible
regulation which does not amount to the repression of freedom of speech.
In this case, it is permissible because:
1. It is limited to the election period (the time is not unlimited)
2. It applies only to sale or donation for campaign or election purposes (scope is limited)
3. It does not prohibit the buying of space or time by the COMELEC itself. In fact, it is
authorized by law to do such (the ban is not total)
SANIDAD VS COMELEC
The COMELEC scheduled a plebiscite for the notification of the

Organic Act for the Cordillera Autonomous Region. COMELEC passed a
resolution prohibiting columnist, commentators and announcers from using
their column in order to campaign for or against the plebiscite issue.
Sanidad, as a columnist, challenged this as violative of Sec. 4. COMELEC,
on the other hand, invoke provisions in the NPC case and RA 6646. It is
not a total ban because one can still see the COMELEC space and time.
RULING: The court held that under the Constitution and RA 6646, COMELEC is
only empowered to regulate permits and franchises and it does not have the
power to regulate the commentators. MOreover, the purpose of the
Constitutional provision allowing the COMELEC to regulate mass media (Art.
IX-C, Sec. 4), is to allow while time for the rich and poor candidates. In
this present case, it does not apply to a plebiscite. Therefore m the
contention of COMELEC is not correct. The resolution is void.
BLO VS. COMELEC
For the campaign for the 1992 national elections, COMELEC passed this
COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of decals and stickers in mobile
places and running vehicles. Petitioner contends such as violative of
Freedom of Expression.
RULING: The Court held that the law is unconstitutional. The posting of
decals and stickers does not endanger any public interest as to justify
the curtailment of Freedom of Expression. In this case, the court did not
apply the Permissible Regulation Rule, but it applied the Clear and Present
Danger Rule. Moreover, according to the court, the regulation is overbroad.
It is over broad when the regulation speaks unnecessarily broadly and
thereby invades the area of protected freedom. The regulation must be
narrowly tailored so as not to invade any other right. In this case, it
even included in its coverage private property. Thirdly, the prohibition
does not serve the constitutional purpose of giving equal time and
opportunity to the rich and poor candidates. Posting of stickers on mobile
places depends on the consent of the owners of the property.
AYER VS CAPULONG
Hal McElroy, an Australian film-maker, wanted to join the People’s

Power Revolution in a movie entitled “The 4-day Revolution”. The movie was
a mixture of fiction and history to that in addition to a love story,
prominent personalities, like Enrile, had to be portrayed. While the
production was in progress, Enrile obtained a court injunction to stop it.
He argued that the film violated his right to privacy.
ISSUE1: WON Sec. 4 also protects foreigners

ISSUE2: WON it violated Enrile’s right to privacy
RULING1: The court held that the Freedom of Expression protects not only
citizens of the Philippines but also foreigners in our country. Sec.4 also
extends to commercial media. Even if they did it for profit, they are also
protected. The reason is that most media is privately owned and operates
for profit. To prohibit them would render Sec. 4 useless. Nobody can say
anything anymore.
RULING2:As to the contention of Enrile that it violated his right to
privacy. The SC looked at the particular circumstances and did not apply
any formula to decide on the issue of which shall prevail: right to privacy
or the freedom of expression. The court ruled that the events that were
portrayed were of public interest and Enrile is also a public figure. And
because of this, the SC is constrained to rule that his Right to Privacy
shall give way to Freedom of Expression. Only the balancing of interest
was used by the SC in deciding.(during this time, Enrile was a Senator)
What is protected by the Right to Privacy is unwarranted publicity and
wrongful publicizing of private affairs. The trial judge should not have
issued an injunction beforehand because of the preferred character of the
Right of Freedom of Speech and of Expression. And while production was
still in progress, no one knew whether the final outcome would pose a clear
and present danger. There should have been no prior restraint because there
was no basis yet.
NOTE: Private individuals have more rights than public figures. The decision did not, however, define
what a “public figure” is. The right to privacy comes out of the shadows of the other rights in the
Constitution. There is no textual grant of the Right of Privacy found in the Constitution.
KAPUNAN VS DE VILLA
Kapunan was charged before a court martial for being involved in the
failed coup attempt in 1998 against the govt. While under house arrest, he
was also prohibited from giving interviews to the press. He cannot give
press statements or hold any press conference during his detention. He
challenged the validity of the restriction, it being a form of prior
restraint on the right of free expression.
RULING: The court held that the restriction was valid. Certain liberties
may be validly denied him since he was a military man. He was given a
discriminatory treatment because the court held that it is essential that
in order for the military to discharge of their duties, they must be
subjected to a form of discipline. Meaning, this may also include the
violation of Sec. 4.
Subsequent Punishment
- A restraint on Freedom of Speech, Press and Expression that comes after the exercise of the
said rights.
This includes:
1. Criminal Prosecutions for Sedition, Libel, and Obscenity
2. Citation for Contempt
3. Suits for Damages
PEOPLE VS PEREZ
Perez was punished because his words tended to stir up people against
the authorities. He had made statements and done acts which tend to
instigate others to cabal or meet together for unlawful purposes. Perez
was a lowly municipal secretary who, during a casual conversation with
another person, remarked that: “Filipinos like myself must use bolos for
cutting off Wood’s head for having recommended a bad thing for the
Filipinos, for he has killed our independence.” He was sentenced to jail.
EASTERN VS DANS
DYRA radio station was closed because of certain materials

broadcasted. No hearing was conducted on the case. They only received an
order that they will be closed. During the litigation, the owner sold the
station. In this case, the SC laid down the guidelines for the closure of
radio stations: 1.) In closing a broadcasting media, the requirements of
Ang Tibay case should be followed (Due Process); 2.) All forms of media
enjoy Freedom of Speech and Expression. The test for limiting it is the
Clear and Present Danger Rule. Government has to prove that the station
poses a Clear and Present Danger.
COLUMN OF RAMON TULFO (Apr. 17, 1990)
After the SC came out of the decision of Valmonte vs. De Villa, Ramon
Tulfo wrote in the Inquirer, calling the SC justices as “sangkatutak na
bobo”. The SC issued an order asking Tulfo to explain why he should not be
cited for contempt. Tulfo came out with an explanation. NPC intervened for
Tulfo and claimed that the order asking Tulfo to explain has implications
to Press freedom.
RULING: The court held that Tulfo committed an error. Tulfo was cited for
contempt but was only reprimanded. The statement of Tulfo destroys the
integrity of the judicial system and drives people to take the law into
their own hands.
IMPORTANT POINTS:
The power to declare people in contempt is inherent in the SC even without any express
grant in the Constitution. It is part of the exercise of Judicial Power.
With regards to NPC’s contention that the statement of Tulfo comes under the protection of
Sec. 4, according to the SC, Tulfo’s statements had no social value, no intellectual significance, nor
literary right. The implication to this is, only speeches which are probably informative or helps people
in making enlightened opinions, those with intellectual values, or those which are entertaining, are
protected under Sec. 4. This decision narrowly restricts the scope of Sec. 4.
Sec. 4 is subordinate to the authority, integrity, independence of the judiciary and the proper
administration of justice. (This seems to be a fixed formula)
II. TESTS ON RESTRICTION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION:
1. Dangerous Tendency
2. Clear and Present Danger
3. Balancing of Interests
Dangerous Tendency
If the words spoken create a dangerous tendency which the State has a right to prevent, then such words
are punishable.
PEOPLE VS PEREZ
Perez was punished because his words tended to stir up people against
authorities. The court does not really look into the probable danger but
the possible effect. Perez was only expressing his opinion but the court
found out that this satisfies the dangerous tendency rule.
This test has been largely abandoned. (J.Cruz)
NOTE: In Umil vs Ramos case, there is one portion in which the Dangerous Tendency Rule was applied.
NOTE: In determining probable cause for an offense, the SC is no longer using the Dangerous Tendency
Rule, but it is sufficient to bring about the conviction for the crime of sedition. This is the only ground to use
this test.
The Clear and Present Danger Test
The Rule mostly applied by the SC.

It is used also in contempt cases in the inferior courts.
GONZALES VS. COMELEC
The provision of the law states limits in the campaign period and
prohibits the early nomination of candidates. This law was challenged.
RULING: The Clear and Present Danger Test was defined here as: Whether the
words are used in such circumstances and are of such nature as to create a
clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evil
that Congress has a right to prevent. Substantive evil must be extremely
serious and its probability of occurrence is inevitable.
Discussion of the case: Tañada in the case was arguing in favor of the law. According to
him, the evil being sought to avoid is substantive. Limiting the campaign period will: 1.)
debase the election process; 2.) excess of partisanship; 3.) loss of _____; 4.) will result in loss of
life. These evils are substantive enough.
Is the probability inevitable?
No. It is not. The court sustained the validity of the law. The argument of Tañada seemed to
convince the justices that there was clear and present danger.
ZALDIVAR VS GONZALES
The SC charged Raul Gonzales with contempt for attacking the

integrity of the court. Gonzales contended that his contemptuous statement
did not satisfy the clear and present danger rule because it will not
immediately have the effect of destroying the faith of the people in the
judiciary.
RULING:The Court had Gonzales disbarred. The Clear and Present Danger Test
invoked by Gonzales is not a magic incantation which dissolves all problems
and dispenses with analysis and judgment in testing of the legitimacy of
claims to free speech and which compels the court to exonerate the defendant
the moment the doctrine is invoked absent proof of impending apocalypse.
This means that the clear and present danger does not mean that there has to be an immediate
catastrophe if someone is allowed to speak. This seems to be an abandonment of the old analysis which
has a stricter interpretation of the doctrine.
According to the court, the evils sought to be avoided are the:

1. Obstruction of fair dealing
2. The degradation of the judicial system
3. That it threatens the standards of professional conduct required of lawyers
The speech of Gonzales has the effect of destroying the integrity of the courts and the trust and faith of
the people in the judicial system. In the long run, it is more deleterious. It is more far reaching in its
implications compared to immediate disorders. The court did not discuss the impending threat in this case.
Balancing of Interest
The courts will weigh or balance the conflicting social interests that will be affected by legislation. It
involves many considerations, but in the end, it will uphold what should be considered as the most
important interest.
LAGUNSAD VS. SOTTO
Lagunsad was a movie producer. He entered into a contract with the

heirs of Moises Padilla for the production of the movie “The MOises Padilla
Story”. After the movie earned profits, Lagunsad refused to pay the royalty
to the heirs of Padilla, saying that the contract is void because it
violated the freedom of expression. According to him, the life of Padilla
is a matter of public interest and he should be allowed to produce the
movie without the obligation to pay the heirs. Padilla was already
considered a national hero or a folklore legend of the Ilonggos. The
conflict to be resolved here is between the right of free expression against
the right to privacy.
RULING: The court held that the right to privacy of the Padilla family
should prevail. One consideration was that the movie intruded into the
private life of the Padilla family. Another was that the movie was partly
“fictionalized”. Furthermore, Lagunsad also agreed to enter into the a
contract with the Padillas.
Distinction Between the AYER case and the LAGUNSAD case:
1. In the AYER case, the movie was a historical portrayal of the EDSA revolution and did not intrude into
the private life of Enrile. What was portrayed only was the role of Enrile played in the revolution,
whereas, in the LAGUNSAD case, the movie intruded into the private life of the Padilla family as it
portrays the life of Moises Padilla.
2. The AYER case constitutes a prior restraint, but in the Lagunsad case, this is an ordinary case of
enforcement of contract. There was no restraint, but only an action for payment of royalty.
In the Balancing of Interests Rule, there is no fixed formula for deciding. The Court will look at the particular
factors in order to come out with a decision. The court will just examine all facts and evidences.
Guidelines to follow:
1.) Rule No. 1 – When two private individuals have conflicting claims under the Bill of Rights, the Balancing
of Interest Rule is used.
2.) Rule No. 2 – When suit is between a private individual and the government, courts usually use the
Clear and Present Danger Rule.
III. CONTEMPT,LIBEL, & OBSCENITY:
Contempt
Purpose of Holding a Columnist in Contempt by the Court:
1. To shield the courts against the influence of newspaper comments on the court’s duty of
administering justice on a pending case.
2. It is to vindicate the courts from any act or conduct calculated to bring them into disfavor of to
destroy public confidence in them.
Libel
- Libelous Statements are by no means an essential part of any exposition of ideas and are such
scant social value as a step to growth that any benefit which may be derived from them is clearly
outweighed by the social interest in public order.
- This means that libelous statements are not protected by the Constitution. They do not promote
public debate.
- There are no tests in determining libel
PEOPLE VS BELTRAN
The case arose out of the column of Beltran in the Phil. Star wherein
he charged that Pres. Aquino hid under the bed during one coup attempt.
Beltran claims that as a newspaperman, what he wrote in his column is
protected by the freedom of press and expression (Sec. 4). It seems that
this statement has implications on Cory’s moral fitness to be in office.
Furthermore, it also seems that the statement was made not in good faith.
Regarding Beltran’s contention that it was only a figure of speech and it
was not intended to convey the fact that she really did hide under the bed.
RULING: According to the court, the INTENT IS IMMATERIAL. What is important

is the meaning that can be derived by the ordinary person who is reading
the article. If the “No Intent” defense is allowed, nobody could be
convicted of libel anymore. (This was before the appeal decided by Judge
Makasiar). As the case progressed in court, however, the Court ruled in
finality that Beltran’s comment was not malicious. It concerns the
performance of a public official. It only means that Cory was “looking for
shelter”.
Decisions usually make a distinction between libelous statements against private persons and public
officials.
1.) As to private persons
Libelous statement is almost always punishable because a person has a right to his
reputation and integrity. It will raise no constitutional issues. You cannot raise Freedom of
Expression as a defense because this can only be invoked against the State.
2.) As to public officials

Matters which are essentially part of his private life are protected by the libel law. This will
also raise no Constitutional questions since a public official is also entitled to his integrity. But if
the statements made are about matters which are connected with his official acts, or when
related to his mental, moral or physical fitness to be in office, it will now raise constitutional
issues – never concerning him as a private individual.
Statements that can also affect his function as an official (which are just purely destructive)
are restricted. But as a public officer, you must also be prepared to address criticisms.
Press people must make comments or write-ups which are fair and must be done in good faith in order to
be protected by Sec. 4.
Obscenity
Obscene – are those which are offensive to chastity and decency or delicacy, or those that deals with
sex in a manner appealing to prurient (lewd) interest, and those which have the tendency to corrupt the
minds of the people. This is limited only to “Sexual Obscenity”.
Test to apply if a work is Obscene: (Miller vs. California)

1. Whether the average person applying contemporary community standards would find that the
work taken in its entirety appeals to prurient interest.
2. Whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable law.
3. Whether the work taken as a whole lacks a serious literary, artistic, or scientific value.
All of the tests are still vague. These tests are a danger to the freedom of artistic expression. The
determination of the meaning of “Obscenity” shall be done on a case-to-case basis.
The standard to apply is usually the “Clear and Present Danger Rule”
What about porno materials in the Internet, how are we going to control its usage considering that the
users are from different cultures and communities? It could be legal in some parts but taboo and illegal
in other parts.
GONZALES VS KALAW
The movie “Kapit sa Patalim” passed the MTRCB. Restricting the movie
is a violation of the Freedom of Expression.
RULING: The court stated that the test to apply here is the clear and
present danger rule. But some stated that the Balancing of Interests Rule
should be applied. The Board abused its discretion, but not really grave.
The SC did not reverse the decision of the Board because it was “not grave”.
But what was also stated that the Board cannot cut or edit the film. It
has no power to do so, but the Board can petition in court to ban the film.
What the Board is empowered with is just to put classifications on the
films.
PITA VS CA
The City of Manila conducted an anti-smut campaign. Pursuant to it,

the police confiscated copies of magazines and other publications from
dealers, distributors and newsstands. There was no court order authorizing
the seizure. The seized materials were later burned by the City officials.
RULING: The court held that before confiscating alleged obscene materials,
the authorities must…
a.) first obtain a search warrant
b.) it must be the judge, not the policeman who will determine
what is obscene and what is not
c.) the warrant can only be granted if there is a clear and
present danger of a substantive evil.
Obscene materials cannot just be considered as a nuisance per se. There
must be judicial intervention because it is a judicial function to decide.
Hence, the procedure adopted by the City Govt. was illegal.
Q: Can you penalize people who are showing or selling obscene materials?
A: The city can pass an ordinance penalizing it. However, the State cannot pass a law preventing
people from watching bold movies privately inside their own house.
IV. ASSEMBLY AND PETITION:
Freedom of Assembly
It is the right of the people to assemble peaceably for consultation and discussion of matters of public
concern.
Procedures to Hold a Rally:

1. Must apply for a permit
2. Must contain the date, time, and place of activity
3. Permit is for the place
4. Authorities can modify it if there is a Clear and Present Danger
5. If it is on private property, consent of the owner is sufficient
- Therefore, it can be said that the power exercised by authorities is not prohibition but of regulation.
- The permit must be filed:
o At the Mayor’s office
o At least 4 days before the activity
o And acted within 2 days by the office (otherwise, it is deemed granted by the Mayor)
- Whatever the result, decisions regarding the permission of the rally are appealable in Court
Ideally, the test of a lawful assembly should be the purpose for which it is held, regardless of the auspices
under which it is organized. Untoward incidents during the assembly does not make it unlawful.
MALABANAN VS RAMENTO
Several student leaders were suspended for one year when they held a
demonstration in the premises of a university outside the area permitted
by the school authorities which disrupted classes and disturbed the work
of the administrative personnel. The SC issued a temporary restraining
order that in effect permitted the students to re-enroll and finish their
studies.
RULING: Although the case became moot and academic, the court nevertheless
decided to rule on the merits of the constitutional issues raised and held
that the penalty imposed was out of proportion to the misdeed. The decision
emphasized that the students did not “shed their constitutional rights to
freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,” although these
rights were not unlimited.
NOTE: Students do not lose their constitutional rights once they enter the school grounds. However, they
still need to obtain a permit from the school authorities. Schools can still deny permit if there is Clear and
Present Danger.
NOTE: However if the permit granted allows the rally to be held only in a particular place, there is a
possibility that the place designated may be far and therefore impossible for other people to heat the
group’s grievances. The State is not allowed to do such.
NESTLE VS SANCHEZ
Laborers picketed the SC while waiting for the resolution of their

cases. They set up temporary shelters and took turns attacking the SC
through a loud speaker. The SC ordered them to explain why they should not
be cited for contempt.
RULING: The court stated that no pickets or determinations in order to

influence or pressure courts shall be allowed within the vicinity of all
courts. While citizens can invoke their right to speech, assembly and
petition against courts, they must go through the proper channels. Any
exercise of freedom of speech, expression and assembly done without
complying with what is allowed. In order to influence the courts is not
constitutionally protected. The case presented here is an example of one
which is not allowed.
In cases involving the court holding somebody in contempt for conducting a rally within the court’s
vicinity, the issue would be how to strike a proper balance between the freedom of expression and
integrity of the courts.
Freedom of Religion
Art. III, Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall
be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
2 Parts:
1.) Non-Establishment Clause
2.) Free Exercise Clause
NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
- Prevents the state from promoting a religion

- Definition by Fr. Bernas: Prohibits laws which aid one or all religions or prefers one over another.
Related Provisions in the Constitution:

1. Art. VI, Sec. 29 (2)
“No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly
or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious teacher,
or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to
the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.”
2. Art. II, Sec. 6

“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”
Matters prohibited by the Non-Establishment Clause:

1. State cannot organize a church
2. State cannot promote one religion
3. State cannot impose taxes to support a religious activity
4. State cannot participate in the affairs of a religious organization
According to Fr. Bernas, the purpose of the Non-Establishment Clause is to allow religion to compete freely
with each other without the State’s patronage, but based on their own merit.
Exceptions to the Non-Establishment Clause:

1. Art. VI, Sec. 28(3) exempts religious property from tax
2. Art. VI, Sec. 29(2) authorizes payment of public funds to priests in the Armed Forces, any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
3. Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3) under certain conditions, allows religious instructions in public schools.
Test on Permissible Aid to Religion

1. Statute must have a Secular/Legislative Purpose. (Secular – worldly or non-religious purpose)
2. Principal or Primary Effect is neither one that advances or prohibits religion.
3. It must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion.
AGLIPAY VS RUIZ
The government appropriated P60T for design of new stamps which

commemorated the 33rd Eucharistic Congress in Manila. The design was the
Map of the Philippines. Monsignor Aglipay petitioned to stop the making
and sale of the stamps. He reasoned that this was a violation of Section
5.
RULING: The court ruled that the purpose of the stamp was to attaract
tourist to the Philippines, not for the purpose of promoting religion. The
benefiting by the Catholic Church was only incidental to the main purpose
or the principal effect. It was not intended to be the primary beneficiary.
The stamp emphasized Manila (as shown by the design), not the event or a
particular religion.
GARCES VS ESTENZO
RULING: The court ruled that the purchase of religious image by the
barangay council with private funds raised from voluntary contributions
did not violate the Constitution. The fiesta is a socio-religious affair.
It is considered part of the Filipino tradition. Purchase of the image does
not support any religion, but a socio-religious tradition as ruled by the
Court.
The Lemon Test applied in the case:

a. This does not seem to have a secular purpose since the religious factor cannot be
separated from the social factor. (This is still considered questionable)
b. Also the Bario Councils seem to be really participating in a “Religious Activity”.
Although it was argued that the purpose of the fiesta was to “relieve the monotony”
of the people. It is not convincing. It will have a principal effect of validating a
religion. This is a form of participation of a government entity in a religious affair.
c. It does not have excessive government entanglement since the image is kept by the
religious leader. If it was kept by the priest, this will be an excessive entanglement.
The image was purchased with private funds.
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
- It prevents the State from stagnating a religious growth.

- It is the freedom to believe and to act in accordance with the belief
2 Fold-Aspect of religious freedom:

1.) The freedom to believe
2.) The freedom to act in accordance with one’s belief is not absolute because this is where you
translate your belief into actions, which may come in conflict with some accepted canons of
civilized existence. The State now has the police power to restrict the action.
Freedom to Act in One’s Belief has 2 parts:

1. The State cannot compel a person to do something which his religion prohibits.
2. The State cannot prohibit a person from doing something which his religion commands.
GERONA VS SECRETARY
The children in Buenavista Comm. School in Masbate, who are members

of the Jehovah’s witnesses, refused to salute the flag and recite the oath
of allegiance. Their parents claimed that their religion prohibits them
from doing “religious acts”, like those in issue. They were expelled by
the school be virtue of a Department order. They questioned D.O. No. 8,
Series of 1995.
RULING: The court held that they must follow the requirements to salute
the flag and recite the oath of allegiance. The court further ruled that
the flag ceremony and reciting the oath are not religious ceremonies, and
that the flag is devoid of any religious significance. They were not
compelled by the State to perform a “religious act”. (This ruling was
reversed in a later case).
Q: Who decides whether something is religious or not?

A: The competence to decide on whether something is religious or not is vested with the Court.
NOTE: Court should have no business in deciding what is religious or not. They have no standards to apply.
They cannot apply any law, jurisprudence, etc.
Q: What is the Substantive Evil that the Court sought to avoid in forcing children to salute the flag?
A: The possibility of producing citizens who have no love of country. The SC seems to have an abundant
faith in the flag ceremony as an instrument to bring about love of country, patriotism, and the like.
According to the Court, there was no issue of compulsion in the case of Gerona. The only consequence
of not saluting the flag is expulsion from the school. In the Barnett case, students who refused to salute the
flag were expelled. But, there was also a law punishing those who are not in school; therefore, there was
compulsion. In this case, there was no law punishing those who are not in school. You would only be
expelled. Therefore, there is no compulsion.
EBRALINAG VS DIVISION
There were students, all members of the Jehovah’s witnesses, who were
expelled for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem and
recite the oath of allegiance. Their religion prohibited them from doing
so.
RULING: The Court ruled that there was no Clear and Present Danger posed
if they were exempted from the requirement. There was no danger that they
will produce citizens who have no love of country if the government allowed
a religious exemption. The danger predicted in the Gerona case has come to
pass. The Jehovah’s witnesses is a small group and it will not shake our
part of the world if we exempt them from the requirement”. (Now it seems
that the SC has lost faith in the flag ceremony as an instrument to bring
about love of country.)
The test used here for limiting the free exercise clause is the Clear and
Present Danger test.
NOTE: However, the Court did not strike the law as unconstitutional. It only exempted the Jehovah’s
witnesses from the requirement. The Court also required them to stand at attention during the flag
ceremonies, otherwise there might become a clear and present danger to the public interest, safety,
moral, or public order.
Who decides whether something is religious or not?

 In the Gerona case, it was the COURT
 In the Ebralinag case, it seems that it was still the COURT
 According to the Justice Cruz, it should not be left to the courts because it is something
which is intensely personal
AMERICAN BIBLE VS CITY OF MANILA
 compare with the Tolentino case
 The ABS was a religious corp. in the sale of Bibles and other religious
articles. They were required to obtain a license and pay the
corresponding fee for being engaged in the sale of merchandise.
RULING: The court ruled that Ordinance 2925 violated Freedom of Religion.
The government cannot impose some form of tax on somebody for the exercise
of his religion. ABS was a missionary organization which sells bibles as
part of propagating their faith. The ABS was only making a small profit
from the sale of the bibles. If they were making a lot of profit, then that
would be the time the government should impose a tax on them since it would
not anymore be part of “propagating the faith”.
Payment of a license is a form of tax. If taxes were imposed on religion, in the end, the exercise of religion
will already be burdensome, so that only those who can afford can exercise it. This is an undue restraint
on Freedom of Religion. This was even compared to taxing a pastor for delivering his sermon.
Just like in the Ebralinag case, the ordinance was not struck down for being unconstitutional, but the SC
only exempted the ABS from its coverage.
Q: Did the Court make a Constitutional Defect in requiring everyone, including religious groups, to pay for
Mayor’s permit?
A: No, because it is not a tax but only a regulatory payment. Although the City can require payment,
they did not require payment for permit for ABS.Everyone can be required to pay for permits, including
the ABS. Nevertheless, the Court stated that they cannot be required because of the wording of the
ordinance itself. There was no constitutional defect here. The ordinance itself stated that “only those
required to pay must pay the permit.” Since the ABS was exempted from getting a license, it is also
exempted from getting a permit.
TOLENTINO VS SECRETARY
- compare with the American Bible case

The Philippine Bible Society challenges the Expanded Value Added Tax
Law as a restraint on Freedom of Religion because it removes the tax
exemption previously enjoyed by religious organization for the printing,
importation and sale of books by religious organizations, and because
it requires the payment of P1,000.00 for registration of all persons
and entities subject to the payment of the VAT tax.
RULING: The court held that the Freedom of Religion does not prohibit
imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of
religious materials by religious organizations. Similarly, the
registration fee is only for the purpose of defraying part of the cost
or registration which as a central feature of the VAT system. It is a
mere administrative fee, one not imposed on the exercise of a privilege,
much less a constitutional right. The fixed law is of general
applicability. It does not discriminate any religion or group. The court
held it to be valid.
CENTENO VS VILLALON-PORNILLOS
The accused is a chairman of a civic organization. In order to

renovate their barrio chapel, the organization launched a fund drive
through solicitation. Since it failed to obtain a permit from MSSD, accused
was charged and convicted for violation of PD 1564, otherwise known as the
Solicitation and Permit Law. Among others, accused argues that solicitation
for religious purposes cannot be penalized without violating the free
exercise clause of the Constitution.
RULING: The court held that Freedom of Religion has two concepts, which
are: 1)freedom to believe; 2) freedom to act. The first is absolute such
that the government could not restrict it, while in the second, the exercise
of religion may be regulated. Some slight inconvenience in order that the
statement may protect its citizens from injury. Thus, the state may require
the solicitor to establish his identity, or it may regulate the time and
manner of solicitation in the interest of public safety, peace, comfort or
convenience. But this power to regulate must be so exercised as not to
unduly infringe on the protected freedom.
(CONCURRING: To require a government permit before solicitation for religious purposes

may be allowed is to lay a prior restraint on the free exercise of religion. Such restraint is
allowed and we may as well justify a permit before a church can make Sunday collection
or enforce tithing.
VICTORIANO VS ELIZALDE
The case involved a close shop agreement in CBA between employees

and management. Close Shop Agreement means an agreement between management
and union to make membership in a union as a condition precedent for
continued employment. The issue involved here is can an Iglesia ni Cristo
member be compelled to join the union as a condition precedent for his
employment under the close shop agreement , even if his faith prohibits
him? Victoriano refused to join because his faith prohibits him from joining
associations or organizations.
RULING: The court ruled that one who is prohibited by his religion cannot
be compelled to join a union under a close shop agreement. Even if he does
not become a member, he cannot be terminated. To compel him to become a
member and to terminate him if he does not is equivalent to punishment for
his religious beliefs. If there is a conflict between Victoriano’s freedom
of religion and Union’s freedom of Contract (bet. Workers and management),
the court held that in all cases freedom of religion will have supremacy.
(fixed formula)
Also freedom of contract is part of property rights as PBL case. Human

rights enjoy supremacy over property rights.
GERMAN VS BARANGAN
During the hehgt of the Marcos protests, petitioners went to hear

mass a t a certain chapel, adjacent to Malacañang, while wearing yellow
shirts. The PSG prohibited them from entering the chapel. The petitioners
questioned the validity of the restraint of the PSG.
RULING: The court held that the restraint was valid. They were not very
sincere in their worship because of their wearing of yellow-shirts. Another
consideration for the prohibition was for security reasons (since the
chapel was near Malacañag). Freedom of Religion is allowed to be restricted.
However the decision made by the court did not clearly specify the Clear
and Present Danger posed by thr petitioner’s act. In fact, the petitioner
stated that they are willing to be inspected. (A decision of a Marcos SC)
Q: Can you refuse to render military service because it is against your religion?
A: According to People vs. Zosa (38 OG 1676) the SC ruled: Yes; If your religion prohibits it or if you are a
“conscientious objector”. However this ruling is not applicable anymore as this poses a clear and present
danger. This is supported by Art. 2, Sec. 4 of the Constitution, which states that the Government may call
on the people to render military service and defend the State. A conscientious objector may be assigned
non-military duties. Still, this might raise questions of equal protection as those subjected to combat duties
and to the risk of death may claim discrimination. The answer would probably lie in whether or not there
is substantial distinction between these citizens and those whose religious beliefs prevent them in
conscience from taking human life.
Consientious objector is defined as a person who need not belong to any particular religion and who is
against war and hold his objection with the strength of a religious conviction. (The Phil court does not
recognize this. This is based on American jurisprudence)
REGISTER OF DEEDS VS UNG SIU SI TEMPLE
A religious group composed of foreigners bought a piece of land and

wanted to be registered in their name. The Register of Deeds denied it
because of the Constitutional prohibition on foreigners owning a land. The
group claimed their freedom of religion was violated by this prohibition.
RULING: The court ruled that they can still worship God even if the land
is not titled in their name. IT is not a precondition for them to be able
to observe their faith.
A HYPOTHETICAL CASE
An Indian community maintains its old traditional practices. One of such practices is, the whole
tribe will sit down and pass around a peace pipe containing marijuana as part of the ritual. When they
were raided by the FBI during such ritual, they put up Freedom of Religion as a defense.
POINT OF DISCUSSION:
Their usage of marijuana does not constitute clear and present danger because it is
regulated and limited only to occasional religious practices.
The court did not grant them a religious exception but several justices were in favor of giving them.
PAMIL VS TELERON
-concerns religious test

A priest ran for mayor and he won. His opponent questioned his
qualification. According to the Old Administrative Code of 1917, a priest
cannot hold an elective office in local government. The constitutionality
of the Admin. Code was raised to the SC. Some justices interpreted the
prohibition as a religious test, meaning, if you are a priest or and
ecclesiastic, you cannot hold public office. However, only seven shared
this view and the law was not avoided.
NOTE: There is no prohibition now in the New Admin. Code. Under the new Constitution, priests are now
NOT prohibited.
FONACIER VS. CA
Gen. Rule: The State cannot interfere with the affairs of the church
Exceptions:
1. when property rights are involved
2. when the church authority acts outside the scope of his authority or contrary to its
rules
Q: In case of a division of a church, who gets the property? (like when a church separates
as when there are doctrinal differences)
A: the property will go to the faction which adheres to the original doctrines
Q: What if there is no quarrel about the doctrines (so schism), only physical division (as in
this case)?
1. whoever constitute the majority
2. whoever is the duly constituted authority
This rule was not followed in this case. This applies only to big churches with external
leaderships.
In this case, there was no external leadership involved but only the bishops themselves. Since
there is no external leader who can decide as to who is the legitimate authority, the basis
could be to find out who was validly elected or removed.
Matters that the Court will not inquire into:

1. Matters of faith, e.g. 3 persons in one God
2. Doctrine, e.g. Virgin Mary is Mother of God
3. Forms of Worship, e.g. priests faces people
4. Church Law or Rule, e.g. confessions, etc.
5. Customs, e.g. pouring water over the head
The reasons to this is because there are NO statutory, constitutional, or legal standards to
apply.
BAR QUESTIONS:
Q: In serving his prison term in Muntinlupa, X’s religion prevents him to eat meat. Can he damand that he
be given a special diet of non-meat?
A: He is entitled to damages by invoking free Exercise of Religion if he is to go against his belief. The State
should not do anything to compel a person from not executing his religion. Apply here the Clear and
present Danger Rule.
Q: DECS granted a subsidy to a religious school, which incidentally has 3 hours per day to study a religious
subject. Is the subsidy submissible?
A: Apply here the Lemon Test, if it has a secular purpose. This will protect the welfare of the people. It
neither protects a religion too. But there is conflict with reqt. #3 because there is no assurance that the
school will not use the subsidy or the fund for a religious purpose.
Q: What if the subsidy is in the form of laboratory equipment

A: It will now comply with the lemon test
Q: What if the government gives the support as a scholarship to some students more particularly?
A: The law is vague and overbroad. The students can use the scholarship to enter priesthood. There is no
exact standard or guideline to apply
Liberty of Abode and Right To Travel
Art. III, Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing

the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither
shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest
of national security, public safety, or public health, as
may be provided by law.
Two Rights Guaranteed in this Section:

1. Liberty of Abode
2. Right to travel
Liberty of Abode
- Can only be limited by:

a. a lawful order by the court
b. by a legislative enactment
- Only Congress, by law, may restrict the right to travel. However, the resident can also bar a
person’s right to travel bearing on the law
- Court restrictions on the right to travel can also be valid for reasons similar to those given in Bails
Right to Travel
Can be limited by the law on the interest of:

1. National Security
2. Public Safety
3. Public Health
MANOTOC VS. CA
Manotoc was facing several charges of estafa and he was out on bail.
During the pendency of the case, he filed a motion in court to allow him
to travel tot the US in connection with some business transactions. The
prosecutor opposed his motion. He went to the SC and contended that the
denial violated his right to travel.
RULING: The court held that since he was on bail, the court can validly
restrict his right to travel. The bail is supposed to be used as guarantee
that he will appear on trial. If he leaves for the U.S., the court can no
longer have jurisdiction over him. The conditions of the bail bond serves
as the lawful order for the refusal of the right to travel. However, this
is not absolute. The court may allow those out on bail to travel according
to the court’s discretion.
Requirements an accused must show to be allowed to travel:
1. He must show the URGENCY for the travel

Ex: need to undergo surgery abroad
2. in the application, he must state the DURATION of the travel
3. He must obtain the CONSENT of his surety
SILVERIO VS. CA
Decided under the 1987 Constitution

Silverio was charged with a criminal case and he posted bail. Two years
later, the government filed a motion to cancel his passport because he
could not be arraigned as he was abroad every time the arraignment was set.
The trial court granted the motion. He now contends that a court can only
restrict the right to travel but only on the ground of national security,
public safety, or public health.
RULING: The court held that a court has the power to restrict the right to
travel, with or without an express grant from the Constitution if there is
a criminal case before it. This is necessary for the efficient
administration of justice. The power is inherent in the courts. This is an
implied power in the administration of justice. If the courts would have
no right to limit the right to travel, the administration of justice would
not be effective.
Q: Can administrative and executive officials limit the right to travel?

A: Yes, provided they do not act arbitrarily, even without a court order. “Not acting arbitrarily” would
have their basis as follows:
1. national security
2. public safety
3. public health
4. as may be provided by law.
5.
Personal discretion will not be sufficient to limit this right.
By themselves, these officials, without any law, cannot limit the right to travel. Also, even if there is a law
which limits the right to travel, without any of the three grounds enumerated, they still cannot limit the
right.
NOTE: They must first obtain a law or a court order.
MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS
Fomer President Marcos sought to compel the Secretary of Foreign

Affairs to issue him travel documents so that he could return to the
Philippines from his exile in Hawaii. He argued that the decision of then
Pres. Cory Aquino to bar his return violates his right to travel as
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
NOTE: There was no court order, nor was there a law limiting his right to
travel.
RULING 1: The court held that the right to travel means only the right to
leave. It does not include the right to return to the country. These are
two distinct rights. The right to return is not protected by the Bill of
Rights but is protected by the Philippine Law by virtue of the Principle
of Incorporation.
The principle of Incorporation states that generally accepted principles

of International Law is part of the law of the land. This right to return
is part of those generally accepted principles.
- If the right to return is protected by the Constitution, it can only be
restricted by Law. In this case, there was no law.
- If the right to return is not protected by the Bill of Rights but is
protected by Philippine Law, who can restrict it?
-
RULING 2: The court ruled that there is no more need of a law. The
executive can limit it as part of the President’s implied powers
(DOCTRINE OF RESIDUAL POWERS)
This was how the SC justified the power of Pres. Aquino in barring the
return of former Pres. Marcos.
NOTE: Inherent power of the executive:

1. The power to do anything not prohibited by the Constitution
2. The power to do anything not prohibited by law.
Right to Information
Art. III, Sec. 7. The right of the people to information

on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access
to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject
to such limitations as may be provided by law.
COVERAGE:
1. The right to information on matters of public concern
2. The right to access to official records
These rights are necessary to bolster the right to free expression. This is also related to the Policy of Full
Disclosure (Art. II, Sec. 28). In international law, this is called the Principle of Transparency.
The purpose of these rights is to prevent abuse of government power.
Principle of Transparency under the Constitution:

1. Policy of Disclosure (Article II, Section 28)
2. Bill of Rights (Article III, Section 7)
3. Records of Congress (Article VI, Section 20)
4. Foreign Loans (Article VII, Section 21)
VALMONTE VS. BELMONTE
A case was filed by Valmonte to compel GSIS to furnish him with the
list of members of the Batasan who were able to obtain a loan at the
recommendation of the First Lady.
ISSUE 1: Is the information sought a matter of public concern?
RULING 1: Only information which are matters of public concern are covered
by Section 7. The court held that the information sought is a matter of
public concern. Since the GSIS is the custodian of public funds, it shall
be the interest of the citizen which will determine as to how the money
must be disbursed (NATURE OF THE FUNDS). The court defines a MATTER OF
PUBLIC CONCERN as any subject of which the public may want to know because
it directly affects their lives or they arouse the interest of a citizen.
And the court also stated that the members of the Batasan are public
figures, and this contributes to the idea that this is a matter of public
concern (CHARACTER OF THE BORROWER).
ISSUE 2: Is the information excluded by law on the ground of

confidentiality?
RULING 2: The court held that there is not law which grants GSIS
confidentiality. Also, the right to confidentiality involves privacy which
cannot be invoked by GSIS because matters about privacy are not available
to an artificial person (such as corporations or government entities). The
right of confidentiality pertains to borrowers. Privacy is granted only to
natural beings.
Discussion:
Q: What if the borrowers in the present case invoke the right to privacy and confidentiality?
A: They still cannot invoke the two rights because the borrowers are public officials.
GSIS also argued that the documents involved were not public records but private
records for the reason that GSIS was performing only ministerial functions.
The court ruled that the distinction between what is ministerial or constituent has already
disappeared. This is relevant only to State immunity but not in this case.
Also the court held that the intent of the framers of the Constitution is to include within
the scope of full disclosure the government owned and controlled corporations.
Q: In the light of the above discussions, can Valmonte compel GSIS to furnish him copies of the
documents?
A: No, what the courts guarantee is only the access to the documents, not to compel government
officials or employees to provide or make them copies of these documents.
AQUINO-SARMIENTO VS. MORATO
The petitioner, a member of the MTRCB, requested that she be allowed

to examine the voting slips of other members. It is on the basis of these
slips that the films are banned, classified or cut by the Board.
Petitioner’s request was refused on the ground that the votes, which are
purely personal, are private and confidential.
RULING: The court held that they are not private because the members of
the Board occupy a public position. These are actually public records and
are therefore not private or personal.
MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHT:

1. Closed-Door Cabinet Sessions
2. Deliberations of the Court
3. Matters pertaining to National Security
4. Trade Secrets
5. Military and Diplomatic Secrets
The right to access to information can be limited by law and regulated by the custodian of the records
as to the manner of access to documents (time, place, etc.). It cannot be restricted.
Right to Form Associations
Art. III, Sec. 8. The right of the people, including

those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.
NOTE: Some say that this right can be removed from the Constitution without destroying the right.
SOME PRINCIPLES
1. The Right to Form an association is higher than the Right to Assembly, since here, people not
only assemble but are already starting to form associations. And to form associations already
involves a purpose.
2. The 1987 Constitution emphasizes the right to form unions, whether the office is private or
public. However, this right does not include the right to strike, which is covered under another
provision in the Constitution.
Other rights linked to this right:

1. This right is an aspect of liberty which is also protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution.
2. This right is also an aspect of the Freedom to Contract.
3. This right is also intimately linked with the Freedom of Expression and Belief. Normally, people form
associations to advance some belief. And when they do so, they also exercise their freedom of
Expression.
Rights included in this Section:

1. The right to join or be a member of an association (positive aspect)
2. The right not to be compelled to be a member of any association (negative aspect)
Rule on non-compulsion:
Gen. Rule:
- No one can be compelled to be a member of an association
Exception:
- Unions by virtue of a Closed Shop Agreement, wherein membership is a condition precedent of
employment
Reason: Close Shop Agreement is a valid exercise of Police power. The State has an interest in promoting
unionism in order to protect labor (which is mandated by the Constitution)
Exception to the Exception:

- No person can be compelled to join aunion even by reason of a Close Shop Agreement if his
religion prohibits him to join. The Freedom of Religion is superior over the Freedom of Association.
According to Fr. Bernas, the ability of the State to restrict the right to form associations is co-
extensive with the purpose of the associations. If the purpose is to PROMOTE PROPERTY RIGHTS, the test to
apply in restricting it is the ordinary tests for a valid exercise of police power. If the purpose is TO ADVANCE
SOME BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, the test is the Clear and Present Danger Rule.
OCEEÑA VS. COMELEC
Occeña challenged as violative of Section 8 a law which prohibits a

candidate of the barangay election from representing himself as a member
of a political party and also prohibited the political parties from
supporting a particular candidate in the elections.
RULING: The court held that the provision is not absolute. It is subject
to the police power of the State. The law is a valid exercise of such
power.
Whether there is a permissible exercise of police power by the State, the Court did not really aver to what
should be the test to be applied in limiting this right. In this case, the court referred to the Gonzales vs.
COMELEC case and the implication there is to apply the Clear and Present Danger Rule.
The court held that the right to organize is not violated by the law because the political parties can still
organize, but only the activities are restricted.
The Reason or Policy Arguments of the Court:

It is necessary to insulate the barangay from partisan political activities. The barangay is a basic
political structure in our society. Because of this important public interest, the Court considered restricting
the activities of political parties as valid
PAFLU VS SECRETARY
There was a law passed requiring unions to be registered in order

for them to acquire legal personality. Acquiring legal personality is
important because if there is none, the union virtually cannot do anything.
It cannot bargain with the management, be elected as bargaining
representative and it cannot serve as agent to the employees. The effect
is they exist as entities but they have no rights and privileges under the
law. Their existence will have no relevance to the workers. This law was
challenged as violative of the right to association.
ISSUE: Whether or not this is a restriction to Sec. 8
RULING: The court held that the right guaranteed by the Constitution is
the right to form associations and the law does not violate this right.
The employees can still form associations. However, in order to be able to
do something, they must register first to be recognized. The Constitution
does not automatically guarantee legal personalities to associations. The
reason for the requirement of registration is a valid exercise of police
power because the issue of unionism is impressed with public interest. This
requirement of registration would protect labor and the public against
fraud, abuses and impostors who pose as organizers.
Eminent Domain
Art. III, Sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken for

public use without just compensation.
Eminent Domain is the power of the government to take over private property for public use after
payment of just compensation (forced sale to the government).
Outline:
1. Taking
2. Public Use
3. Just Compensation
4. Judicial Review in Eminent Domain
o Eminent Domain – power to take
o Expropriation – procedure of taking
The power of eminent domain is inherent in the government. Even without any constitutional grant,
the government enjoys the power because it is essential for the existence of the government.
The provision is not a grant of power but rather a limitation of power.
Two Situations Where Government Is Forced To Exercise Expropriation:

1. When the property owner does not want to sell
2. When the person wants to sell but he does not agree to the price proposed by the government.
Who May Exercise:
General Rule: This power is primarily vested with the Congress
Exception: It may be delegated to the following:

1. The President of the Philippines
2. The various local legislative bodies
3. Certain Public corporation
4. Quasi-public corporations, e.g. public utilities
NOTE: The power of the local government to expropriate comes from the Local Government Code.
Constitutional Limitations:
1. The purpose of the taking must be for public use.
2. Just compensation must be given to the private owner
TAKING
2 Concepts of Taking:
- Taking as to physical possession
- Taking as to prevention or impairment of ordinary use
- The owner is still entitled to just compensation even though there is no divestiture of title
Elements of Taking:
- Expropriator must enter the private property
- Entrance must be for more than a limited period
- Entrance should be under a warrant or color of authority
- The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected.
- The entrance must be to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment.
REPUBLIC VS CASTELLVI
In 1947, The PAF leased the property of Castellvi renewable year to

year. The lease was renewed yearly until 1956, Castellvi refused to renew
the contract with PAF any longer. In 1959, the government instituted an
action to expropriate the property previously leased. Also, in the same
year, the property was placed under the possession of the government by
virtue of a court order.
What is being disputed in this case are two issues:

1. Castellvi and the government cannot agree on the price
Government – P 0.20 per sq.meter
Castellvi – P15.00 per sq.meter
2. They do not also agree on the date which will be the basis for the
determination of the value of the land.
Governement – value in 1947
Castellvi – value in 1959
RULING: The court held that the value should be determined at the time of
the taking. The taking here would mean 1959, where all the elements of
taking were present. It cannot be 1947 since it did not satisfy the 2nd and
5th elements.
NPC VS GUTTIEREZ
NPC erected transmission lines passing through the property of

Gutierrez. As a consequence, NPC asked for a 3-meter right of way. In this
portion, NPC prohibited Gutierrez from planting anything above 3 meters.
According to NPC, they will only pay the rental of the right for way.
Gutierrez argued that there is actually impairment of ordinary usage of
his property. Therefore, he should be paid for the full value of the
property traversed by the line.
ISSUE 1: Whether there was taking under the concept of eminent domain here
ISSUE 2: Should there be a transfer of title
RULING 1: The court held that there is taking as to the sense that there
is impairment of ordinary use, so that the owner is entitled to full
compensation for the portion affected. As the property is injuriously
affected by an easement of right of way, there is expropriation.
RULING 2: NPC argued that since they will pay for the whole property
affected, then ownership of that property should be transferred to them.
The title remains with Gutierrez but NPC should still pay the full amount
for the property affected because there was impairment of usage.
PUBLIC USE
Traditional Definition:
- Those that are to be used by the public, whether for a fee or for free.
Example: roads, parks, schools, etc.
Expanded Definition:
- It will satisfy use even if the expropriated property would not be made directly available to the
public for as long as it can result to its indirect advantage or benefit (the public welfare).
SUMULONG VS GUERRERRO
The NHA wanted to use Sumulong’s property for socialized housing for
the lower and middle class. The owner contended that socialized housing is
not public use because not everyone can benefit from this, only the handful
of people who to be given the houses.
RULING: The court held that the socialized housing is within the context
of public use. Public use has acquired a more comprehensive meaning. That
is whatever would result to indirect public benefit or welfare is also
public use. It also ruled that it will benefit everyone in the sense that
it will affect the safety, health and environment. Providing housing to
these people will help in lessening the incidence of violence and problems
concerning health. In the end, it will benefit everybody in a way. In
short, socialize housing falls within the meaning of public use.
PD 1533, the expropriator is allowed to enter the property before the proceedings of expropriation is
decided by the Court provided it makes a deposit of 10% of the amount (in the meantime, as determined
by the expropriating authority) with the PNB.
ROBERN Case: The expropriator must deposit with the government depositarium the full amount assessed
by the assessor’s office
PANES Case: The 10% deposit of the full amount mandated by PD 1533 was held to be null and void
because the determination how much should be deposited should be a judicial function.
MANOTOC VS NFA
President Marcos issued a decree expropriating the Tambunting Estate

for the purpose of building a housing project. Since the area was also a
valuable commercial property, the decree provided that the portions thereof
will be used for commercial purposes to defray the cost of the housing
project. The government would use the proceeds from the lease of this
commercial property to finance the housing project.
ISSUE: Whether that is still public use
RULING: The court held that there is no public use in this expropriation
case.
Distinction Between Sumulong and Manotoc cases:
The distinction between the Sumulong and the Manotoc case is that in the latter, there is an
intervening step between the taking and use by public which is the operation of a commercial venture.
JUST COMPENSATION
- It is defined as the fair and equivalent of the loss sustained, not what the buyer might actually gain
from the expropriated property.
- According to Justice Cruz, it is the price which the owner is willing to sell; without being force to
sell, and the buyer to buy without being forced to buy. (best definition!)
- Just Compensation is usually left to the forces of the Law of Supply and Demand (Fair Market
Value)
- The value is to be determined at the time of entry or time of taking
- The principle in the determination of just compensation is judicial in nature.
EPZA VS DULAY
PD 1533 provides that just compensation shall be determined by: a.)

the market value as declared by the owner for tax purposes; or b.) the
value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower. Its
constitutionality was challenged.
RULING: The court held that the provision of PD 1533 is unconstitutional.

First, the determination of what is just compensation is a judicial
function. In PD 1533, the discretion of the judge is removed because he
will just simply choose which one is lower. Here, the determination is no
longer judicial. Although the Executive and the Legislative departments
can make the initial determination, the courts will always have the final
say. The decree is an encroachment of a judicial prerogative. Second, it
violates due process. If the decree is applied, it will result in
deprivation of property without due process. The owner must be allowed to
prove the actual value of his property first. Just compensation is value
at the time of the taking. Pegging on the value based on the system set by
PD 1533 would be arbitrary and confiscatory since they are always out of
date. (The decision in this case is a reversal of previous decisions made
by the Supreme Court)
ASSOCIATION VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
This pertains to the land reform program of the government. At issue

here is the constitutionality of the Agrarian Reform Law. On the provision
of the law, compensation for land taken under the law may be made in the
following manner:
1. 25%-35% cash
2. shares of stocks in government owned and controlled corporation
3. tax credits
4. negotiable LBP bonds
ISSUE: Does the compensation have to be in cash?
RULING: The court held that the law in constitutional. All previous
decisions have declared that compensation should be in the form of money.
However, this is not an ordinary expropriation since it concerns a
revolutionary kind of expropriation.
1. it covers all private lands
2. it is intended for the benefit of the entire nation
3. Its purpose extends to future generations.
4. Land Reform is mandated in the Constitution
5. The cost involved here is tremendous and the government is faced with
financial constraints.
While the intent of the framers as to the form of compensation when they
included Agrarian Reform program in the Constitution is not manifested,
they were all aware of the financial difficulties. Thus, it can be presumed
that they were not against compensation in kind.
NOTE: Generally, just compensation should be in the form of cash except in Land Reform Program
Distinction between Police Power and Eminent Domain
Eminent Domain Police Power
- the owner is - There is no

entitled to just payment of just
compensation compensation
- the property is - The property is

taken for public destroyed in the
use interest of public
health, safety of
public welfare.
Comments by Justice Cruz:

a.) To the extent that the government imposes retention limits (5 has./owner), it becomes an exercise
of police power because property rights are regulated.
b.) To the extent that the owner is forced to sell his land (in excess of 5 has.) to the government, the
concept is one of eminent domain
NOTE: Eminent Domain is used as an instrument of police power in the land reform program, the concept
is on of police power but it is using eminent domain to advance it. The marriage between eminent domain
and police power becomes possible because of the expanded definition of eminent domain. Police
Power is exercised to promote public welfare, but not in eminent domain, property can be taken to
promote also public welfare. There is now a unity of purpose between the two powers of the government.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Matters That Can Be Judicially Reviewed For Determination In Cases Of Eminent Domain:
1. The amount of just compensation
- It does not matter whether it is fixed by law or by the executive branch. The court can always
change it. This is judicial in nature.
2. The choice of the property

3. Issues whether the expropriation is necessary
4. Issues whether the property falls within the concept of public use according to the law.
DE KNECHT VS BAUTISTA
This concerns the plan of DPWH to extend EDSA to which the government
had two choices: 1) to put up a road which will run over the residential
houses; or 2) to another which will run over hotels. The government chose
to expropriate the property which will run over the residential houses.
RULING: The court held that the choice of which property to expropriate
cannot be exercised arbitrarily even if made by Congress. The courts can
review the decision on the choice of property.
Factors Used To Determine Which Property Will Be Expropriated:

- Functionality
- Social Impact
- Cost
The State has a broad discretion to decide which property to expropriate. The court will only
intervene if there is fraud, bad faith, and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the expropriating
authority. If the expropriator chooses one property over another because the owner is a political enemy,
even if the other property is slightly better, the party must prove bad faith or grave abuse of discretion.
Incidental matters or slight differences are not considered as grave abuse of discretion. There must be a
substantial difference between the two properties.
NOTE: - Equal protection is a limitation to Congress in expropriation

- Local Government as expropriator does not need to obtain clearance from DAR in case there
is a change from agricultural use to residential use
Reason: LGC is silent that local gov’t. must secure clearance before they can
expropriate.
REPUBLIC VS LA ORDEN DE PO. BENEDICTOS
In order to ease traffic congestion, the government decided to extend

Legarda St. It filed a petition to expropriate a property owned by a
religious group. The group went to court questioning the necessity of the
expropriation. According to them there is no need to expropriate their
property in order to ease traffic.
RULING: The court remanded the case to the lower court because the matter
on whether there is necessity of expropriation can be reviewed by the
courts.
An exception: When the power of eminent domain is exercised by the
Legislature, the matter seems to be outside the scope of judicial review.
The reason is such is a political question (Separation of Powers). But a
political question can still be reviewed if there is a grave abuse of
discretion.
Non-Impairment Clause
Art. III, Sec. 10. No law impairing the obligation of

contracts shall be passed.
Purpose:
- To safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements against unwarranted interference
by the State.
Contract:
- It refers to any lawful agreement on property or property rights, whether real or personal,
tangible or intangible.
- But it does not cover licenses
Law:
- It includes statutes enacted by the national legislature, executive orders and administrative
regulations promulgated under a valid delegation of power, and municipal ordinances passed
by the local legislative bodies.
Obligation:
- The obligation of the contract is the vinculum juris, i.e. the tie that binds the parties to each other.
Impairment:
- It is anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract
- The degree of diminution is immaterial. As long as the original rights of either of the parties are
changed to his prejudice, there is an impairment of the obligation of the contract.
- To impair, the law must retroact so as to affect existing contracts concluded before its
enactment. There will be no impairment if the law is made to operate prospectively only, to
cover contracts entered into after its enactment.
When does a law impair the obligations of contracts?

1. When it changes the terms of the contract
2. When it imposes new conditions
3. When it dispenses with those agreed upon
4. When it withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights of the parties.
Basic Principles:
- Police Power , Taxation, and Eminent Domain are superior than the Right to Non-Impairment of
Contracts.
- Freedom of Religion is superior than the Right to Non-Impairment of Contracts.
- The Right to Non-Impairment of Contracts cannot be invoked against Judicial acts.
LIM VS REGISTER OF DEEDS
Sec. of Agriculture leased a land in favor of A for 5 years. While

the lease was subsisting the Secretary also leased the same land to it.
Upon discovery of the mistake, the Secretary revoked the lease to it. It
challenged this with the Secretary of Agriculture and he lost. He then
appealed to the Office of the President who upheld the decision of the
Secretary. B questioned the decision on the ground that the decision is an
impairment of an obligation in a contract.
RULING: The court held that in resolving disputes the office of the Pres
and the Secretary of Agri are exercising Quasi-Judicial functions. The non-
Impairment Clause does not apply to them while exercising Quasi-Judicial
functions.
ORTIGAS VS FEATI
A sold a subdivision lot to B with the conditions that it will be

used for residential purpose. This restriction was printed on the back of
the Title. However, City Govt. reclassified the land as commercial. After
that, the buyer started to put up a building to be used as a bank. The
owner of the subdivision questioned the act as violating the contract.
RULING: the court held that the passing of the ordinance reclassifying the
area as an exercise of Police Power which is superior to the non impairment
clause.
GONZALO VS CENTRAL BANK
Petitioner was given a permit by CB to import apples and other fruits.

However, the CB withdrew his permit unilaterally. Petitioner now argues
that the withdrawal impaired the obligation of contracts.
RULING: The court rules that the agreement was in the form of a permit and
that such is not a contract. Therefore, there is no impairment.
LA INSULAR VS. CO-TANCO
A entered into a contract to sell sugar to B at a fixed price. While

the contract was existing, the govt. increased a tax on the seller of
sugar. A alleged that it impairs his contract.
RULING: The court held that taxation is superior to the non-impairment

clause. Also, there is actually no impairment of the contract between A
and B. It only creates an obligation on the part of A to the Government.
Their contract has nothing to do with it.
SISKA VS OFFICE
In 1967, petitioner entered on a contract to sell on installment a

lot to private respondents. On several occasions, private respondents
defaulted in their payments. Petitioner, without any notice to private
respondents cancelled the contract. Under the contract, notice of
resistance is not required. However, in 1972, congress enacted the Maceda
Law which requires subdivision owners to send a notice of rescission to
the buyer in case of default. The issue raised here is does the law violate
the non-impairment clause?
RULING: The court ruled in the negative. There is impairment only if the a
subsequent law: 1) changes the term of the contract between the parties,
2) imposes new conditions, 3) dispenses with those agreed upon, or 4)
withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights of the parties. The
requirement of notice under the Maceda Law does not change the Time or Mode
of performance or impose new conditions or dispenses with the stipulations
regarding the binding effect of the contract. Neither does it withdraw the
remedy for is enforcement. At most, it merely provides for a procedure in
aid of the remedy of rescission.
CALEON VS AGUS
Agus Dev. Corp. leased a lot to Rita Caleon who constructed a 4-door
apartment thereon. Without the consent of Agus, Caleon subleased the
apartment units to third persons. When Agus learned of this, it filed an
ejectment suit against Caleon based on BP 25, which included subleasing
the leased premises without the consent of the original lessor as a ground
for ejectment. Caleon interposed the defense that her lease contract with
Agus pre-existed. BP 25 and the lease contract did not contain any
prohibition on subleasing. To apply BP 25, she argued, would result to the
impairment of the contract she had with Agus.
RULING: The court ruled that the Police Power of the State is superior to
the non-impairment clause. BP 25, the law regulating apartment rentals is
an exercise of Police Power.
Free Access to Courts
Art. III, Sec. 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-
judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be
denied to any person by reason of poverty.
This provision means that free access to courts, quasi-judicial bodies and legal assistance
can’t be denied to any person by reason of poverty. There are changes in the new Constitution
compared to the previous one because in the old Constitution, the word quasi-judicial bodies did not
appear and also the words adequate legal assistance. So, in the 1987 Constitution is complete.
ACAR VS ROSAL
This is a civil case which was filed by Sacada workers against the
Sugar Central. Complainants prayed that they be authorized to sue as pauper
litigants (to be exempted to pay certain fees). The court denied their
motion because they were workers, and not paupers.
RULING: The court held that there was a denial of access to courts by
reason of poverty. An indigent was defined as persons who have no property
or source of income sufficient for their own labor, though self-supporting
when able to work and in employment.
Government Programs providing Lawyers to Litigants who cannot afford one:

1. Counsel de oficio
2. Govt. based legal aid (Public Attorney’s office-PAO)
3. Bar association based
4. Others
Rights of the Accused in Custodial Investigation
Art. III, Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation

for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own
choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel,
he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or

any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation

of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions
for violations of this section as well as compensation to
and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families.
COVERAGE:
- when the right attaches
- counsel of choice
- advice
- waiver
- exclusionary rule
- presumptions
According to Justice Cruz, more than half of the Bill of Rights pertains to the privileges given to the
accused. The reason is that the law tries to favor the disadvantaged in the society.
The Judicial System is founded on the principle that “it is better to free a hundred criminals than
to imprison one innocent man”
NOTE: Purpose of this right – to protect the accused from self-incrimination
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SECTION 12:

1. The right to remain silent
2. The right to a competent and independent Counsel, preferably his own choice
3. The right to be informed of these rights
4. When the right attaches
WHEN THE RIGHT ATTACHES

REQUISITES WHEN RIGHT ATTACHES:
1. He must be under the custody of law enforcers or is in jail or deprived of freedom of

action in a significant way.
2. He must be under investigation subjected to questioning or interrogation by a law
enforcer.
3. Such questioning must be on relation to a crime.
PEOPLE VS DIMAANO
Basic Principle:
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation.
That is when the investigating officer stats to as questions to elicit
information and/or confessions of admissions from the accused. At such
point or state, the person being interrogated must be assested by counsed
to avoid the penticious practice exolting false or coerced admissions or
confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the
commission of an offense.
PEOPLE VS HATTON
Hatton was arrested. While at the police station, the police formed
a police line-up. During the line-up he was pointed as the one who committed
the crime, but he was not assisted by a lawyer. He raised this point to
the SC. He contended that his right under Sec. 12 was violate.
ISSUE: Does an accused, under Sec. 12, enjoy the right to counsel during a
police line-up?
RULING: The court held no. The purpose of the line-up was only for
identification. And there was no investigation. In fact, it is the witness
who is investigated in the police lin-up. This is an implied reversal of
People vs Hassan, 157 S 261, the accused was identified by the witness in
the funeral parlor.)
PEOPLE VS ESPEJO
- Interview by a newspaper reporter

Espejo was charged with murder and was detained by the police. During his
detention, Ruther Batuigas interviewed him and he made an admission that
he was the killer. During the trial, the government put Batuigas on the
stand. The accused raised the issue that his right to counsel has been
violated.
RULING: The court held that Batuigas’ testimony is admissible and there
was no violation of Sec. 12 for the reason that the interview was not part
of the custodial investigation. It was not the police who asked the
questions. It is immaterial whether you are detained or not. What is
relevant is that it is the police who are asking the questions during the
custodial investigation to invoke Sec. 12. And the testimony of the sole
witness was very strong that even if his right was violated he can still
be convicted.
PEOPLE VS BOLAÑOS
- Aboard a vehicle
Accused was arrested and he was loaded on a vehicle, to be brought to the
police station for custodial investigation. During the trip, he made an
admission, and this was used against him. He raised the issue of whither
he was already entitled to counsel at that time m even if he was not yet
in detention.
RULING: The court held that he was entitled to counsel at that time even
if he was not yet in detention. He was entitled to Sec. 12 because he was
already under custodial investigation, so that the police should have
informed him of his rights. His admission is not admissible as evidence
against him. He now enjoys the right. Again, it is important that it was
the police who asked the question.
PEOPLE VS LINSANGA
- signing a marked money

In a buy-bust operation, police gave the accused a P10.00 bill. During the
trial, the bill was presented in Court and the accused invoked his rights
under Sec. 12, claiming that he was not assisted by counsed when signing
the marked money.
RULING: The court held that the marked money is admissible for the reason
that there was no violation of right to counsel since he was not being
charged with possession of marked money, but rather of marijuana.
PEOPLE VS BANDIN
- Receipt of items taken

The house of accused was searched after a buy-bust operation. The police
was able to confiscate drugs, etc. Before they left, the police let the
accused sign a receipt for the items taken. During the trial, the receipt
was introduced as evidence. The accused contended that the evidence was
not admissible because he was not assisted by counsel.
RULING: The Court held that the testimony is admissible because there was
no custodial investigation. Sec. 12 will not apply. This was a voluntary
admission on the part of the accused.
PEOPLE VS ABANPO
- preliminary investigation
There was a preliminary investigation wherein one of the accused appeared
without a lawyer. The lawyer of one of the accused asked questions from
the accused without a lawyer in the presence of the fiscal. The accused
made an admission of his responsibility. During the trial, the govt.
presented his admission as evidence. Accused contended that he was not
worried about his rights.
RULING: The court ruled it admissible. During the preliminary

investigation, accused is entitled to counsel and to be informed of his
rights. (Res Gestae)
GALMAN VS PAGARAN
Gen. Ver and company were charged for the killing of Aquino and among
the evidences presented were their testimonies before the Agrava Board.
They contended that they were not informed of their right to counsel, their
right to remain silent and they made many incriminating statements. (This
is a case where the investigation was not done by the police and this was
not a case of custodial investigation but they are invoking Sec. 12.)
RULING: The court held that the admissions are not admissible because they
were not informed of their rights. The reason is that the Constitution does
not distinguish the term investigation. It says “any person under
investigation…” The court interpreted this kind of investigation, not just
custodial investigation by police. Therefore this right applies to the
Agrava Board investigation. (However this decision seems to have been
reversed.)
PEOPLE VS AYSON
Accused was an employee of PAL and he failed to remit ticket sales. One
day before his investigation, he wrote PAL indicating his desire to settle
his case gradually. During the investigation (by PAL), he admitted that he
misused the money. However, he was not able to pay, and a criminal case
was filed. Among the evidence presented was his admission during the
administrative investigation. He raised the issue that his right to counsel
was violated.
RULING: The court held the rights apply only to those under custodial
investigation or investigation done by the police. It does not apply to
administrative investigations. (This reverses the Galman case. The court
did not mention the Galman case in this decision.)
PURPOSES OF THE RIGHTS IN SEC. 12:
1. To prohibit incommunicado investigation in a police dominated atmosphere resulting in self-

incriminating statements without the Miranda Warning.
2. To prevent coerced confessions given in a police dominated atmosphere.
NOTE: In Galman case, there was a law compelling the accused to testify under the pain of contempt
while in Ayson casem there is none.
Prevailing Rule: In administrative investigations, the rights under Sec. 12 do not attach
Exception: Galman case because there was a law or EO compelling the accused to testify
PEOPLE VS BALDULA
Accused were arrested and investigated without counsel during which

they confessed. The confessions were not reduced into writing. Two weeks
later, the confession of the other accused was also reduced to writing with
the assistance of counsel.
ISSUE: Are the confessions admissible?
RULING: The court ruled that the right to counsed attaches upon the start
of the investigation, i.e., when the investigating officers start to ask
questions to elicit information and/or admissions from respondents/accused.
Hence, if there is no counsel upon the start of the custodial investigation,
any statement elicited from the accused is inadmissible as evidence against
him, even if the confession is later reduced into writing and signed by
him in the presence of counsel. The late arrival of counsel does not cure
the defect of confessions obtained without their presence.
PEOPLE VS MARRA
After policemen learned of the killing they proceeded to the scene

of the crime. They saw a security guard who told them that the killer was
wearing a polo shirt of the security guard, as well as the place where he
might be found. They later saw the accused eating but no longer in the
security guard uniform. After some questioning they learned that accused
was a security guard and also about his tour of duty, and that his firearm
was in his house. They requested to see the firearm and accused brought
him to his house. The firearm smelled of gun powder. After more questions
and initial denials, accused admitted that he killed the victim in self-
defense.
ISSUE: Is the admission admissible?
RULING: The court stated Yes. Accused was not under custodial
investigation. Custodial investigation involves any questioning, initiated
by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into the custody
or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action (under detention). It is
only after the investigation ceases to be a general injury into an unsolved
crime, and begins to focus on a particular suspect, and the police carries
out a process of interrogations that lead itself to eliciting incriminating
statements that the rule begins to operate. In this case, the inquiry was
still general in nature. The accused was not yet considered a suspect by
the law enforcers.
COUNSEL OF CHOICE
Important terms:
1. Competent
2. Independent
NOTE: The right to counsel begins at the start of the custodial investigation
PEOPLE VS OLVIS
Olvis was charged with murder and was investigated by an agent of

the NBI. This appeared in the text in the in the investigation. This office
has just secured the services of Atty. Navarro of the CLAO. “Are you willing
to accept the legal assistance of Atty. Navarro?” And the accused answered
yes. On appeal to the SC, the accused raised the issue on whether this
complied with Sec. 12, or whether Atty. Navarro was the counsel of his
choice.
RULING: the court held that Atty. Navarro was not the “counsel of choice”
of the accused. The statement did not show that Navarro was chosen by the
accused. On the contrary, it is clear that he was chosen by the NBI. He
was not acting for the accused in his appearance in the case. Sec. 12 was
violated.
PEOPLE VS JIMENEZ
This statement appeared on the text of the investigation. The lawyer,

a retired judge, who assisted the accused said: “I am here because I was
summoned to assist you, and now I am going to assist you.”
RULING: The court held this is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement
of Sec. 12.
PEOPLE VS PAMOM
- A reversal to the Jimenez and Olvis case

An investigator called a lawyer to assist the accused. The lawyer called
by the investigator asked the accused if he wanted to be assisted by him
(the lawyer). The accused agreed.
RULING: The court held the confession admissible where the accused agreed
to be assisted by a lawyer chosen by the investigator. Even if the lawyer
was initially chosen by the investigator, the accused agreed to be
represented by the lawyer. Hence, the requirement under Sec. 12 is
satisfied.
PEOPLE VS ALVAREZ
The investigator gave a lawyer to the accused, and this was challenged
later by the accused to the SC, saying that the counsel was not his own
choice.
RULING: The court ruled that the requirement of the Consti was satisfied
because the accused never signified to have a lawyer of his own choice.
This means that the consent of the accused does not need to be expressed.
Failure to object means accepting counsel as his choice.
PEOPLE VS BARASINA
Court interpreted the meaning of “counsel of his own choice” was

asked for by the accused only after he had already made his statement
assisted by another lawyer whom he did not object to.
RULING: The court ruled the words, “preferably of his own choice” does not
convey an exclusive guarantee as to preclude assistance by an equally
competent and independent attorney chosen by the investigator. Otherwise,
the tempo of the investigation would depend on the accused. He can obstruct
it altogether by choosing a lawyer who is not available.
PEOPLE VS GALIT
Statement of the Court:
No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the
presence of a counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on his
behalf, or appointed by the Court upon petition either by the detainee
himself or by anyone in his behalf.
PEOPLE VS MATOS VIDUYA
This appeared on the confession.

“Ikaw pa rin anf may karapatan kumuha ng abogado para makatulong mo sa
imbestigasyong ito, at kung wal kang makukuha, ikaw ay aming bibigyan ng
libreng abogado. Ano ngayon ang iyon masasabi?” The accused answered,
“nariyan naman po si fiscal kaya hindi ko na kailangan ng abogado”
RULING: The court held that this is not sufficient because in a sense, the
fiscal is not independent and competent. He is not independent since his
duty is to prosecute. His interest is with the State and not with the
accused. He is not competent in the sense that he cannot fully represent
the accused because of the conflict of interest. The act of the accused
constitutes a lack of understanding of her rights. Her right to counsel
was not really made clear to her. Ergo, there is no valid waiver and her
confession should not be admissible in court.
Q: Who can choose a lawyer?

A:
a. the accused
b. anyone acting on his behalf (but doesn’t seem to include the investigator)
c. the court, upon petition
Q: What is the rule under RA 7438?

A: Par. 2 (b) last sentence: “investigator can choose provided there is conformity by the accused”
NOTE: The provision of Counsel of Choice can be satisfied if the investigation chooses
the lawyer, provided that there is conformity by the accused. Conformity can be
expressed or implied in the sense that the failure to object by the accused means
consent to the lawyer assigned to him by the investigator.
NOTE: Critical pre-trial Stages - The right still applies although he was no longer in
custodial investigation and that a case is already filed (People vs Española)
NOTE: Admission to a news reporter is admissible as evidence (People vs Aringue)
NOTE: Venue of investigation is only incidental. No Custodial investigation even if

conducted at the police precinct if it is not a police officer who conducted the
investigation. (Manuel vs. N.C. Construction)
Q: Under RA 7438, who can assist the accused?

A: Any lawyer, except:
1. fiscal 5. those directly affected by the case
2. ombudsman 6. those charged with conducting preliminary
3. members of the COMELEC investigation
4. members of the DENR 7. those charged with the prosecution of crimes
8. municipal attorney
Q: Who can assist as counsel?
A: RTC judges can. MTC judges in the cities can. This is because they do not conduct preliminary
investigations. MTC judges in municipalities are required to conduct preliminary investigation,
therefore they are disqualified. Lawyers connected with the Ombudsman also cannot assist.
ADVICE (RIGHT TO BE INFORMED)

“To be in formed”
- Presupposes a transmission of meaningful information, not just ceremonial recitation of an

abstract principle. The police must explain the meaning of the provision in a language the
accused fairly understands. This will depend on factors like, the educational background
and the intelligence of the accused.
PEOPLE VS CANELA
Prior to the investigation, the police let the accused read the rights. When the case
reached the SC, the accused raised the issue on whether he was sufficiently informed in
accordance with the constitutional requirement.
RULING: The court held that asking the accused just to read his rights will
not be sufficient under the idea of “meaningful transmission of
information”. The accused should be made sure to have understood his rights.
PEOPLE VS NICANDRO
Police investigator was presented by the fiscal. The fiscal asked

about the investigation. The policeman answered “the first thing I did was
to inform the accused of his rights. And the next I questioned her about
the marijuana”.
ISSUE: What is the meaning of “meaningful transmission of information”?
RULING: The court held that there was no compliance with the requirement
of the Constitution. If this statement only appeared during the direct
examination, it is obvious that the police did not inform her as to what
these specific rights are: This is a general statement. The policeman, must
explain to her in practical terms which she can understand.
PEOPLE VS KADIWA
The accused, upon being informed of his rights was only made to
answer one word , “OPO”.
RULING: the court ruled there was no sufficient compliance of the right to
be informed. The function was kilometric while the answer was monosyllabic,
which does not show that the accused properly understood his rights. (NOTE:
There is no formula but merely depends on the education, literacy, etc. of
the accused)
PEOPLE VS BANDULA
Two people were arrested and they were immediately investigated
without counsel. Next day, some of the accused executed extra judicial
confessions assisted by counsel. Two weeks later, the other one also made
a confession.
ISSUE: whether the confession of the two accused be considered as

admissible.
RULING: The court rules the confession as not admissible. Confession made
without counsel although later reduced to writing with the assistance of
counsel is not admissible. Late arrival of counsel will not cure the defect.
Q: Is the legal officer of a municipality qualified to assist the accused?

A: He is not an independent counsel because as legal officer, it is his function to assist the mayor including
the reinforcement of peace and order. Obviously, there is conflict of interest.
WAIVER
- It is defined as the abandonment or relinquishment of a right.
What can the accused waive?
- right to remain silent

- right to counsel
NOTE: The right to be informed cannot be waived
APPLICATION OF THE RIGHTS IN SECTION 12:
NOTE: Enactment of 1935 Constitution – January 17, 1973

Moncupa ruling was promulgated – April 26, 1983
Enactment of the 1987 Constitution – February 2, 1987
Enactment of RA 7438 –
Prior to January 17, 1973

- There was no right to counsel and the right to remain silent under the 1935 Constitution. (Miranda
vs State of Arizona was only decided on 1956)
MAGTOTO VS MANGERA
The accused made an extra judicial confession prior to Jan. 17, 1973.
He had not been informed and had not availed of his right to the assistance
of counsel. He was tried after the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution.
RULING: The court held the 1935 Constitution had no retroactive effect.
And the confession he made was held admissible against him.
After January 17, 1973

- The right to remain silent and the right to counsel is now protected and that those rights may be
waived, and there is no formality. It can be waived in any manner, but must be voluntary and
intelligently made even without a lawyer to assist the accused. (No specific form of waiver).
From April 26, 1983
MONCUPA VS ENRILE
The right to counsel may only be waived with the assistance of
counsel. And it must also be made in writing. Otherwise, the confession is
not admissible in court.
PEOPLE VS DACUYCUY
Confession was obtained prior to April 26, 1983 and accused waived
his right without the assistance of a counsel. The issue is whether there
is a retroactive effect in this rule.
RULING: The court held that this rule should be applied even to confessions
obtained prior to April 26, 1983. This was given a retroactive effect.
PEOPLE VS PECARDAL
There was retroactive effect to the rule in Moncupa. However, in

People vs Magalona and People vs Ponce, the Court stated that the rule that
waiver must be done with the assistance of counsel has no retroactive
effect. The rule on Moncupa should only be used as a guideline after the
decision on that case.
Prior to the Moncupa rule, it is unfair to expect the police to follow the said rule since the decision has not
been promulgated. So why give effect to it?
IMPORTANT: There are two sets of decisions in this matter that do not reach a consensus one agrees that
there is retroactive effect and the other agrees that it has none.
According to Fr. Bernas, if asked in the BAR, just cite the two sets of cases.
From February 2, 1987

- The waiver must be done:
- In the presence of a counsel
- It must be in writing
NOTE: Under the 1987 Constitution, there is no requirement that the confession should be in writing. The
requirement is only that the waiver should be in writing.
Under RA 7438, Sec. 2(1)

- There is the requirement of a form in order for the waiver to be valid.
Waiver:
Lawyer’s Signature
Signature of the accused
(Body of the confession)
Signature of the accused

on the confession
- After the lawyer signs the waiver, he can already leave and need not be present during the
time when the confession is made.
- However, under RA 7438, after a valid waiver, signed by the lawyer, it is now required that the
confession is signed by the accused in the presence of other additional people although they
need not sign anymore. And these are the either of the following:
- parents
- brothers
- sisters
- spouse
- mayor
- priest
- etc.
- In addition to the requirements of the waiver to be with assistance of counsel and in writing, the
confession itself must be signed in the presence of the other people (exclusively enumerated in
the law, but their signature is not required.
- If there is no waiver, there is no requirement that the other people should be present, only his
counsel.
Other Changes brought about by RA 7438.
- Under RA 7438, it requires that the Custodial Investigation report same with the confession must be
in writing, otherwise, such report shall be void. Oral confessions are now also void.
- The list of visitors are now expanded – Section 2(f)
- A penalty is provided for failure to inform and to provide competent counsel to the accused. (8 to
10 years of imprisonment).
- It also defined as to who can assist the accused as counsel – Section 3
- It also interpreted the meaning of whether the police or investigator can change the lawyer for the
accused – Section 8
- Custodial investigation now includes “invitations”.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
- Confessions in violation of Section 12 are inadmissible.
EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE
- uncounselled confessions
- confessions obtained without a valid waiver
- Confessions obtained through torture, force, violence, intimidation, or other means which vitiate
freewill. [Sec. 12(2)]
OTHER CONFESSIONS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED (even with counsel or if such was true)
1. Where the accused is promised that he would be released if he signs. (People vs Eglipa)
2. When the accused is promised a better treatment if he signs. (People vs Albano, 145 S 155)
3. All oral confessions are inadmissible. It should always be in writing to be admissible as evidence.
4. Confessions obtained after a valid waiver, but not signed in the presence of person enumerated
in RA 7438
5. All other means which vitiate the person’s will.
REASONS WHY CONFESSIONS OBTAINED THROUGH DURESS OR TORTURE ARE INADMISSIBLE
1. Principle of Humanity – the law abhors all forms of violence inflicted upon another
2. Also, these confessions are generally unreliable.
SCOPE OF INADMISSIBILITY
1. Inadmissible against the confessant

2. Inadmissible against a third person (People vs. Ramirez, 169 S 711)
3. Inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (criminal, civil, administrative)
EXCEPTIONS
The confessions are not outrightly considered as useless as to:

1. It can still be used as evidence against police abuse. (People vs Ramirez)
2. To prove conspiracy of a third person
3. To impeach the accused person’s credibility
PRESUMPTIONS
Presumptions are Assumptions of Fact which are made by law in order to dispense with evidence.
1. No presumptions that the Miranda Warning has been given. (General Rule)
PEOPLE VS TOLENTINO
According to the Court, there is no presumption that the police have

given the Miranda warning to the accused. During the trial, the prosecution
must prove that the police have warned the accused of his rights under
Section 12 in the absence of proof. It is presumed that there was no warning
given and the evidence is inadmissible. There is no presumption of
regularity of official acts under the Miranda Rule.
2. No presumption on the validity of a waiver.
PEOPLE VS JARA
Whenever there is a waiver of constitutional rights, then presumption

is always against the waiver. The presumption is that there was no waiver
given. If the prosecution claims there was a waiver. They must prove with
strong and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Court. Also,
there is no presumption of the regularity of official acts in this case.
What must the prosecution prove?

- The presumption is that there was no valid waiver except if the prosecution can prove:
- That the accused willingly and voluntarily made his confession
- That the accused was not interested in having a lawyer
- That the waiver complied with all the requirements to make a valid one
- There was a valid Miranda Warning
Mere presentation of the text of the waiver is not sufficient to prove the above- mentioned.
3. There now the presumption of Voluntariness of the Confession.
PEOPLE VS ENANORIA
- An opposite presumption
Atty. Jocon was present to assist the accused in giving his statement.
There is now a presumption on voluntariness. There is now a presumption of
the regularity of official acts. This means that there is a presumption
that the police regularly perform and comply with proper procedures, and
that they do not have to torture the accused to get the confession. It is
presumed that the confession was voluntarily made. The police do not have
to prove that they did not torture the accused in order to get the
confession. The law does not presume that the police are torturers. The
burden is now on the accused to prove that he was tortured and the
confession was involuntarily made.
NOTE: There was strong evidence in this case that the accused gave his testimony
uncoerced and freely.
PEOPLE VS BALLISTEROS
- an obiter dictum
One accused signed without the assistance of a lawyer. Later, during the
trial, he was made a State witness against his co-accused. He repeated his
confession in open court. His confession was considered admissible as
evidence.
The rule stands that any confession obtained with violation of the
Constitution shall be held inadmissible as evidence in Court. This is based
on the 1987 Constitution. His confession shall be inadmissible in Court
only if this is used against him, but this does not include confessions to
be used as evidence against third persons. (A dangerous ruling is made.
This should not be considered as a new string.)
Related Law: Republic Act No. 7438, April 27. 1992
AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL

INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS,
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF.
Section 1. Statement of Policy. - It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human being
and guarantee full respect for human rights.
Sec. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who
arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform
the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who
shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own
counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the
investigating officer.
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or
detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately
explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating

officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise,
such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel
or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents,
elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by
such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void
and of no effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by
or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest
or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his
counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization
duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall
include his or her spouse, fiance or fiancee, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent
or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
As used this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an
"invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected
to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any
violation of law.
Sec. 3. Assisting Counsel. - Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by the case,
those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of
crimes.
The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees:
(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with light felonies;
(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with less grave of grave felonies;
(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with a capital offense.
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial
investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the province
comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal of City Treasurer
must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before the province pays
said fees.
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person
can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code.

Sec. 4. Penalty Clause. - (a) Any arresting public officer of employee, or any investigating officer, who
fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six
thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more
than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall also be imposed
upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar offense.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon a officer or employee or anyone acting upon orders of such
investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter
cannot afford the services of his own counsel.
(b) Any person who obstruct, persons or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious
minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and
conferring privately with him, of from examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual
needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).
The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial responsibility
over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to
secure his safety and prevent his escape.
Sec. 5. Repealing Clause. - Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed. Other laws,
presidential decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 6. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official
Gazette or in any daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Approved: April 27, 1992
(Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7438.htm)
Bail

Art. III, Sec. 13. 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.
Bail defined:
- It is the security given for the provisional release of a person accused of a crime while the case
is still pending or trial is still going on.
FORMS OF BAIL:
- Cash Bond
How made?
a. The fiscal writes the recommended bail
b. The accused goes to court to deposit the cash bond
c. The accused is now free while pending trial
Upon conviction or acquittal, bond is returned to the accused

Exception: if the crime involves a civil liability, the cash may go the aggrieved party
- Surety Bond
Bonding company guarantee the appearance of the accused in Court, provided he pays
a certain percentage of the recommended bail to the bonding company (15-20%). It
should be renewed annually.
The accused pays a premium every year and he cannot recover that what he has paid.
(same as in an insurance premium)
- Property Bond
If the accused has no surety, title of real property is deposited to Court. Upon tax
assessment, if the value of the property is double the value of the recommended bail, the
court accepts it and the accused is free to go. The accused may also use the title of
another person provided he is authorized to do so.
Upon acquittal or conviction, the title is returned.
This is limited to real property only.
- Recognizance
The accused is entrusted to the custody of a prominent person who is likely will guarantee
his appearance in court. These are the people who more or less, credible in the
community. But this type of bond only applies to minor offenses.
WHO DETERMINES THE TYPE OF BAIL?

- The accused.

WHEN IS BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT?
- Before or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC (note: but before final judgment)
- Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or
death (SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94)
- Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or death
when the evidence of guilt is not strong.
WHEN IS BAIL A MATTER OF DISCRETION?
- After conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death
if the circumstances mentioned in SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94 are not present.
WHEN IS BAIL NOT ALLOWED?
- After final judgment by any court

- Before conviction for an offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua where the
evidence of guilt is strong.
- After conviction for a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua or death while the case is
on appeal (People vs. Valeriano)
- After conviction for an offense with the penalty exceeding 6 years but not more than 20
years, if:
a. accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or has
committed a crime aggravated by reiteracion
b. accused is found to have previously escaped from legal
confinement
c. accused committed the offense while on probation, parole or
conditional pardon
d. circumstances of accused or his case indicate the probability of
flight
e. there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal,
accused may commit another crime. (SC Administrative Circular
No. 12-94)
NOTE: This includes punishment of life imprisonment.
NOTE: Mitigating circumstances are not yet considered to determine the penalty because in the end, it
will only result in a full blown trial.
Although mitigating circumstances in general are not considered yet. The mitigating
circumstance of MINORITY may be considered in granting bail.
NOTE: AC # 12-94 is constitutional because it only limits the right to bail after conviction while the case is
on appeal. The right to bail is only guaranteed by the Constitution before conviction, not after conviction
while the case is on appeal. The Constitution does not distinguish whether before final decision or before
appeal.
DELA CAMARA VS ENAGE

The mayor of Magsaysay was implicated in the killing of 14 people
and injuring 12 others in Agusan. The judge ordered his bail at
P1,195,200.00.
RULING: The court held that the amount of bail is excessive and it violates
the Constitution. It would have been more honest if the judge denied bail
rather than to grant bail on an amount beyond the person’s reach. It is
like not granting bail at all.
NOTE: However, it is very hard to determine what is excessive and what is not. It depends on many factors.
PEOPLE VS DONATO
Salas was charged with rebellion with a penalty of prision mayor.

(Bail here is a matter of right). The fiscal opposed the fixing of the bail
bond saying that Salas is dangerous, and at the same time, citing many
circumstances.
RULING: The court held that if the bail is a matter of right, there is no
more need of a hearing to determine whether he can enjoy the right or not,
even if he is a very notorious criminal. The right is absolute. Even the
fear of possibility that the accused will evade sentence is not a valid
ground for denial of bail. A hearing may only be needed to fix the amount
of bail and not to determine whether the accused can enjoy the right or
not.
There is also a second issue. The Solicitor General and the lawyers for
Salas entered into an agreement whereby the companion of Salas would be
released while Salas remains in jail. Immediately after, he filed the
petition for bail. The government contended that he cannot do so because
has waived his right to bail when he entered into the agreement.
Is this considered a valid waiver of his right to bail?
The court distinguished two rights:
2. Rights which are purely personal to the accused. This right can be
waived.
3. Rights where the accused as well as the government are interested
in. This right cannot be waived because of public policy.
According to the Constitution, the right to bail is purely personal, thus,
it can be waived. Hence, the waiver of Salas is valid and binding.
Rights covered in the second type of rights:

1. Right to due process
2. Right against torture
3. right to free access to courts
COMBATE VS SAN JOSE JR.

Combate was charged with the crime of theft of one rooster, and the
case was presided over by respondent Judge San Jose, Jr. Following the
procedure laid down in the Rules on Summary Procedure in special cases,
respondent required petitioner and his witnesses to submit counter
affidavits to the supporting affidavits of complainant with which the
petitioner complied. The petitioner was arraigned without the assistance
of a counsel in which he pleaded not guilty. In the decision promulgated,
without the benefit of a trial, petitioner was sentenced to six months
imprisonment and to pay complainant P200 plus costs. Petitioner alleges
that respondent had denied him due process for having been arraigned and
convicted without the assistance of counsel and for having been convicted
without the benefit of a trial.
RULING: The rules on Summary Procedure is special cases applies only to

criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed six months imprisonment
or a fine of P1000 or both. Theft is penalized with 2 months and 1 day to
2 years and 4 months, thus, trial should have proceeded as the accused
pleaded not guilty. But not only was accused not represented by counsel
upon arraignment, he was neither accorded the benefit of a trial. The
decision was based on the affidavits submitted without the petitioner
having been given the chance to confront or cross-examine the affiants.
There was a clear deprivation of the fundamental right to due process. When
judgment is rendered in complete disregard of all the norms of procedure,
the whole proceeding is completely void. It is as if there was not judgment
at all and no double jeopardy attaches.
COMMENDADOR VS DE VILLA
The accused was charged with violation of the Articles of War before
a Court Martial.
ISSUE: Whether or not a person charged before a court martial has a right
to bail.
RULING: The court decided that traditionally, the right to bail has not
been recognized in the military courts.
NOTE: Some say that tradition should not be included in the interpretation of the Bill of Rights
Policy Arguments (not legal arguments) which could be considered important:

1. Military officers are different from ordinary criminals because they are entrusted with trust
and confidence of the people.
2. It would also be dangerous if there are armed coup plotters walking in the streets because
they are allowed to go out on bail.
NOTE: These are only policy arguments and decisions should not be based solely on these.
Q: May an alien invoke the Constitutional right to bail during the pendency of deportation
proceedings?
A: Yes. According to the Lao Gi case, the court held that due to the harsh consequences of
deportation proceedings to the life and liberty of a person, the rules on criminal procedure including
the right to bail, should be applied to deportation proceedings.
NOTE: Section 13 also covers proceedings not criminal in nature.
Related Law: Rule 114 - BAIL

SECTION 1. Bail defined. � Bail the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under
the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond,
cash deposit, or recognizance. (1)
Sec. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. � All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval and remain in force at all stages of
the case, unless sooner cancelled, until the promulgation of the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whatever the case was originally filed in or appealed
to it;
(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court
or these Rules;
(c) The failure if the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due
notice to him r his bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be
present on the date specified in the notice. In such case, the trial may proceed in
absentia; and
(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final
judgment.
The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the undertaking
and the conditions herein required. Photographs (passport size) taken recently showing the face, left
and right profiles of the accused must be attached thereto. (2a)
Sec. 3. No release or transfer except on court or bail. � No person under detention by legal process
shall be released or transferred except upon lawful order of the court or when he is admitted to bail as
prescribed in this Rule. (n)
Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right. � All persons in custody shall: (a) before or after conviction by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offenses not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties,
or be released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule. (3a)
Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. � Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court, on application, may admit the
accused to bail.
The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to continue on provisional liberty under the same bail
bond during the period of appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman.
If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years but not more than twenty
(20)years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted shall be cancelled, upon a
showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:
(a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement,
evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
(c) That the accused committed the offense while on probation, parole, or under
conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of the accused or his indicate the probability of flight of
released on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused may
commit another crime.
The appellate court may review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court, on motion and with notice to
the adverse party. (n)
Sec. 6. Capital offense, defined. � A capital offense, as the term is used in these Rules, is an offense
which, under the law existing at the time of its commission and at the time of the application to be
admitted to bail, may be punished with death. (4)
Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not
bailable. � No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of
the criminal prosecution. (n)
Sec. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. � At the hearing of an application for admission to bail filed
by any person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is
strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearings shall be considered automatically reproduced
at the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination
unless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to testify. (5a)
Sec. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. � The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall
fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to the following guidelines:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;.
(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty of the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) The weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing in trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bonds;
(i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) The pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond.
Excessive bail shall not be required. (6)
Sec. 10. Corporate surety. � Any domestic or foreign corporation licensed as a surety in accordance
with law and currently authorized to act as such may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the
accused and an officer duly authorized by its board of directors. (7)
Sec. 11. Property bond, how posted. � A property bond is an undertaking constituted as a lien on the
real property given as security for the amount of the bail. Upon approval of the bond, the court shall
order the accused to cause the annotation of the lien within ten (10) days on the original torrens title on
file with the Register of Deeds, if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration Book on the
space provided therefor, in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land
lies, and on the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial and municipal assessor
concerned. Non-compliance with the order shall be sufficient cause for cancellation of the property
bond. (8)
Sec. 12. Qualification of sureties in property bond. � The necessary qualification of sureties to a property
bond shall be as follows:
(a) Each of them must be a resident of real estate within the Philippines;
(b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least the amount of
the undertaking;
(c) In case there are two or more sureties, they may justify severally in amounts less than
that expressed in the undertaking if the entire sum justified to is equivalent to the whole
amount of bail demanded.
In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own undertaking over and above all
just debts, obligations and property exempt from execution. (9a)
Sec. 13. Justification of sureties. � Every surety shall justify by affidavit taken before the judge, that each
possesses the qualifications named in the preceding section, and shall be required to describe the
property given as security, stating the nature of his title thereto, the encumbrances thereon, the number
and amount of other bonds entered into by him and remaining undischarged, and his other liabilities.
The court may further examine the sureties upon oath concerning their sufficiency in such manner as it
may deem proper. No bond shall be approved unless the surety is qualified. (10)
Sec. 14. Deposit of cash as bail. � The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash
with the nearest collector of internal revenue, or provincial, city or municipal treasurer the amount of
bail fixed by the court or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated r filed the case, and upon
submission of a proper certificate of deposit and of a written undertaking showing compliance with the
requirements of Section 2 hereof, the accused shall be discharged from custody. Money thus deposited
shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of any fine and costs and the excess, if any,
shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit. (11)
Sec. 15. Recognizance. � Whenever allowed pursuant to law or these Rules, the court may release a
person in custody on his own recognizance or that of a responsible person. (12)
Sec. 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. � No bail shall be required when the
law or these Rules so provide.
When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced, he shall be released immediately,
without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceedings on appeal. In case the
maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after
thirty(30) days of preventive imprisonment.
A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed
for the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying
circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the
court. (13).
Sec. 17. Bail, where filed. � (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is
pending, or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same
court within the province or city. If the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than
where the case is pending, bail may be filed also with any regional trial court of said place, or, if no
judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit
trial judge therein.
(b) Whenever the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be released on
recognizance, the application therefor may be filed only in the particular court where the case is
pending, whether for preliminary investigation, trial, or on appeal.
(c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the
province, city or municipality where he is held. (14)

Sec. 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. � In the application or bail under the preceding section,
the court must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit his
recommendation. (15a)
Sec. 19. Release on bail. � The accused must be discharged upon approval to the bail by the judge
with whom it was filed in accordance with Section 17 thereof.
Whenever bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge accepting the bail
shall forward the bail, the order of release and other supporting papers to the court where the case is
pending, which may, for good reason, require a different one to be filed. (16a)
Sec. 20. Increase or reduction of bail. � After the accused shall have been admitted to bail, the court
may, upon good cause shown, either increase or decrease the amount of the same. If increased, the
accused may be committed to custody unless he gives bail in the increased amount thereof within a
reasonable period. An accused held to answer a criminal charge but who is released without bail on
the filing of a complaint or information, may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings whenever a
strong showing of guilt appears to the court, be required to give bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu
thereof may be committed to custody. (17)
Sec. 21. Forfeiture of bail bond. � When the presence of the accused is specifically required by the
court, or these Rules, his bondsman shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date. If
the accused fails to appear in person as required, the bond shall be declared forfeited and the
bondsmen are given thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal and to show cause why
judgment should not be rendered against them for the amount of their bond. Within the said period, the
bondsmen:
(a) must produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-production;
and
(b) must explain satisfactorily why the accused did not appear before the court when
first required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally,
for the amount of the bond, and the court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the
bondsmen, except when the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted. (18)
Sec. 22. Cancellation of bail bond. � Upon application filed with the court and after due notice to the
prosecutor, the bail bond may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death..
The bail bond shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused or dismissal of
the case or execution of the final judgment of conviction.
In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bond. (19a)
Sec. 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. � For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen
may arrest him, or on written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking may cause him
to be arrested by any officer or any other person of suitable age and discretion.
An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to
depart from the Philippines without prior permission of the court where the case is pending. (20)
Sec. 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. � An accused shall not be allowed bail after the
judgment has become final, unless he has applied for probation before commencing to serve
sentence, the penalty and the offense being within the purview of the Probation Law. In case the
accused has applied for probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail bond,

but if no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on
recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the community. In no case shall bail be
allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence. (21a)
Sec. 25. Court supervision of detainees. � The court shall exercise supervision over all persons in custody
for the purpose of eliminating all unnecessary detention. The executive judges of the Regional Trial
Courts shall conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial, city or municipality jails and their
prisoners within their respective jurisdiction, to inquire into their proper accommodation and health, the
number of detainees, the condition of the jail facilities, the segregation of sexes and of minors from the
adults, the observance of the right of detainees to confer privately with counsel, and the elimination of
conditions disadvantageous to the detainees.
In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme Court, the municipal trial judges or municipal
circuit trial judges shall conduct monthly personal inspections of municipal jails of the irrespective
municipalities, and submit a report to the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
therein.
A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by the executive judges to the Court Administrator,
stating the total number of detainees, at least the names of those held for more than thirty (30) days,
the duration of detention, the crime charged, the status of the case, the cause for detention, the crime
charged, the status of the case, the cause for detention, and other pertinent information. (22)
The amendments shall take effect on October 1, 1994.
Let the Clerk of Court cause the publication of these amendments in two (2) national newspapers of
general circulation.
Sec. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of irregular preliminary investigation. � An
application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or
the legality of the warrant issued therefore, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of
a preliminary investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering his
plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of
the case.
August 16, 1994.

The Rights of the Accused
Art. III, Sec. 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer

for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be

presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall
enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have a
compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
- These are the rights of the accused during the trial. The rule of battle in criminal prosecutions
THE TEN RIGHTS COVERED:
- Right to Due Process

- Right to Presumption of Innocence
- Right to be Heard
- Right to Counsel
- Right to be Informed
- Right to a Speedy Trial
- Right to an Impartial Trial
- Right to a Public Trial
- Right to Meet the Witnesses
- Right to Compulsory Process
I. RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
- The right to due process is the biggest right of all. According to Justice Cruz, the right to due
process mentioned here is only a procedural due process, the procedure laid down by law in
trying an accused who is being charged of a crime.
4 ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS (applicable to criminal cases): People vs. Tomio
- The court or tribunal is clothed with judicial power to hear and decide the case and must
be a regular court.
- Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person of the accused and over the offense
- Accused was given an opportunity to be heard
- Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing
PEOPLE VS TOMIO

Marcos issued a General Order directing that crimes against tourists

must be tried and finished within 24 hours. Tomio and others were charged
with kidnapping Japanese tourists.
May 12, they were arrested
May 15, they were charged
May 19, they were arraigned
May 19 and 20, prosecution presented seven witnesses
May 22, defense presented their witnesses
May 27, all were sentenced to death
They went to the SC contending that the speedy disposition of the case
violated their right to due process.
RULING: The court held that there was no violation of due process. All the
elements of due process were present.
If the accused was aggrieved, then he should have complained during the
trial. The court also looked into the purpose of GO#39, which is tourism.
If the prosecution of crimes against tourists were slow, this would affect
tourism.
PAGASIAN VS AZURA
In a criminal case for theft entitled People vs Dumo, Barangay Captain

Pagasian was a witness. It appeared that because of a report, and
accompanied by police, he seized the carabao from the house of the accused
which allegedly is the subject matter of the theft. After trial, the Judge
acquitted Dumo but convicted Pagasian for clear violation of the
fundamental law of the land and against human rights. He was sentenced to
two days of jail term and a fine of P200.00.
RULING: The court ruled that the judge violated due process. The barangay
captain was not informed of the charges against him and in fact, he had no
idea that he was on trial. He did not even present evidences in his own
behalf.
OLAGUER VS MILITARY COMMISSION
Olaguer was a civilian tried and sentenced to die by the military

tribunal during Martial Law. After Marcos was deposed, Olaguer went to SC
challenging the validity of his conviction saying that his conviction was
a violation of his right to due process.
RULING: The court held that due process in Sec. 14 means trial by judicial
process not by executive of military process. Military tribunal is not part
of judiciary but of the executive branch for discipline of army. Therefore
there is a violation of due process. Even during martial law, all cases
should be tried under civilian courts. As long as civilian courts are open
and functioning, the decisions of the military tribunal on civilians are
null and void.
Pending cases involving civilians in military tribunals should be

transferred to civilian courts when national emergency already ceased to
exist. Military tribunals have jurisdiction only as long as national
emergency exists. Double jeopardy will not lie here.

II. RIGHT TO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Demurrer to Evidence – motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of evidence.
This means that the government has not overcome the presumption of innocence. Hence,
shortens the proceeding.
Exceptions:
1. Under Article 217 of RPC, failure of a public officer to produce money in his charge is
prima facie evidence of malversation.
The burden is on him to prove otherwise.
2. Violation of the Anti Fencing Law, such as in possession of stolen property, in the
absence of adequate explanation, the possessor of the object is presumed to have
stolen the property.
3. Presumption of violation of the Illegal Fishing Law (Hizon case)
Q: Are these presumptions constitutional?

A: Yes. Clearly, the fact presumed is but a natural inference from the fact proved so that it
cannot be said that there is no rational connection between the two. Furter, the statute
establishes only a prima facie presumption thus giving the accused an opportunity to rebut it.
NOTE: The principle that there is no constitutional infirmity to the reversed presumptions was
recently reiterated in Dizon-Pamintuan vs People (234 S 63)
Why does it not violate the Constitution?
1. There is a logical connection between the fact presumed and the fact proved
2. The presumption is rebuttable
III. RIGHT TO BE HEARD
This is the right to present evidence in one’s behalf. This includes:

1. The right to testify in one’s favor
2. The right to call witnesses
3. The right to be given reasonable opportunity to present witnesses.
IV. RIGHT TO COUNSEL
This means the right to counsel during trial
Elements:
1. The court is duty bound to inform the accused of his right before he is arraigned
2. The court must ask him if he desires the service of a counsel
3. If he does not or is unable to get one, the court must assign a counsel de oficio
4. If the accused wishes to get a private counsel, the court must give him time to obtain
one.
The right to counsel during trial can be waived. The accused may represent himself in any
litigation.

REYES VS MONCADO
The negligence and/or incompetence of the lawyer amounts to

deprivation of due process.
PEOPLE VS HOLGADO
The accused was charged with a crime during which the judge asked,
“Do you have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty?” The accused
answered, “I have no lawyer and I will plead guilty.” He was arraigned and
was sentenced.
ISSUE: Was the right to counsel of the accused observed?
RULING: The court answered in the negative. The judge did not follow the
four guidelines mentioned above. The right of the accused was violated.
There is no fair hearing if the accused is not given the opportunity to be
heard by counsel in criminal cases. Accused to be represented by a counsel
is essential in criminal cases. Even if the accused pleaded guilty to the
crime, he should be subjected to a new trial. The Court should have seen
to it that he was assisted by counsel especially because of the seriousness
of the crime which is found capital by the court.
DELGADO VS CA
During trial, a woman was charged with estafa, and was represented
by Atty. Yco. Her lawyer failed to appear despite proper notice. She was
convicted. Upon knowing that her lawyer was not a member of the BAR, she
prayed that she be granted new trial on the ground that she was deprived
of her right to be defended by a competent counsel.
RULING: The court stated that a defense by a fake lawyer violated the right
to due process. The accused can demand a new trial. The reason is because
there is a big danger that a fake lawyer may not be able to present an
adequate defense in behalf of the accused. (In this case, the right to
counsel may be raised by the accused and the prosecution. On the other
hand, the government will just look stupid if they will raise this issue
upon discovery that they were defeated by a fake lawyer.) She is therefore
entitled to be represented by a member of the BAR in a criminal case.
PEOPLE VS MANALO
Arraignment – Atty. X
First Day – Atty. W
Second day – Atty. X
Third day – Atty. W
Fourth Day – Atty. Y
Fifth Day – Atty. Y
Sixth Day – Atty. X
RULING: The court held that there was no violation of the right to counsel.
All the lawyers exerted adequate efforts in trying to defend the accused.
NOTE: This is not satisfactory and it is dangerous. But the court refused to annul the conviction.
PEOPLE VS ENCIPIDO

The two accused were represented by only one lawyer, a counsel de
oficio. When the interest of one of the accused came in conflict with the
other, the accused should have different lawyers. The trial should have
been suspended and another counsel de oficio be assigned to the other
accused. The right to counsel of the two accused were violated in this
case.
V. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
The information charging the accused with a crime must be stated with precision. There
must be specific allegation of every fact and circumstances necessary for the crime charged.
The information has to be read to the accused. What controls is the body of the information, not
the caption.
Purpose of the Right:

1. To enable the accused to defend himself.
2. To enable him to avail of the protection of double jeopardy if prosecuted or charged the
second time for the same offense
2 instances when double jeopardy attaches:

1. When the ground is insufficiency of evidence of prosecution
2. When the proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged in violation of the right to
speedy trial
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged so that it can decide whether they are sufficient
to support a conviction.
VI. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
After the conviction of the accused, delays in the appeals does not violate the right to speedy
trial. (People vs Berdaje, 99 S 388)
PEOPLE VS TAMPAL
Accused was charged before the RTC with robbery with homicide. The
case was scheduled for hearing but the prosecutor was absent. The judge
considered the absence of the prosecutor as unjustified and dismissed the
case.
RULING: In dismissing criminal cases based on the right of the accused to

speedy trials, courts should carefully weigh the circumstances attending
each case. They should balance the right of the accused and the State to
punish who violate its penal laws. Both the State and the accused are
entitled to due process.
The prosecutor could not be faulted for his failure to attend the hearing
on a particular date where the same was due to his good faith and belief
that said date was a Muslim legal holiday. In determining the right of the
accused to speedy trial, courts should do more that a mathematical
computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings.
PEOPLE VS GINES

There were several trial schedules totaling to six dates. The
complainant is former Justice Guerrero and the accused is Mayor Labo. Five
of these scheduled trials were cancelled because complainant was not around
because he was seeking medical treatment for his cataracts. The accused
moved for dismissal on the ground of the right to speedy trial.
RULING: The court ruled that there was no violation of the right to speedy
trial. One cannot use the right in order to deprive the State of a
reasonable opportunity of indicting criminals. Absence of complainants was
done in good faith and with justifiable reasons.
The dismissal due to absence of complainant on valid reasons was erroneous.
The case would be restated without putting the accused in double jeopardy.
Requisites of Double Jeopardy:
1. A valid complaint or information

2. A court of competent jurisdiction
3. The accused has pleaded to the charge
PEOPLE VS LAYA
The case was scheduled on March 14 and 23. After scheduling, the
fiscal inhibited himself because he earlier recommended the dismissal of
the charges. The fiscal who replaced him moved for the postponement because
he was busy. The court granted the postponement on March 14 only. The
fiscal now requested that the case be assigned to the provincial fiscal,
who also moved for postponement of the March 25 hearing.
ISSUE: Should the case be dismissed on the ground of violation of the right
to speedy trial?
RULING: The court ruled in the affirmative. There was a violation of the
right. The rigodon of the fiscals reflected a cavalier attitude of the
prosecution and therefore violates the right of the accused to a speedy
trial. The delay is vexatious and prejudicial to the job of the Mayor and
is also prejudicial to the people of his town where he is mayor. The case
was very simple and there were other fiscals who could have handled the
case. Flimsy excuses are not valid grounds for delaying trial.
FACTORS ON RELATIVITY OF THE RIGHT:
1. The EXTENT of the delay (time or number of years that passed)

2. The REASONS for the delay
3. The INVOCATION by the accused of the right (NOTE: This is waivable)
4. The PREJUDICE it causes the accused
NOTE: The right may be waived
VII. RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL TRIAL

- The right to have an impartial judge. The impartiality must not only be in reality but also even in
appearance. According to the SC, a litigant is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge. The judge should file a motion for inhibition if he is not impartial.
- The judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.
MATEO VS. VILLALUZ
The petitioners in this case were the accused for the offense of
robbery in band with homicide. In the meantime another suspect in the
Sangkay Point Robbery, Rolando Reyes was arrested. It appears that said
Reyes executed an extrajudicial statement on Oct. 1, 1971, signed and sworn
to before respondent Judge Onorre Villaluz and in that statement had
implicated petitioner. Reyes however repudiated the statement alleging that
he had executed it because he had been threatened by a government agent.
It is contended by petitioner that such repudiation would not sit well with
respondent judge who has placed himself in a position of being unable to
pass on such question with the degree of objectivity required by due
process, although, admittedly, such a move did not fall squarely within
one of the specified grounds to inhibit judges. Respondent judge turned
down this plea for disqualification. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the circumstance of a party having sworn before

respondent judge an extrajudicial statement purporting to describe the
manner in which an offense was committed, later on repudiated by him as
the product of intimidation in the course of his having been asked to
testify against petitioner would suffice to negate that degree of
objectivity required by the Constitution?
RULING: Yes, petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for. Respondent
could not be totally immuned to what apparently was asserted before him in
such extrajudicial statement. It is unlikely that he was not in the
slightest bit offended by the affiant’s turnabout with his later
declaration that there was intimidation by a government agent exerted on
him. His sense of fairness could easily be blunted. It was he who attested
to the execution of the said statement. It cannot be doubted that respondent
ruled that such extrajudicial statement was executed freely. It is a
situation of a judge having to pass on a question that by implication had
already been answered by him for the respondent was called upon to review
a matter on which he had previously given his opinion.
VIII. RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL
- Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent abuses that may be committed by the court to the
prejudice of the defendant .
Exceptions:
1. Trial of cases involving child abuse

2. Trial of cases involving rape
NOTE: This right belongs to the accused and therefore it can be waived by the accused.
Conditions for the Validity of Trial not held in Court:
- Public was not excluded

- Accused was not prejudiced
- Accused did not object during trial
IX. RIGHT TO MEET THE WITNESSES (RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION)
- the right to confrontation “intends to secure the accused in the right to be tried, so far as
facts provable by witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him face to face
at the trial, who give their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused an opportunity
of cross-examination.
- It was intended to prevent conviction of the accused upon deposition or ex parte affidavits,
and particularly to preserve the right of the accused to test the recollection of the witness in
the exercise of the right of cross-examination.
In ordinary cases, the plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence (same as in Shariah
courts). If the plaintiff has no evidence, the defendant wins because plaintiff was not able to
prove his cause of action.
In a case, the plaintiff did not have evidence and defendant won. Plaintiff went to the SC
and challenged the validity of the procedure of the Shariah on the ground that it violated his
right to confrontation. The Court ruled using ordinary rights and rules of court. Even without the
Shariah decision, defendants would still have won the case since plaintiff had no sufficient
evidence. However, the SC noted that the Shariah procedure violated the right to
confrontation. The Court stated that a committee be formed to control and supervise this.
Exceptions to the availability of the right:
1. Admissibility of a dying man’s declaration

2. Trial in absentia (accused was not present in the hearing, hence
waived his right to confront the witnesses)
X. RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS
- A person accused can obtain a subpoena from the court in order to compel the attendance
of witnesses in his behalf.
NOTE: If the person resides mote than 100 kilometers from the place of trial, he is not bound by
a subpoena. This rule applies only to civil cases and not to criminal cases.
To establish the right, accused must show:

1. That the witness is really material
2. That he is guilty of no neglect in previously obtaining the attendance of the witness
3. That the witness will be available at the time desired
4. That no similar evidence should be obtained from other witnesses.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA:
Requisites:
1. Accused has been previously arraigned
2. He was notified of the proceedings (notice sent to last known address seems to be sufficient)
3. Failure to appear is unjustified
Gen Rule: The right to attend trial is waivable
Exception:
1. Arraignment
2. During the identification stage (witness testifies to the identity of the accused)
3. Promulgation of judgment
JIMENEZ VS NAZARENO
There were several accused and after he was arraigned accused

escaped. The trial proceeded in his absence and the judge convicted his
co-accused. However, insofar as the one who escaped, the judge withheld
his decision that he can enjoy his constitutional right to confrontation
if he is arrested. (Some think that this is wrong. Accused should be judged
basing on the evidences presented during the trial in his absence.)
ISSUE 1: Whether the court loses jurisdiction over a person who escapes
ISSUE 2: Whether the accused who escaped retains his right to confrontation
to present evidence to cross examination and to be heard.
RULING 1: No. Once jurisdiction is acquired, it is never lost.
RULING 2: These rights are no longer retained once the accused escapes.
The provision on trial in absentia will be useless. Escape tantamounts tp
a waiver to your right to present evidence, confrontation, and etc.
Habeas Corpus

Art. III, Sec. 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.
Habeas Corpus
- The writ is directed to a person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of
the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his caption and
detention, to do, to submit to, and receive whatever the court or judge awarding the writ shall
consider in his behalf.
2 grounds for the Suspension of the writ:
1. Invasion
2. Rebellion
NOTE: But it should be that public safety requires it
4 Cases when it can be filed:
- Detention without charges

- Cases where a prisoner has served sentence but is not released
- Custody of children
- Where patients are detained in hospital for failure to pay the bill
Other Instances when it can apply:
1. When a person is unlawfully denied of his constitutional freedom

2. Person is denied of due process
3. Restraints are involuntary and unnecessary
4. Where deprivation of freedom which is originally valid becomes arbitrary later on.
VILLAVICENCIO VS LUKBAN
Mayor Lukban of Manila herded 120 prostitutes into a beer and brought
from Manila to Davao. The relatives of some went and filed a petition for
habeas corpus. Mayor’s defense was that habeas corpus was not the proper
remedy because there was no restraint of liberty
RULING: The court held that any restraint which will preclude freedom of
action is sufficient reason to issue the writ. The forcible taking of the
women by the city officials who handed those to other parties and deposited
them in a distant region deprived them of locomotion as effectively as if
they had been imprisoned. Without money or belongings, they were prevented
from exercising their right of going where they want. So restraint continues
until they are brought back to Manila, unless they do not want to return.
NOTE: The petition for habeas corpus can be filed by anybody in behalf of the detainee.
NOTE: It is also the duty of the court to grant the writ if there is evidence that within the court’s
jurisdiction a person is unjustly restrained.
MONCUPA VS ENRILE

Moncupa was arrested for being a member of the NDF. His lawyer filed
a petition for habeas corpus. While the petition was pending, the military
released him. After his release, the military attached many conditions (an
example is he cannot travel without permission). After the military argued
that the petition was moot and academic since he was already released.
RULING: The court held a release that renders a petition for habeas corpus
moot and academic is one that is unconditional. In this case, the
restrictions effectively denied him of his constitutional rights.
Restrictions are declared null and void.
3 Ways of Compliance of the Writ:

1. By producing the body
2. By affidavit that such persons are sick and could not be safely brought out to court
3. by proving that such person have waived their rights to be present – by affidavit
Non-production of the person is sufficient ground to hold offenders in contempt of court. The offender
must exert all effort to produce the body (mere writing of letters is not enough). He must exert all means
a mortal man can do.
ILAGAN VS ENRILE
During the hearing, the SC ordered their release because mission

orders are not allowed as basis for arrest. Military moved for
reconsideration. Meanwhile, they convinced the fiscal to file rebellion
charges against them. Immediately, the military manifested in court that
the petition should be recommended since there is now a basis for detention
by virtue of the filing of the charges. The detention is now legal.
RULING: The court ruled that the petition has become moot and academic with
the subsequent filing of a criminal case against them. The detention has
become legal after the filing of the case.
When Writ not Allowed or Discharge not Authorized:
1. If the person is in the custody of an officer and under process by a court or judge
2. When the person is charged with or convicted of a crime in the Philippines
3. A person is imprisoned under lawful judgment
4. By reason of informality – defect in the process of judgment or order if the jurisdiction appears
after the writ is allowed.
Doctrine: Subsequent filing of criminal charges against the detained persons renders the petition for
habeas corpus moot and academic.
NOTE: This doctrine has not been reversed yet.

NOTE: To lose the privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus, it is necessary that he be judicially charged
(criminal charges has been filed in court).
ABERCA VS VER
Petitioners were arrested without warrant. They claim that they were
subjected to illegal arrest and searches, tortures, and confiscation of
property. Since the privilege of the writ was suspended and they could not
file a petition for habeas corpus they filed a civil case for damages
against the military officer involved. The military argued that the
detainees were asking the court to inquire into the legality of their
detention under the guise of a civil case.
ISSUE: Whether the suspension of the writ bars a civil action for damages
under Art. 32 of the Civil Code
RULING: the court held no. What is suspended is the detainee’s right to
question the legality of his continued detention. In the present case,
petitioners were seeking damages for violation of their rights such as
unlawful searches, tortures, and theft of property. Even the question of
illegal arrest is subject to inquiry in a civil suit even if the privilege
of the writ is suspended. Illegal arrest is distinct from continued illegal
detention.
Even if the Writ is Suspended:
1. Anybody can still file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus

2. The judge can still issue a writ
3. That if the order reaches the detaining officer and he can show that the detainee is covered by
the suspension, said person shall not be released, the judge can inquire no further or order his
release.
NOTE: The writ is never suspended. What is suspended is the privilege of the writ.
Writ of Amparo – It is similar to the writ of habeas corpus, only broader. It also covers other constitutional
rights like economic rights, etc.
Related law: Rule 102 – Habeas Corpus
Sec. 1. To what habeas corpus extends. - Except as otherwise expressly provided by law, the writ of
habeas corpus shall extend to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is
deprived of his liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from the person entitled
thereto.
Sec. 2. Who may grant the writ. - The writ of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, or
any member thereof, on any day and at any time, or by the Court of Appeals or any member thereof in
the instances authorized by law, and if so granted it shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines,
and may be made returnable before the court or any member thereof, or before the Court of First
Instance, or any judge thereof for the hearing and decision on the merits. It may also be granted by a
Court of First Instance, or a judge thereof, on any day and at any time, and returnable before himself,
enforceable only within his judicial district.
Sec. 3. Requisites of application therefor. - Application for the writ shall be by petition signed and
verified either by the party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person on his behalf, and shall set
forth:
(a) That the person in whose behalf the application is made is imprisoned or restrained of his liberty;
(b) The officer or name of the person by whom he is so imprisoned or restrained; or, if both are unknown
or uncertain, such officer or person may be described by an assumed appellation, and the person who
is served with the writ shall be deemed the person intended;
(c) The place where he is so imprisoned or restrained, if known;

(d) A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such person, if it can be procured without
impairing the efficiency of the remedy; or, if the imprisonment or restraint is without any legal authority,
such fact shall appear.
Sec. 4. When writ not allowed or discharge authorized. - If it appears that the person alleged to be
restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge or by
virtue of a judgment or order of a court of record, and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue
the process, render the judgment, or make the order, the writ shall not be allowed; or if the jurisdiction
appears after the writ is allowed, the person shall not be discharged by reason of any informality or
defect in the process, judgment, or order. Nor shall anything in this rule be held to authorize the
discharge of a person charged with or convicted of an offense in the Philippines, or of a person
suffering imprisonment under lawful judgment.
Sec. 5. When the writ must be granted and issued. - A court or judge authorized to grant the writ must,
when a petition therefor is presented and it appears that the writ ought to issue, grant the same
forthwith, and immediately thereupon the clerk of the court shall issue the writ under the seal of the
court; or in case of emergency, the judge may issue the writ under his own hand, and may depute any
officer or person to serve it.
Sec. 6. To whom writ directed, and what to require. - In case of imprisonment or restraint by an officer,
the writ shall be directed to him, and shall command him to have the body of the person restrained of
his liberty before the court or judge designated in the writ at the time and place therein specified. In
case of imprisonment or restraint by a person not an officer, the writ shall be directed to an officer, and
shall command him to take and have the body of the person restrained of his liberty before the court or
judge designated in the writ at the time and place therein specified, and to summon the person by
whom he is restrained then and there to appear before said court or judge to show the cause of the
imprisonment or restraint. chan robles virtual law library
Sec. 7. How prisoner designated and writ served. - The person to be produced should be designated in
the writ by his name, if known, but if his name is not known he may be otherwise described or identified.
The writ may be served in any province by the sheriff or other proper officer, or by a person deputed by
the court or judge. Service of the writ shall be made by leaving the original with the person to whom it is
directed and preserving a copy on which to make return of service. If that person cannot be found, or
has not the prisoner in his custody, then the service shall be made on any other person having or
exercising such custody.
Sec. 8. How writ executed and returned. - The officer to whom the writ is directed shall convey the
person so imprisoned or restrained, and named in the writ, before the judge allowing the writ, or, in case
of his absence or disability, before some other judge of the same court, on the day specified in the writ,
unless, from sickness or infirmity of the person directed to be produced, such person cannot, without
danger, be brought before the court or judge; and the officer shall make due return of the writ,
together with the day and the cause of the caption and restraint of such person according to the
command thereof.
Sec. 9. Defect of form. - No writ of habeas corpus can be disobeyed for defect of form, if it sufficiently
appears therefrom in whose custody or under whose restraint the party imprisoned or restrained is held
and the court or judge before whom he is to be brought.
Sec. 10. Contents of return. - When the person to be produced is imprisoned or restrained by an officer,
the person who makes the return shall state therein, and in other cases the person in whose custody the
prisoner is found shall state, in writing to the court or judge before whom the writ is returnable, plainly
and unequivocably:

(a) Whether he has or has not the party in his custody or power, or under restraint;
(b) If he has the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, the authority and the true and whole
cause thereof, set forth at large, with a copy of the writ, order, execution, or other process, if any, upon
which the party is held;
(c) If the party is in his custody or power or is restrained by him, and is not produced, particularly the
nature and gravity of the sickness or infirmity of such party by reason of which he cannot, without
danger, be brought before the court or judge;
(d) If he has had the party in his custody or power, or under restraint, and has transferred such custody
or restraint to another, particularly to whom, at what time, for what cause, and by what authority such
transfer was made.
Sec. 11. Return to be signed and sworn to. - The return or statement shall be signed by the person who
makes it; and shall also be sworn to by him if the prisoner is not produced, and in all other cases unless
the return is made and signed by a sworn public officer in his official capacity.
Sec. 12. Hearing on return; Adjournments. - When the writ is returned before one judge, at a time when
the court is in session, he may forthwith adjourn the case into the court, there to be heard and
determined. The court or judge before whom the writ is returned or adjourned must immediately
proceed to hear and examine the return, and such other matters as are properly submitted for
consideration, unless for good cause shown the hearing is adjourned, in which event the court or judge
shall make such order for the safekeeping of the person imprisoned or restrained as the nature of the
case requires. If the person imprisoned or restrained is not produced because of his alleged sickness or
infirmity, the court or judge must be satisfied that it is so grave that such person cannot be produced
without danger, before proceeding to hear and dispose of the matter. On the hearing the court or
judge shall disregard matters of form and technicalities in respect to any warrant or order of
commitment of a court or officer authorized to commit by law.
Sec. 13. When the return evidence, and when only a plea. - If it appears that the prisoner is in custody
under a warrant of commitment in pursuance of law, the return shall be considered prima facie
evidence of the cause of restraint; but if he is restrained of his liberty by any alleged private authority,
the return shall be considered only as a plea of the facts therein set forth, and the party claiming the
custody must prove such facts.
Sec. 14. When person lawfully imprisoned recommitted, and when let to bail. - If it appears that the
prisoner was lawfully committed, and is plainly and specifically charged in the warrant of commitment
with an offense punishable by death, he shall not be released, discharged, or bailed. If he is lawfully
imprisoned or restrained on a charge of having committed an offense not so punishable, he may be
recommitted to imprisonment or admitted to bail in the discretion of the court or judge. If he be
admitted to bail, he shall forthwith file a bond in such sum as the court or judge deems reasonable,
considering the circumstances of the prisoner and the nature of the offense charged, conditioned for
his appearance before the court where the offense is properly cognizable to abide its order or
judgment; and the court or judge shall certify the proceedings, together with the bond, forthwith to the
proper court. If such bond is not so filed, the prisoner shall be recommitted to confinement. chan robles
virtual law library
Sec. 15. When prisoner discharged if no appeal. - When the court or judge has examined into the cause
of caption and restraint of the prisoner, and is satisfied that he is unlawfully imprisoned or restrained, he
shall forthwith order his discharge from confinement, but such discharge shall not be effective until a
copy of the order has been served on the officer or person detaining the prisoner. If the officer or person
detaining the prisoner does not desire to appeal, the prisoner shall be forthwith released. chan robles
virtual law library
Sec. 16. Penalty for refusing to issue writ, or for disobeying the same. - A clerk of a court who refuses to
issue the writ after allowance thereof and demand therefor, or a person to whom a writ is directed, who
neglects or refuses to obey or make return of the same according to the command thereof, or makes
false return thereof, or who, upon demand made by or on behalf of the prisoner, refuses to deliver to
the person demanding, within six (6) hours after the demand therefor, a true copy of the warrant or
order of commitment, shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of one thousand pesos, to be
recovered in a proper action, and may also be punished by the court or judge as for contempt.
Sec. 17. Person discharged not to be again imprisoned. - A person who is set at liberty upon a writ of
habeas corpus shall not be again imprisoned for the same offense unless by the lawful order or process
of a court having jurisdiction of the cause or offense; and a person who knowingly, contrary to the
provisions of this rule, recommits or imprisons, or causes to be committed or imprisoned, for the same
offense, or pretended offense, any person so set at liberty, or knowingly aids or assists therein, shall forfeit
to the party aggrieved the sum of one thousand pesos, to be recovered in a proper action,
notwithstanding any colorable pretense or variation in the warrant of commitment, and may also be
punished by the court or judge granting writ as for contempt.
Sec. 18. When prisoner may be removed from one custody to another. - A person committed to prison,
or in custody of an officer, for any criminal matter, shall not be removed therefrom into the custody of
another officer unless by legal process, or the prisoner be delivered to an inferior officer to carry to jail,
or, by order of the proper court or judge, be removed from one place to another within the Philippines
for trial, or in case of fire, epidemic, insurrection, or other necessity or public calamity; and a person
who, after such commitment, makes, signs, or countersigns any order for such removal contrary to this
section, shall forfeit to the party aggrieved the sum of one thousand pesos, to be recovered in a proper
action.
Sec. 19. Record of writ, fees and costs. - The proceedings upon a writ of habeas corpus shall be
recorded by the clerk of the court, and upon the final disposition of such proceedings the court or
judge shall make such order as to costs as the case requires. The fees of officers and witnesses shall be
included in the costs taxed, but no officer or person shall have the right to demand payment in
advance of any fees to which he is entitled by virtue of the proceedings. When a person confined
under color of proceedings in a criminal case is discharged, the costs shall be taxed against the
Republic of the Philippines, and paid out of its Treasury; when a person in custody by virtue or under
color of proceedings in a civil case is discharged, the costs shall be taxed against him, or against the
person who signed the application for the writ, or both, as the court shall direct.
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases

Art. III, Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a
speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.
Section 16 is broader than Section 14:

1. It covers not just criminal cases
2. This section also pertains to other proceedings aside from trial
- includes stages prior to trial and after trial (case is on appeal)
TATAD VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Initially, the complaints were filed in 1974 against Tatad while he

was still connected with Malacañang. In 1979, he resigned so the complaints
were filed with the Tanodbayan. In 1982, the submission of evidence was
completed. In 1985, the Tanodbayan recommended the filing of charges
against him. Tatad claimed that there was a violation of his right to
speedy disposition. Subject matter was the time between 1982 to 1985 since
it was this time when the evidence were presented and the Tanodbayan should
have recommended the filing of the charges at that time. The argument of
the Solicitor General is that: In past decisions, absence of preliminary
investigation is not a fatal defect and the may be cured, thus, the more
reason that delay should not also be a fatal defect (NOTE: In past cases,
fiscal can just file charges without PI)
RULING: The court held that long delayed in the termination of the
preliminary investigation is violative of the right to speedy trial. The
court also held that the absence of PI can be corrected. But undue delay
in the conduct of the preliminary investigation cannot be corrected because
until now, man still has not invented a device to set back time.
NOTE: The right to speedy disposition CAN BE WAIVED when the delay is caused by the accused.
NOTE: Apply the four factors in the Right to Speedy Trial to the Rights of Speedy Disposition of cases:
1. Length of delay
2. Reasons of the delay
3. Invocation the Accused
4. Accused is Prejudiced by the Delay
Right Against Self-Incrimination

Art. III, Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be

a witness against himself.
Basis of the Right:

1. HUMANITY – It is introduced to prevent the extortion of confession under
duress or compulsion.
2. PUBLIC POLICY – If we are free to incriminate the accused by evidence
coming from him. It will put the accused in the strongest temptation to
them or commit perjury.
Q: When is a question “incriminating”?

A: When the answer tends to expose you to the accusation of a crime or tends to establish guilt
against you.
Scope of the Right:

1. It exempts a person from testifying against himself – Testimonial Self-Accusation
2. It exempts you from protecting documents or article demanded of him which are
incriminating
Exception: when the State has a right to inspect the same under the Police Power
3. It does not extend to non-testimonial acts, physical acts like blood test to determine if the
accused was infected with a sexual disease.
VILLAFLOR VS SUMMERS
Accused was charged with the crime of adultery. The judge ordered
the defendant to submit her body to an examination of 1 or 2 competent
doctors to determine if she was pregnant or not. She refused on the ground
that such examination of her person was in violation of the constitutional
provision relating to self-incrimination. Then she was found in contempt
of court and was ordered to be committed to the Bilibid prison until she
should permit the medical examination.
ISSUE: whether or not the act of compelling a woman to permit her body to
be examined by physicians violates the right against self-incrimination?
RULING: No. The prohibition is limited against compulsory testimonial self-
incrimination. On a proper showing and under an order of the trial court,
an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is permissible. The proviso
is that torture or force shall be avoided.
Exception:
a. If the test will subject the accused to unnecessary and existent humiliation
b. If the accused is required to submit a specimen of his handwriting to be used as
evidence against him to a charge of forgery
4. It also exempts the accused to do a reenactment of the crime he is being charged of
Non-testimonial physical acts are allowed as evidence so long as:

1. They are purely mechanical and does not involve the use of intelligence or imagination
2. And if it will not subject the accused to unnecessary and causes humiliation
Application of the Right in Various Proceedings Includes:
1. Criminal Cases
– prohibition of inquiry
2. Administrative Cases
Gen. Rule: Option to refuse to answer an incriminating question
Exception: when penalty is so severe. (Pascual vs Board case)
3. Civil Cases
- Option to refuse to answer an incriminating question
CHAVEZ VS CA
- Criminal Cases
The accused was charged with theft of a motor vehicle. During the trial
the prosecutor called on the accused as a witness. The lawyer objected but
was overruled. According to the judge, you only object when the statement
is under scrutiny for trial. The accused was convicted and as stated in
the decision, the accused was described as the star witness against himself.
RULING: The court held that in criminal cases the accused may refuse
altogether to take the witness stand and answer all questions. The accused
can invoke Sec. 17. Neither a witness can be compelled to take the witness
stand. In contrary to the theory of the judge, accused need wait until the
incriminating question is asked. He can refuse altogether to take the
witness stand.
This is called a PROHIBITION OF INQUIRY wherein a witness can refuse altogether to take the witness stand
or to answer all questions whether incriminating or not.
The court also stated that it should be only if the accused is allowed to take the stand since the purpose
of the fiscal is mainly to incriminate him. This would be contrary to the rights of the accused.
NOTE: The right can also be waived if the accused willingly takes the stand.
PASCUAL VS BOARD
- Administrative Case (an exceptional circumstance)

This involved a malpractice suit accused a doctor for immorality. During
the hearing, he was called by the prosecutor to testify and he refused.
Invoking the right to self-incrimination, the board overruled him that he
was to take the stand and to object only if the question is incriminating.
RULING: The court decided that an administrative hearing against a medical

practitioner for alleged malpractice may not be compelled to take the
witness stand without his consent. It is because the penalty in such
accusation is so severe as it can cause the revocation of the license in
practice of his profession. In effect it is also a prohibition of inquiry,
like in a criminal case.
BAGADION VS GONSAL
- In a civil case
Plaintiff called one of the defendants to testify and he refused. The judge
overruled him and compelled him to take the witness stand and object only
if the questions asked is incriminating.
RULING: The court ruled that in proceedings other than criminal, the right
against self-incrimination is an option to refuse to answer an
incriminating question. In effect the accused can take the witness stand,
and he will only object when the question starts to become incriminating.
TESTIMONIAL VS NON-TESTIMONIAL SELF-INCRIMINATION
US VS TAN TENG
Accused was prosecuted for rape and was examined for gonorrhea. The
accused was not asked to testify but the substance was only taken from his
body for examination.
RULING: The court held that the right against self-incrimination extends
only to TESTIMONIAL Self-incrimination. The right covers Vocal or Verbal
incrimination only.
VILLAFLOR VS SUMMERS
The accused was charged for adultery and upon motion of the
prosecutor, the judge ordered her examined to find out if she is pregnant.
She refused and was detained for contempt. She went to the SC.
RULING: The court ruled that the right extends to testimonial self
incrimination only. Order of the Court was only for an ocular inspection
of the body of the accused. So as not to embarrass the witness, the court
ordered the physicians not to do any other means more than necessary.
(NOTE: If this case happened now, the woman can also invoke the right to
privacy and it will most probably be ordered in favor of the woman)
BELTRAN VS SAMSON
Accused was charged with falsification and the fiscal ordered him to
take a specimen of his writing and afterwards will compare his handwriting
with the writing of the falsified documents. The accused refused invoking
the right against self-incrimination.
RULING: The court held this as a violation of the right to self-

incrimination. Asking the accused to write is a positive estimated act.
Writing is more than moving the hand, the body or the fingers. It is more
than just a mechanical act because it requires the use of intelligence and
attention.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE BELTRAN AND VILLAFLOR CASES:
1. Classify the act

In the Villaflor case, the accused was not asked to perform a positive act. She was only asked
to perform a negative act, or to present an examination of herself, whereas, in the Beltran case,
the accused was asked to perform a positive act.
2. Evidence
Villaflor was only asked to explain something already in existence, whereas in Beltran, accused
was asked to produce evidence not yet in existence.
PEOPLE VS GAMBOA
Accused was subject to paraffin test, and the result of the test was
introduced as evidence.
RULING: The court ruled that it is admissible because the right extends to
testimonial self-incrimination. Accused was only asked to perform a
mechanical act.
PEOPLE VS TRANCA
During a buy-bust operation, accused was handed a P100 bill by the

poseur buyer which was dusted with fluorescent powder. After his arrest
accused was taken to the INP Crime Lab and subjected to ultraviolet
radiation. He was found positive of fluorescent powder on his hands and
shirt pocket.
ISSUE: Was his right against self-incrimination violated?
RULING: The court ruled No. what is prohibited is the use of physical or
moral compulsion to extort communication from the witness, not an inclusion
of his body as evidence when it may be material.
PEOPLE VS CODILLA
A rape case. After the arrest, the accused was ordered to strip so
that police can examine for bites or scratches (marks). This examination
was presented as evidence and it was assailed as violative of the right to
self-incrimination.
RULING: The court held that removing of the clothes is purely a mechanical
act which is not covered by the right. There was no violation in this case.

NOTE: Under the rules on evidence, a person claiming ownership of clothing or shoes, etc. may be asked
to put these items on, to determine whether he is the owner or not, to see if they fit. In this case, it will not
violate the right to self-incrimination since putting on clothes is a mechanical act.
NOTE: The right against self incrimination is waivable.
How?
1) directly;
2) by failure to invoke it
Provided the waiver is certain an unequivocally, intelligently with understanding and willingly made.
Examples:
a.) Where the accused takes the witness stand and offers testimony on his behalf, he can also
be cross-examined by the opposing party.
b.) When the accused voluntarily surrenders incriminating papers which is later used as
evidence against him is deemed to have waived the privilege.
Freedom of Conscience and

Freedom from Involuntary Servitude
Art. III, Sec. 18. (1) No person shall be detained

solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist

except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted.
First Paragraph:
- The first Part speaks of the freedom of conscience or the freedom of thoughts. What is
protected by this section are the political beliefs (the principles are similar to freedom of
religion).
Political Prisoner – a person detained solely for what he believes in (caveat: not a definite meaning).
Under Amnesty International, the definition is broader such that they are those represented for acts
done pursuant to his political beliefs.
Second Paragraph:
Freedom from Involuntary Servitude

- It is the liberty not to be compelled against your will to work whether paid or not
NOTE: There is no law authorizing as a penalty for a crime to be suffered to work. If in any case, the
judge has to embody in the decision the order to work.
ACLARACION VS GATMAITAN
Petitioner was a stenographer with the CFI. After working one year
with the court, he transferred to another government entity, but he left
some untranscribed notes of some cases on appeal. The court ordered him to
finish the transcription, but he refused. He was reprimanded fro his
refusal. (This case became moot and academic because there was a settlement
subject to the condition that he will transcribe the notes)
RULING: The court held that the RTC stenographer can still be compelled to
transcribe notes on cases on appeal without violating the right against
involuntary servitude. This is part of the inherent power of the court
necessary for the ordinance and efficient administration of justice.
Other cases where court invoked its inherent powers:
1. Right to travel
2. Freedom of Expression
3. Freedom of assembly (cannot rally near the courts)
4. Right against involuntary servitude
Exceptions from Compulsion to Labor against his will:
1. After a person has been convicted of a crime and is sentenced to imprisonment and labor
2. When a person is required to render military service for the defense of the State
3. When a man is enlisted in the service of a merchant vessel, he is to remain in such service until the
end of the voyage for which he contracted – to prevent desertion of a ship in foreign ports
4. POSSE COMITATUS for the apprehension of criminals. The State may require some group of people
to assist in the pursuit of some criminals under the Police Power.
5. Striking Workers in industries affected with public interest – like public utilities such as light,
telephone, etc.
6. PATRIA POTESTAS – covered are unemancipated minors under parental control
Q: Can a person who ate in a restaurant and did not pay, be compelled to render service for the
establishment?
A: No. He can still invoke section 18 which prohibits involuntary servitude.
Prohibited Punishments

Art. III, 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.
2 Concepts of Cruel and Unusual Punishment:
1. Those which public sentiment would regard as cruel and obsolete to law, refers to form, not on
the severity or seriousness of the punishment. An example – crucifixion
2. Those which are disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral senses.
PEOPLE VS DELA CRUZ
The accused sold meat for P0.30 and at that time, there was a price
ceiling of P0.20 established by law. He was charged and convicted for
overpricing. The sentence was 5 years imprisonment plus P5,000.00 fine.
Also he cannot exchange in retail trade for 5 years (It was 195). The
conviction was challenged as violative of his right against cruel and
unusual punishment.
RULING: The court held the punishment as not shocking nor unusual. When
seen with the policy of the government in protecting the public welfare,
it is not disproportionate. Although the accused only earned P0.10, it is
possible that he will earn a lot more if he will not be prosecuted. The
damage to the government cannot be measured in terms of what he earned.
This does not fall under the meaning of cruel and unusual act according to
the 2 concepts.
PEOPLE VS DACUYCUY
Violation of the Magna Carta for public school teachers provided for
penalty of fine (P500-P1000) and imprisonment at the discretion of the
Court. The accused challenged this as cruel and unusual.
RULING: the court ruled giving the 2 concepts for cruel and unusual. It is
cruel an unusual when it is barbarous, obsolete or unknown to law, and when
it is disproportionate as to shock the moral conscience. The law does not
violate the right against cruel and unusual punishment based on the 2
concepts. If one of the 2 is violated, the law is unconstitutional. However,
it is unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative power.
AGBANLOG VS PEOPLE
Accused who was a municipal treasurer was accused of misappropriating

the amount of P21,940.70. He was sentenced to 11 to 16 years of
imprisonment. On appeal, he argues that the Revised Penal Code was enacted
in 1952 and since then the peso has devaluated so that the penalty imposed
on him has become obsolete, excessive and oppressive inflation. He pointed
out that the penalty was severe as to shock the moral senses.
RULING: The court held that malversation is a serious offense as it involves

betrayal of public trust so the penalty cannot be considered unduly severe.
At any rate, the remedy is to ask Congress to amend the law.
Instances when Punishment may also be deemed as CRUEL AND UNUSUAL: (Cruz)
1. If it inherently involves so much pain and suffering that civilized people cannot tolerate it.
2. If in the sense of being previously unknown it is imposed for a given offense
3. If it is excessive and serves a legislative purpose.
4. If popular sentiments abhors it even if not excessive or with a legislative purpose.
Non-Imprisonment for Non-Payment of Debts

Art. III, Sec. 20. No person shall be imprisoned for

debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
2 Concepts of Section 20:
1. Debt
2. Poll tax
Poll Tax – Tax paid as a condition precedent for the exercise of suffrage.
According to Fr. Bernas, poll tax refers to residence certificate or cedula and the tax paid is a
precedent to the exercise of the right of suffrage.
NOTE: However, poll tax, as a condition precedent for the right to vote might be contrary to the
Constitutional prohibition on literacy, property, or other substantive requirement as precedent to the right
to vote.
In non-payment of a debt, the debt assured in this section refers only to CONTRACTUAL DEBT (that
which arises from contracts).
Reason: this kind of contract is civil in nature.

AJENO VS INSERTO
Accused was sentenced to imprisonment and ordered to pay an indemnity

of P200.00 to the event that he is insolvent, he will serve subsidiary
imprisonment. Accused challenged this for being violative of the right
against imprisonment for non-payment of debt.
RULING: The court held that the accused is wrong. Indemnity arises ex-
delicto and not ex-contractu. The right only applies to debts arising from
contracts. Also the judge was wrong because subsidiary imprisonment applies
only to FINES and not to indemnity.
LOZANO VS MARTINEZ
- Bouncing Checks Law

ISSUE: Whether or not BP 22 violates the right against non-imprisonment
for non-payment of debt.
RULING: The court held BP 22 does not permit the failure of the maker to
pay his debt but only the making and issuance of a worthless check. The
purpose of the law is not to force people to pay their debts under the pain
of imprisonment. The purpose is to prohibit the issuance of worthless
checks. This was likened to introducing garbage to the bloodstream of the
economy.
PEOPLE VS NITAFAN
- Trust Receipt Law

ISSUE: Whether the trust receipt law violates the right on non-imprisonment
for non-payment of debt.
RULING: The court rules No. The law does not seek to enforce payment of
loan under the pain of imprisonment. The law punishes dishonesty and abuse
of confidence in handling money or goods to the prejudice of others. What
is protected is not the loan, which is a separate contract, but the security
or property given.
Double Jeopardy

Art. III, 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.
- Fittingly described as “res judicata in prison grey”
- The right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution again of any person for a crime of which
he has previously been acquitted or convicted. The object is to set the effects of the first prosecution
forever at rest, assuring the accused that he shall no thereafter be subjected to the dangers and
anxiety of a second charge against him for the same offense. (People vs Ylagan)
REQUISITES FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY:
FIRST JEOPARDY MUST FIRST JEOPARDY MUST SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THE
HAVE ATTACHED HAVE BEEN VALIDLY SAME OFFENSE OR FOR THE SAME ACT
PRIOR TO THE SECOND TERMINATED
When first jeopardy When first jeopardy When 2nd jeopardy for When 2nd jeopardy
attached? terminated? the same offense? for the same act?
1. When there is a valid 1. When accused is 1. when the two 1. First charge is for
complaint or acquitted offenses are an act punished
information identical by a law and an
2. When accused is ordinance, and
2. The complaint or convicted 2. when the second is the second
information was filed in an attempt to charge under
a competent court 3. When the case is commit the first either is for the
otherwise dismissed same act.
3. the accused has been without the express 3. When the second is
arraigned and has consent of the a frustration of the
pleaded accused first
4. when the first

necessarily includes
the second
5. when the first is

necessarily
included in the
second
I. FIRST JEOPARDY MUST HAVE ATTACHED PRIOR TO THE SECOND

1. Valid complaint or information
PEOPLE VS MANABA
- Information must be signed by offended party

A complaint of rape was signed by the Chief of Police. In rape cases, the
complaint should be signed by the offended party. In this case, it was not.
Later, it was discovered and the case was dismissed. The case was refiled
and the complaint was now signed by the offended party.
RULING: The court held that there was no double jeopardy because there was
no valid information. The information must be signed by the offended party
(in private crimes)
2. Filed before a competent court
DE GUZMAN VS ESCALONA
- Filed before a competent court

The accused was charged with illegal possession of dynamite. Case was
appealed to the MTC judge for preliminary investigation. During the PI,
the judge immediately arraigned the accused who pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to 4 months imprisonment. At this time there was already a new
law which increased the penalty of illegal possession, thus the
jurisdiction over the case should be with the RTC and not with the MTC.
Fiscal appealed the case, and the accused pleaded double jeopardy.
RULING: The court held that there was no double jeopardy because the MTC
has no jurisdiction over the offense. The case was not filed before a
competent court, the accused was not put on jeopardy in the first trial.
US VS ARCEO
- Filed in a proper venue

Accused was charged with bigamy in Pampanga, but the second marriage was
performed in Rizal. When it was found out that the accused was charged in
the wrong place, case was dismissed and refiled in Rizal. The accused
contested as defense, double jeopardy.
RULING: The court ruled that there was no double jeopardy because the Court
in Pampanga did not have proper jurisdiction. The case was filed in the
wrong venue. Double jeopardy will not attach
NOTE: Double Jeopardy was not attach or cannot be used as a defense by the accused if he is not in
danger o conviction in the first case filed against him for the same offense (refer to the 3 general requisites
mentioned above). He was never in danger of getting convicted of the first case filed against him.
3. Accused has been arraigned and pleaded
US VS SOLIS
- The accused must be arraigned in court

There were 2 men courting the same woman. The rivalry resulted to one
killing the other. The accused was charged with murder. Before arraignment,
the fiscal immediately called for a dismissal. Later, the fiscal refiled
the case. The accused pleaded double jeopardy.
RULING: The court held that there was no double jeopardy because the
dismissal was made before arraignment. The accused should be arraigned
first and should have given his plea.
PEOPLE VS BALISACAN
- No valid plea
The accused was charged with homicide. He pleaded guilty and he presented
mitigating circumstances, and in the process, he was able to prove self-
defense. The judge acquitted him. The fiscal appealed and the accused
raised double jeopardy.
RULING: The court held that there was no double jeopardy because the accused
has not entered as valid plea. When he presented evidence for self-defense,
he was actually abandoning his plea of guilty, so his plea was actually
void. The judge should have immediately suspended proceedings and asked
that the accused be rearraigned so he can change his plea to not guilty.
The court should have taken the plea anew and then proceed with the trial
of the accused.
NOTE: In the 1st general requisite, all the requisites under it shoul be present. Absent of one invalidates the
1st general requisite for double jeopardy.
Jeopardy for the same offense

Jeopardy for the same act
The dismissal of the first case for failure of the witness to appear terminated the first jeopardy. As held in
Caes vs Iac 179 S 54, the dismissal of the case for failure of the witness for the prosecution to appear
constitutes an acquittal.
The acquittal for violation of an ordinance bars the prosecution for violation of RA. If an act is punished
by law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either bars another prosectution for the same
act.
II. FIRST JEOPARDY MUST HAVE BEEN VALIDLY TERMINATED
BERNARTE VS SECRETARY
The accused was charged with illegal possession with the military
commission. Also, a similar case was filed before the provincial fiscal of
Rizal for the same offense. Accused challenged the jurisdiction of the
military tribunal using double jeopardy.
RULING: The court there was no double jeopardy because the 2 cases are
still pending. It is a requirement that the first jeopardy be terminated.

PEOPLE VS BULAONG
On Oct. 1, 1938, the accused was charged with rebellion in the CFI
of Laguna. On the same day, he was also charged with subversion before the
CFI of Manila. He was convicted in Laguna, and he appealed to the CA, which
affirmed his conviction. He then went to the SC and challenged the decision
of the CA invoking double jeopardy.
RULING: The court decided that there was no double jeopardy because the 2
cases were still pending. One is on trial while the other is on appeal
before the SC. The first jeopardy must be validly terminated.
TANGAN VS PEOPLE
The court decided that mere pendency of several cases will not give
rise to double jeopardy because of the requirement that the first jeopardy
must have validly terminated.
NOTE: Acquittal is when the judgment absolves the accused of the crime charged against him. It is
immediately final. It can no longer be reversed by appeal without placing the accused in double
jeopardy.
Instances When Prosecution May Appeal Without Placing the Accused In Double Jeopardy:
1. When there is deprivation of Due Process of the State

2. When the judgment of Acquittal was issued by the judge with grave abuse of discretion.
GALMAN VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Following the report of the Agrava Commission, Gen. Ver and Co. were charged
before the Sandiganbayan. All of them were acquitted. Judgment of acquittal
was questioned by the family of Galman in the lower court. Accused moved
to dismiss the petition on the ground of double jeopardy and was granted
by the SC. Galman filed a motion for reconsideration but was not granted
by the seemingly Marcos Court. Another motion for reconsideration was filed
and this time the case was reopened by the SC (a new SC). The court created
a commission to inquire into the conduct of the trial held by the
Sandiganbayan (Marcos time). Investigation revealed that there were so many
anomalies in the trial. One of them was that the case was not raffled but
was assigned to Justice Pamaran. Also, the judges were called to Malacañang
to plan the handling of the case.
ISSUE: Whether or not the reopening of the case would result to double
jeopardy.
RULING: The court held that there was a violation of the due process of
the State, so that the trial was null and void. The government was not
given an opportunity to fairly present it case because of the anomalies.
Because of this, the first trial was not validly concluded and the reopening
of the case will only be like a continuation of the first case. There was
no double jeopardy.
Q: In what instance the Bill of Rights is invoked by the State?

A: When the judgment of Acquittal was issued by the court with grave abuse of discretion.

PEOPLE VS ANG CHIO KO
The court held that NO ERROR however flagrant, committed by the court
against the State can be reserved by the State for decisions of the SC when
the defendant has once been placed in jeopardy and was also discharged as
a result of such error.
NOTE: Ordinary errors committed by the court cannot be a ground for appeals against its decision for an
acquittal. Appeals for reversal of such acquittal are only allowed if there was grave abuse of discretion
committed by the court.
NOTE: When it comes to acquittal, the chances for appeal or for the reopening of the trial is very slim
because the 2 grounds for the exception are strictly construed.
NOTE: A conviction is when there is judgment passed by the court finding the accused guilty of the crime
charged against him.
NOTE: Such judgment is not immediately final. The accused still has 15 days to appeal his conviction. Upon
failure to appeal during such period, the conviction becomes final and double jeopardy can be a
defense.
Q: Upon appeal can a reviewing court increase or decrease the penalty?

A: Yes. Appeal is deemed a waiver of the right against double jeopardy (see case of Pabanto vs Zosa,
120 S 834)
PABANTO VS ZOSA
In this case, the accused was convicted of qualified seduction and

was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. The accused appealed his case.
After his appeal, the court convicted him of rape and was sentenced to life
imprisonment.
VENERACION VS
The accused was sentenced to life imprisonment when the proper

penalty was supposed to be death.
Q: Can the Government appeal the decision of the court citing that there
was an erroneous penalty imposed?
A: No. If the error of the judge is only an ordinary error, it would not
be a valid basis for the reopening of the case. There would be grave abuse
of discretion committed by the court in granting the appeal. However, if
Veneracion makes comments that he has no authority to impose death penalty,
he will be deliberately circumventing the law which amounts to grave abuse
of discretion. It will be another matter if he only makes a simple error
or mistake.
When Dismissal with Consent:

1. Provisional Dismissal

2. When the dismissal is without prejudice (it can be refiled and considered to be one with
consent)
3. On motion of the accused
4. When the accused agrees to the dismissal
5. When the accused files a motion for reconsideration
NOTE: There is a dismissal if when the case is terminated not on the merits.
NOTE: The rule is when the dismissal of the case is without the consent of the accused, he can later
invoke the right against double jeopardy if there is a move to reopen the trial. He cannot be
charged anymore of the same.
PEOPLE VS CUENCO
Accused was arraigned for violation of the trust receipt law. After
arraignment, he filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the contract
is purely civil. The judge dismissed the case. The prosecutor appealed to
the SC and the accused invoked double jeopardy.
RULING: The court ruled that there is no double jeopardy because the
dismissal was with the consent of the accused. In fact, the accused was
the one who filed the motion for the dismissal of the case. Therefore, it
is deemed to be with his consent.
NOTE: The effect of Consent to the Dismissal is that the accused is deemed to have waived his Rights
against Double Jeopardy.
When Dismissal Considered without Consent
PEOPLE VS YLAGAN
The accused was arraigned for serious physical injuries and he

pleaded guilty. After arraignment, fiscal moved for the dismissal of the
case. The accused was not able to say anything. 11 days later, the fiscal
filed a case for the same offense. The accused invoked double jeopardy
since the dismissal was without his consent. However, the SolGen opposed
his argument saying that the dismissal was with his consent. The
interpretation of the SolGen for without consent is “over the objection or
against his will”. In the case at bar, the accused did not object. He just
kept quiet.
NOTE: The court held that MERE SILENCE is NOT CONSENT. The Rules of Court says that the dismissal should
be without the EXPRESS consent of the accused in order to cause double jeopardy. Silence is not express
consent and double jeopardy will lie if the case is refiled.
PEOPLE VS VERGARA

Accused was charged with frustrated Murder. After arraignment, they
moved for a reinvestigation. The case was remanded to the Provincial
Fiscal’s office for reinvestigation. At the office of the provincial
fiscal, he reversed the earlier resolution because there was a finding of
No Probable Cause (So, it should be dismissed). The complainant now went
to the Dept. of Justice to challenge the findings of the Provincial Fiscal,
saying that there should have been probable cause. During the pendency of
the case in the DOJ, the provincial fiscal moved to dismiss the case since
there was no probable cause and the case was dismissed by the court. Later
the appeal in the DOJ was resolved in favor of the complaint, finding that
there was probable cause. So, the provincial fiscal again went to court to
file charges. The accused invoked double jeopardy. The theory is: According
to the SolGen, there was dismissal with consent. When the accused moved
for reinvestigation with the Provincial Fiscal, his only purpose was to
have it dismissed. Therefore, the dismissal was with his consent. Double
Jeopardy will not lie.
RULING: The court held that the SolGen’s theory is wrong. There was no
express consent. Therefore, the accused cannot be tried again because of
his right against double jeopardy.
NOTE: Express Consent is defined as one given orally or in writing. It is a positive, direct and clear act,
requiring no inference to supply the meaning. In this case, the Sol Gen is trying to infer consent from the
act of the accused to file a motion for reinvestigation.
NOTE: A motion for reinvestigation is not equivalent to express consent, even if the purpose of the motion
is to dismiss the case.
Gen. Rule: Dismissal with express consent will not give to double jeopardy.
Exception: There is double jeopardy in the following even if the dismissal is with consent:
1. When the dismissal is grounded on the Right to Speedy trial
2. When the dismissal is based on insufficiency of evidence.
3. When the accused is discharged as a State witness
SALCEDO VS MENDOZA
Prosecution asked for three postponements of the trial, and the

accused moved to dismiss the case by invoking his right to speedy trial.
The judge granted his motion. Later, the judge changed his mind and upon
motion for reconsideration, he reinstated the case. The accused argued that
there was double jeopardy and moved to dismiss the second case filed. The
judge denied the motion because the motion to dismiss in the first case
was filed by him, and therefore, was with consent.
RULING: The court held that dismissal grounded on the Right to Speedy
Trial, even if upon motion of the accused or even if with his consent, will
give rise to double jeopardy. Dismissal based on the right to speedy amounts
to acquittal on the merits which bars subsequent prosecution for the same
offense.
PEOPLE VS RIVERA

The accused was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law.
Five hearings on the case were postponed because the prosecution had no
witnesses. The accused moved to dismiss and it was granted. After the
dismissal, witness of the prosecution showed up after a few minutes. He
explained that he was delayed by traffic. Thus, the judge reinstated the
case. The accused now claims double jeopardy because the case was dismissed
based on the right to speedy trial.
RULING: the court ruled that there is no double jeopardy because the order
of dismissal was not final because it was not effective. The Rules of Court
provides that the decision must be in writing, personally prepared by the
judge, and signed by him. In this case since the order was only made orally
in the court, the order is ineffective yet and double jeopardy will not
lie.
PEOPLE VS CITY COURT OF SILAY
- Insufficiency of evidence
The accused was prosecuted. After the prosecution presented their evidence,
the accused filed a demurrer to evidence. The court granted the motion and
the State appealed. Accused invoked the double jeopardy. The SolGen argued
that the dismissal was with consent.
RULING: The court ruled that there is double jeopardy because the ground
for the dismissal was insufficiency of evidence and a valid one.
Exceptions to the Exceptions:
Even if the dismissal is with the consent of the accused and is grounded on speedy trial and/or
insufficiency of evidence it will not give rise to double jeopardy if:
1. There is violation of Due Process of the State (Zosa case)

2. There was grave abuse of discretion
CERINO VS ZOSA
- Violation of due process

While the judge was still conducting trial of another case, he told the
parties that their case would be tried later. Because of this, the accused,
his lawyer and the fiscal went out of the courtroom. When they came back,
there was nobody left and they were told that their case was already
dismissed. Due to the dismissal, the fiscal asked the judge to reinstate
the case to which the judge agreed to. The accused however claimed double
jeopardy because the dismissal was without his consent.
RULING: The court held that double jeopardy will not lie in this because
the prosecution was deprived of due process by such dismissal. It was not
given the opportunity to present its case and evidences.
GORION VS RTC
Case was set for trial on September 27 and 28. During the first
trial, the fiscal appeared and the private prosecutor appeared while the
accused and his counsel did not. Because of this, the trial was rescheduled
on Oct 4. On September 28, the case was not removed from the calendar and
it was called. Since nobody was there, the Judge dismissed the case. The
judge and the fiscal seemed to have forgotten that they cancelled the
hearing that day. Upon motion of the prosecutor, the case was again
reinstated. Accused invoked double jeopardy. He claimed that he was not
present and he did not give his consent to the dismissal.
RULING: The court held that there is no double jeopardy because on that,
in view of the previous cancellation of the trial, the court was divested
of its jurisdiction PRO HAC VICE or for the occasion. The order was
arbitrarily issued as to deprive the State of due process.
III. SECOND JEOPARDY MUST BE FOR THE SAME OFFENSE
JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE
NOTE: Same Evidence Test is used to determine whether the same evidence would be necessary to
support the 2 cases.
NOTE: Requisites when second jeopardy is for the same offense (SEE TABLE ABOVE)
EXCEPTIONS TO THE SAME OFFENSE RULE:

1. Supervening Fact Doctrine
2. Newly Discovered Fact
3. when the plea to a lesser offense is without the consent of the fiscal or the offended party
:
MELO VS PEOPLE
- newly discovered evidence

Accused was charged for serious physical injuries on Dec. 27. On Dec. 29,
he pleaded guilty. A few hours later of the same day, the victim died. On
Jan. 4, the fiscal filed a new info, now already for homicide. The accused
invoked double jeopardy.
RULING: The court held that there is no double jeopardy because the 2nd
offense was not yet in existence during the 1st prosecution. When he pleaded
guilty, the 2nd offense was not yet in existence because the victim died a
few hours later. The new offense only came about after the conviction of
the acused.
PEOPLE VS CITY COURT OF MANILA

- The doctrine on this case is no longer true or effective

Oct. 17 – Accident occurred
Oct. 18 – Accused charged with serious physical injuries
Oct. 19 – The victim died
Oct. 20 – Accused was arraigned and pleaded guilty to serious
physical injury
Oct. 24 – Accused was charged again with homicide through reckless
imprudence
RULING: The court ruled that the supervening fact doctrine cannot be applied
because, when he pleaded guilty, the fact that the victim was already dead
was already in existence. Only the fiscal did not know it. Therefore,
double jeopardy will attach.
NOTE: Because of this case, the SC amended the Rules of Court to reverse the ruling on this case. Now,
there is a rule of Newly Discovered Facts”. The facts constituting the graver charge became known, or
were discovered only after the filing of the 1 st information.
PEOPLE VS VILLARAMA
- Consent of fiscal and offended party – Plea Bargaining

The accused was charged with possession of regulated drugs. After the
prosecution presented evidence, accused bargained to plead guilty to a
lesser offense. The judge accepted the bargain and allowed his plea.
RULING: The court held that the Plea of guilty without the consent of the
fiscal and the offended party is null and void, and that it will not give
rise to double jeopardy. When the plea to a lesser offense is without the
consent of the fiscal and the offended party, there will be no double
jeopardy. Both the fiscal and the offended party must consent.
TAN VS BARRIOS
In Cruz vs Enrile, the court stated that “all convictions by military

tribunal are null and void. Therefore those convicted may be tried again
in civilian courts. There will be no double jeopardy. Because of this
decision, the provincial fiscal of Cagayan started looking for these people
and charged them again. Accused were acquitted for murder in 1976 by a
military tribunal. Fiscal charged them again, based in the Olaguer and Cruz
decisions that there is no double jeopardy.
RULING: The court stated that we go back to the modern view that decisions
of declaration of unconstitutionality will have no retroactive effect, only
prospective. This means that all convictions rendered by the military
tribunal prior to the Olaguer decision will not be voided. They are
considered valid. So that retrying the people who have been convicted prior
to the Olaguer decision will result to double jeopardy. Those who have been
convicted by military courts prior to the Olaguer decision are also entitled
to relief. Those cases of conviction before the Olaguer decision are valid.
Therefore the modern view cannot apply because it has no retroactive effect.
However, if they can show that their rights to due process were violated,
they can have their conviction annulled.
NOTE: The Olaguer decision is applicable only to cases pending before the military tribunal during or after
its promulgation (prospective effect).
PEOPLE VS BELLAFLOR

Accused was charged with arson and was convicted by the trial court.
After conviction, he filed a motion for reconsideration. The judge reversed
his decision and the court only stated that the motion for reconsideration
is granted, the prior decision is set aside, and the accused is acquitted.
No other details were stated. Fiscal filed a petition for certiorari with
the SC questioning the acquittal. And the accused invoked double jeopardy.
RULING: The court held that there is no double jeopardy because the decision
of the judge is null and void. It did not comply with the requirement that
the decision must state the facts and laws and the basis of his decision.
The SC also stated that the trial court dismissed the case with the consent
of the accused because he was the one who filed the MFR.
JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME ACT
General Principles:
- Accused can only be charged of two crimes if the act committed violates 2 different statutes.
PEOPLE VS RELONA
Ice plant owner installed jumpers in his ice plant and was charged
with a violation of an ordinance. The case was dismissed because of
prescription. The fiscal charged him again for violation for theft of
electricity under the RPC. Accused invoked double jeopardy. The fiscal
argued that since the elements of the 2 crimes are different, there is no
double jeopardy.
RULING: The court ruled that although the elements are different, there is
double jeopardy, not for the same offense but for the SAME ACT. The accused
is trying to invoke jeopardy for the same act. In Jeopardy for the same offense,
courts compare the elements of the 2 offenses. While in jeopardy for the same act, courts
compare the 2 informations. In this case, the court stated that both information concern
acts performed from November 1974 to February 1975. Therefore both informations are for
the same act. Also the amounts 40T contained on the 2 informations are the same. This is
a case of double jeopardy, under the normal sentence of Section 21, “For the Same Act”.
PEOPLE VS LACQUI
Accused was charged for the violation of BP 22. After trial, the
court dismissed the case on the ground that the information was fatally
defective as it failed to charge an offense. The judge decided that the
information failed to allege that the accused knew when he issued the
check, that he would not have sufficient funds for its payment in full upon
presentation to the drawee bank. The fiscal filed a petition for certiorari
arguing that the information actually charged an offense.
ISSUE: Can the case be reinstated?
RULING: The court ruled that although the decision is erroneous, the
decision may not be annulled or set aside because it amounted to a judgment
of acquittal. It became final and executory upon its promulgation. The
State may not appeal that decision for it would place the accused in double
jeopardy even if the dismissal may constitute a miscarriage of justice.
DISTINCTION BETWEEN “SAME OFFENSE” AND “SAME ACT”
1. As to basis:

Same Offense Same Act

- Same provision of the law - Statute or Ordinance
- Different provisions of the
same law
- Different Statements
2. As to point of Inquiry
(In order to determine what type of jeopardy is involved, what will you look into or inquire
upon?)
Same Offense Same Act

- Elements of the 2 Offenses - Acts in Space and Time (if
committed on the same day
and place)
Ex Post Facto Law and Bill of Attainder

Art. III, Sec. 22. No ex post facto law or bill of

attainder shall be enacted.
EX POST FACTO LAW
An Ex Post facto Law is a criminal law with a retroactive effect prejudicial to the accused. It is one
that would make a previous act criminal although it was not so at the time it was committed.
6 Kinds of Ex Post Facto Law:
1. A law which makes an action done before the passage of the law and which was innocent when
done, criminal
2. A law which aggravates a crime or which makes it greater than when it was committed;
3. A law which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to
the crime when committed
4. A law which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law
requires at the time of the commission of the offense (Mekin vs Wolfe)
5. A law which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in effect imposes a penalty or
the deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful
6. A law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful protection to which they have
become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of a proclamation
of amnesty (Katigbak vs Solicitor General)
MONTENEGRO VS CASTAÑEDA
President suspended the writ of habeas corpus in this case.

Montenegro challenged this proclamation saying that it was not applicable
to him because he was arrested prior to the proclamation of suspension.
RULING: The court held that the prohibition on Ex Post Facto Law applies
only to laws or statutes. The proclamation is an executive act, thus it is
not included in the prohibition for Ex Post Facto Law. Executive Acts are
njot covered by Sec. 22.
BAYOT VS SANDIGANBAYAN
Accused was charged for violation of the anti-graft law in 1978. In

1980, he was convicted. He appealed the conviction and in 1982, a law was
passed amending the original law which created the Sandiganbayan. This new
law stated that those facing charges in the Sandiganbayan will be suspended
from office pending the investigation. Bayot was suspended and he
questioned this saying that he should not have been suspended because he
was charged prior to the effectivity of the law.
RULING: The court held that there was no violation of the prohibition of
ex post facto law. It is only a preventive suspension. It is not a penalty
within the language of the 3rd kind of ex post facto law. Suspension is not
yet a penalty.
US VS MERIN

When the accused committed the crime the penalty was death and the
method under the law was execution by “garrote”. Later, he was convicted
at about the same time the method of punishment which changed to hanging.
The question is whether he should be hanged or executed by “garrote”.
RULING: The court ruled that he should be hanged because it will violate
the ex post facto law. It means that the court believe that hanging is more
painful or a greater penalty than garrote.
KATIGBAK VS SOLICITOR GENERAL
In 1995, Congress passed a law saying that all unlawfully acquired

wealth of public officials shall be forfeited in favor of the State.
Pursuant to the law, the solicitor was authorized to institute forfeiting
proceedings for confiscation of ill-gotten wealth. Katigbak argued that
the forfeiture was a violation of the ex post facto law since they had
gotten the wealth before the passage of the law in 1955.
RULING: The court held that this is an ex post facto law of the 1st and 5th
kind stated above. The case was not a criminal proceeding, but a civil one.
And the forfeiture of the property is penal in nature.
TAN VS BARRIOS
In Cruz vs Enrile, the court stated that “all convictions by military

tribunal are null and void. Therefore those convicted may be tried again
in civilian courts. There will be no double jeopardy. Because of this
decision, the provincial fiscal of Cagayan started looking for these people
and charged them again. Accused were acquitted for murder in 1976 by a
military tribunal. Fiscal charged them again, based in the Olaguer and Cruz
decisions that there is no double jeopardy.
1976 – accused was acquitted by court martial
1987 – Olaguer decision
1988 – fiscal charged them again since based on the Olaguer case,
there is no double jeopardy
ISSUE: Is there an Ex Post Facto Law?
RULING: The court held that giving the Olaguer decision a retroactive
effect in the sense that you are voiding convictions prior to that decision
is a violation of the protection of double jeopardy.
NOTE: In the Castañeda case, it was held that ex post facto law is applied only to laws or statutes. But
here in Tan vs Barrios, SC is saying that ex post facto law now applies to laws, statutes and judicial
decisions, but not to executive acts.
BILL OF ATTAINDER
- A Bill of Attainder is a law which inflicts punishment without judicial trial
Principle behind the Prohibition:

The matter of adjudging whether a person is innocent or guilty is vested in the Judiciary.
Congress has no business in determining the guilt or innocence of a person.
PEOPLE VS FERRER
The “Anti-Subversion Law” declared the CPP as an organized conspiracy

to overthrow the government and so anyone who becomes a member or remains
to be one is considered as a subversive and can be punished. Diokno, the
lawyer questioned this and considered this as a bill of attainder because
it punishes people for merely becoming a member of an organization. There
is a legislative declaration that the CPP is a criminal organization.
RULING: The court ruled this is not a bill of attainder because before
conviction, there is still a trial to be conducted by the court to determine
whether an accused is a member or not (NOTE: However, this is not
satisfactory).
NOTE: The accused would be deprived of a defense because all that needs to be established is whether
or not he is a member of the CPP regardless of whether he actually shared in the conspiracy. He
automatically becomes a criminal without actually determining the individual guilt or innocence of the
person.
NOTE: The SC seemed to know that they were treading on dangerous ground, which was why they made
a lot of qualifications to the validity of the anti-subversive law.
Ex: One must prove that accused joined CPP willfully and knowingly, etc.
NOTE: If the accused is deprived of all possible defenses against the charge, it would seem that the guilt
of the crime charged was determined by legislators, not by the court. It is the act of Congress which
caused the conviction of the accused by passing a law depriving him of his defenses.
BAR QUESTION:
Q: What are the limitations on the Power of Congress in passing criminal laws?
A: Congress cannot pass:
- Ex Post Facto Laws
- Bill of Attainders
- A law providing for cruel and inhuman punishment
- A law impairing civil obligations
-end-

Consti 2 Dela Banda Transcription 2008 2009

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Consti 2 Dela Banda Transcription 2008 2009

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

TABLE OF CONTENTS

THE BILL OF RIGHTS………………………………………………………….. 1

FUNCTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

PEOPLE VS. MARTI

3.) Basic human rights are superior to property rights.

PBMLO VS. PBMCI

Union wanted to participate in a demonstration. The management

Basis of the court’s decision:

LIBERTY – the right to do anything which is not injurious to others.

Not included as rights are:

4.) Provisions of the Bill of Rights have NO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION.

FILOTEO, JR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, 263 S 222 (1996)

Accused committed a crime on May 3, 1982. He was investigated by the

HELD: Petitioner’s contention that Art. III, Sec. 12 of the 1987

PEOPLE V. DOMANTAY, 307 S 1 (1999)

Accused was charged with rape with homicide. While detained in a

SERRANO V. NLRC, 323 S 445 (2000)

Serrano was head of the Security Checker’s Section of Isetann

Due Process Clause

Art. III, Sec 1. No person shall be deprived of life,

Two aspects of due process:

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

Procedural Due Process must be applied in the following: Other proceedings:

Due Process is not needed in the following:

ANZALDO VS. CLAVE

Elements of Procedural Due Process:

a.) In Judicial Due Process

b.) In Administrative Due Process (Ang Tibay Case)

ANG TIBAY VS. CIR

Q: When can we say that evidence is adequate to support a conclusion?

Q: What about administrative?

MOLANEDA vs. UMACOB

Ruling: Petitioner/respondent in administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings

c.) In Deportation Proceedings

Procedural Due Process:

Q: In deportation cases, is he entitled to due process?

d.) Discipline of Students

There was a hazing conducted as part of the initiation rites of the

Minimum standards to be satisfied in the imposition of disciplinary sanctions are:

Q: Do you need due process when an administrative body issued an order?

Q: When do we say that it is quasi-legislative?

e.) Rule Making by Administrative Bodies

PHILCOMSAT VS. ALCUAZ

PHILCOMSAT was given franchise to operate facilities for satellite

RCPI VS. NTC

PLDT applied for approval to increase rates for its digital

f.) Vague Laws

PEOPLE VS. NAZARIO

RULING: The court held that a law is vague if it cannot be clarified by

g.) Publication of Laws

TAÑADA VS. TUVERA

GO vs. NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION

Issue: Whether or not Go was denied of due process.

BASIC ELEMENTS IN DUE PROCESS:

1. Notice – to warn you

WHEN DUE PROCES IS NOT REQUIRED:

Petitioner owned a Quonset building located on a lot of the PPA. The

2. Preventive Suspension of students/workers.

There was a hazing conducted as part of the initiation rites of the

Important points in this case:

4. Cancellation of the passport of a man accused of a crime

5. Preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative charges

RIVERA vs. CXC, Land Bank of the Philippines

SUBSTSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS