Consti Law 2 Dela Banda

The Fraternal Order of St.
Thomas More Constitutional

Law 2
Ateneo de Davao University, College of Law Atty. Gil dela
Banda
TABLE OF CONTENTS
THE BILL OF RIGHTS………………………………………………………….. 1

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE…………………………………………………….. 5
POLICE POWER………………………………………………………………… 14
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE…………………………………………….. 18
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES………………………………………………… 22
EXCLUSIONARY RULE………………………………………………………… 46
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATINS AND CORRESPONDENCE…………… 47
FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY…………………………………. 49
FREEDOM OF RELIGION……………………………………………………. 59
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL…………………………….. 66
RIGHT TO INFORMATION…………………………………………………….. 68
RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS…………………………………………. 70
EMINENT DOMAIN…………………………………………………………….. 72
NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE………………………………………………….. 78
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS…………………………………………………. 80
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED IN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION………… 81
BAIL……………………………………………………………………………… 95
THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED…………………………………………… 103
HABEAS CORPUS………………………………………………………………. 111
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES…………………………….. 117
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION…………………………………… 118
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND
FREEDOM FROM INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE……………………………. 122
PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS………………………………………………….124
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR NON PAYMENT OF DEBTS………………... 126
DOUBLE JEOPARDY…………………………………………………………… 127
EX POST FACTO LAW AND BILL OF ATTAINDER………………………… 138
The Bill of Rights
2008
Edition
The Fraternal Order of St. Thomas More Constitutional
Law 2
Banda
FUNCTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. To establish government powers
2. To define government powers
3. To limit government power
4. To distribute powers
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 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.
PEOPLE VS. MARTI
2
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Q: What if the policeman asks a civilian to conduct a search for him, is this circumvention of the law?
A: 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
FACTS: 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 estoppel apply 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.
3
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
4
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
5
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
“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 of 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:

1. Judicial Proceedings
2. Administrative proceedings
3. Discipline of students
4. Rule-making by Administrative bodies
5. Summary Dismissal
Other proceedings:
1. Deportation and Extradition
2. Publication Laws
3. Vague Laws
4. Appeals
Due Process is not needed in the following:
1. Abatement of Nuisance per se
2. Preventive Suspension
3. Provisional Increases
4. Contempt
5. Rule-Making where no notice and hearing is required
6
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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)
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.
7
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
c.) In Deportation Proceedings
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.)
LAO GI VS. CA
Because of the serious consequences to freedom and liberty in deportation proceedings, the
requirements of criminal procedure should be observed.
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
8
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
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.
9
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
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.
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.
10
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 a case, the Supreme Court stated that only opportunity to be heard and not actual hearing is
necessary. 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.
ADMU VS CAPULONG
(The Lenny Villa Case)
There was a hazing conducted as part of the initiation rites of the Aquila Legis Fraternity of ADMU
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
11
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
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?
12
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
13
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
14
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
Law-Making Bodies cannot pass laws which do not concern any of these areas. Otherwise, the laws
passed shall be void.
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.
15
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
16
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
17
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
18
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
19
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 indefinitely and it
applies to all members of the class.
Note: 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.
20
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
Thus, when a law 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.
Note: The decision in Villegas 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
21
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
the two groups. But concerning the 4 th 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.
A2: 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
22
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
“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.
23
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
24
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
25
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
26
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:

a. The object to be seized
b. The place to conduct the search
c. 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, Rules of Court)
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. 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
27
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Note: 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.
28
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:
29
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
1. It must be determined if there is probable cause to hold a person for trial - 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 - 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.
30
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Description 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.
31
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
EXCEPTION:
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.
32
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
33
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
34
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Note: 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?
35
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Note: 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.
Example:
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:
36
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 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. This 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.
37
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Note: 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:
38
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
1. There is reasonable belief that the motorists is an offender

2. 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.

i. There was probable cause based on the report
ii. The accused acted suspiciously since he refused to give his passport.
iii. 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.
39
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
40
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
41
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
42
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 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.
43
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
44
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:

a. 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.
b. 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?
45
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
46
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
47
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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).
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?
48
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 1 st 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
49
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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, 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
50
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
51
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
52
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Note: 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.
53
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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, there is one portion in which the Dangerous Tendency Rule was applied. But
in determining probable cause for an offense, the SC is no longer using the Dangerous Tendency Rule.
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.
Q: Is the probability inevitable?
A: No. IThe 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
54
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Note: 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.
55
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:
Rule No. 1 – When two private individuals have conflicting claims under the Bill of Rights, the Balancing
of Interest Rule is used.
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, and OBSCENITY:
Contempt
Purpose of Holding a Columnist in Contempt by the Court:

a. To shield the courts against the influence of newspaper comments on the
court’s duty of administering justice on a pending case.
b. 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”.
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
56
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Note: Press people must make comments or write-ups which are fair and must be done in good faith in
order to be protected by Section 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.
Note: 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…
i. First obtain a search warrant
ii. It must be the judge, not the policeman who will determine what is obscene
and what is not
57
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
iii. 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)
Note: 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. 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.
58
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
59
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 33 rd
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.
60
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
61
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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”.
Note: 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.
62
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
63
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Conscientious 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:
64
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
GENERAL RULE: The State cannot interfere with the affairs of the church.
EXCEPTION:
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)?
A: 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.
65
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
BAR QUESTIONS:
Q: In serving his prison term in Muntinlupa, X’s religion prevents him to eat meat. Can he demand 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
Note: 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:
a. National Security
b. Public Safety
c. Public Health
66
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
Example: 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.
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.
67
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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?
68
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
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
Note: 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.
69
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:
GENERAL 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
70
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 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.
71
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:
72
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
1. The purpose of the taking must be for public use.

2. Just compensation must be given to the private owner
2 Concepts of Taking:
1. Taking as to physical possession
2. 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:
1. Expropriator must enter the private property
2. Entrance must be for more than a limited period
3. Entrance should be under a warrant or color of authority
4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally
appropriated or injuriously affected.
5. 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
73
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Under 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:
74
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
75
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
1. The owner is - There is no

entitled to just payment of just
compensation compensation
2. The property is - The property

taken for public use is destroyed in the
interest of public
health, safety of
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.
76
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
Factors Used To Determine Which Property Will Be Expropriated:

1. Functionality
2. Social Impact
3. 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. The 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.
77
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 State’s unwarranted
interference.
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 - Includes statutes enacted by Congress, executive orders and administrative regulations
promulgated under a valid delegation of power, and municipal ordinances passed by the local legislative
bodies.
Obligation - It 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 contract. To impair, the law must retroact so as to affect existing contracts concluded
before its enactment, not when the law is made to operate prospectively 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:
1. Police Power, Taxation, and Eminent Domain are superior than the
Right to Non-Impairment of Contracts.
2. Freedom of Religion is superior than the Right to Non-Impairment of
Contracts.
3. The Right to Non-Impairment of Contracts cannot be invoked against
Judicial acts.
SISKA VS OFFICE
In 1967, petitioner and private respondents entered in a contract to sell on installment a lot. 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, the Maceda Law was enacted which requires subdivision owners to send a notice of rescission to
the buyer in case of default.
RULING: The Maceda Law did not violate the non-impairment clause. There is impairment only if the
subsequent law: 1) changes the term of the contract between the parties, 2) imposes new conditions, 3)
78
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
79
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
80
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:
a. When the right attaches
b. Counsel of choice
c. Advice
d. Waiver
e. Exclusionary rule
f. 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:
81
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
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 Section 12 was violated.
ISSUE: Does an accused, under Section 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
82
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
83
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
GENERAL 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
84
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
85
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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. 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?
86
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
A: Paragraph 2(b) last sentence: “investigator can choose provided there is conformity by the
accused”
Note: 1. The provision of Counsel of Choice can be satisfied if the investigator 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.
2. 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)
3. Admission to a news reporter is admissible as evidence (People vs Aringue)
4. 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
investigation
3. Members of the COMELEC 7. Those charged with the prosecution of crimes
4. Members of the DENR 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”?
87
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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?

i. Right to remain silent
ii. Right to counsel
Note: 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)
88
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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?
Note: 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:
1. In the presence of a counsel
2. 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:
89
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:
1. Parents
2. Brothers
3. Sisters
4. Spouse
5. Mayor
6. Priest
7. 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.

1. 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.
2. The list of visitors are now expanded – Section 2(f)
3. A penalty is provided for failure to inform and to provide competent
counsel to the accused. (8 to 10 years of imprisonment).
4. It also defined as to who can assist the accused as counsel – Section 3
5. It also interpreted the meaning of whether the police or investigator can
change the lawyer for the accused – Section 8
6. Custodial investigation now includes “invitations”.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
- Confessions in violation of Section 12 are inadmissible.
EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE
1. Uncounselled confessions
2. Confessions obtained without a valid waiver
3. 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)
4. Where the accused is promised that he would be released if he signs. (People vs Eglipa)
5. When the accused is promised a better treatment if he signs. (People vs Albano, 145 S 155)
90
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
6. All oral confessions are inadmissible. It should always be in writing to be admissible as

evidence.
7. Confessions obtained after a valid waiver, but not signed in the presence of person
enumerated in RA 7438
8. 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.
Q: What must the prosecution prove?

A: The presumption is that there was no valid waiver except if the prosecution can prove:
i. That the accused willingly and voluntarily made his confession
ii. That the accused was not interested in having a lawyer
91
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
iii. That the waiver complied with all the requirements to make a valid one
iv. 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.
92
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
(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.
93
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
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. 94
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
BAIL - 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:
1. 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
GENERAL RULE: 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
2. 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)
3. 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.
4. 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?

1. Before or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC (note: but before final judgment)
2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death
(SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94)
3. 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?

1. After final judgment by any court
2. Before conviction for an offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua where the evidence of
guilt is strong.
3. After conviction for a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua or
death while the case is on appeal (People vs. Valeriano)
4. 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
95
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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: 1. This includes punishment of life imprisonment.

2. Mitigating circumstances are not yet considered to determine the penalty because in the end,
it will only result in a fullblown trial. Although mitigating circumstances in general are not
considered yet. The mitigating circumstance of MINORITY may be considered in granting
bail.
3. 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:

1. Rights which are purely personal to the accused. This right can be waived.
2. Rights where the accused as well as the government are interested in. This right
cannot be waived because of public policy.
96
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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?
97
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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;
98
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
(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:
99
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
(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)
100
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
101
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
102
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:

1. Right to Due Process
2. Right to Presumption of Innocence
3. Right to be Heard
4. Right to Counsel
5. Right to be Informed
6. Right to a Speedy Trial
7. Right to an Impartial Trial
8. Right to a Public Trial
9. Right to Meet the Witnesses
10. Right to Compulsory Process
103
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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

i. The court or tribunal is clothed with judicial power to hear and decide the case
and must be a regular court.
ii. Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person of the accused and over the
offense
iii. Accused was given an opportunity to be heard
iv. 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
104
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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)
Q: 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
105
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
106
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
107
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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

a. 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.
b. The judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.
MATEO VS. VILLALUZ
108
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:

i. Public was not excluded
ii. Accused was not prejudiced
iii. Accused did not object during trial
IX. RIGHT TO MEET THE WITNESSES (RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION)
1. 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.
2. 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.
109
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
GENERAL 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
110
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:

i. Detention without charges
ii. Cases where a prisoner has served sentence but is not released
iii. Custody of children
iv. 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
111
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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. 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. 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).
112
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
113
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
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
114
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
115
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
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
116
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
3. 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.
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
117
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 EXCEPT 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.
118
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
c. 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
GENERAL 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.
Note: 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. 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.
119
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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:
120
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
Q: Is the right against self incrimination waivable?
A: Yes. How?
1) Directly;
2) By failure to invoke it
Provided the waiver is certain and 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.
121
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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)
122
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 Xection 18 which prohibits involuntary servitude.
123
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
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
124
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
125
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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. 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.
Note: 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
126
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 have Second jeopardy must be for the same
have attached prior been validly terminated offense or for the same act
to the second
When first jeopardy When first jeopardy When 2nd jeopardy for When 2nd jeopardy for
attached? terminated? the same offense? the same act?
1. When there is 1. When accused is 1. when the two 1. First

a valid complaint acquitted offenses are identical charge is for an act
or information punished by a law
2. When accused is 2. when the second and an ordinance,
2. The complaint convicted is an attempt to and the second
or information was commit the first charge under
filed in a 3. When the case is either is for the
competent court otherwise dismissed 3. When the same act.
without the express second is a
3. the accused consent of the accused frustration of the first
has been
arraigned and has 4. when the first
pleaded necessarily includes
the second
5. when the first is

necessarily included
in the second
I. FIRST JEOPARDY MUST HAVE ATTACHED PRIOR TO THE SECOND
127
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
128
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
129
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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
130
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
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.
A conviction is when there is judgment passed by the court finding the accused guilty of the crime
charged against him.
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 (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 the case is terminated not on the merits. 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.
131
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
A Motion for Reinvestigation is not equivalent to express consent, even if the purpose of the motion is
to dismiss the case.
132
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
GENERAL 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.
EXCEPTION TO EXCEPTION: 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
133
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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. (See table above for requisites when second jeopardy is for the same offense)
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.
134
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
RULING: The court held that there is no double jeopardy because the 2 nd offense was not yet in
existence during the 1st prosecution. When he pleaded guilty, the 2 nd 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 1st 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
135
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 RULE: 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?
136
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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

- Statute or Ordinance
- Same provision of the law
- 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.
137
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 3 rd 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.
138
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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 1 st 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
139
2008
Edition
Law 2
Banda
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.
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.
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:
a. Ex Post Facto Laws
b. Bill of Attainders
c. A law providing for cruel and inhuman punishment
d. A law impairing civil obligations
140
2008
Edition

Consti Law 2 Dela Banda

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Consti Law 2 Dela Banda

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

The Fraternal Order of St.

Thomas More Constitutional

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

The Bill of Rights

FUNCTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION

PEOPLE VS. MARTI

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

PBMLO VS. PBMCI

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

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:

ANZALDO VS. CLAVE

Elements of Procedural Due Process:

a.) In Judicial Due Process

1. There must be a court or tribunal to hear and determine the matter

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

ANG TIBAY VS. CIR

4. Substantial Evidence – the evidence presented must also be substantial. Meaning, it is

5. The decision must be rendered on the evidence presented at the hearing or at

6. Independent consideration – the Court of Industrial Relations or any of its judges,

c.) In Deportation Proceedings

Procedural Due Process:

d.) Discipline of Students

e.) Rule Making by Administrative Bodies

PHILCOMSAT VS. ALCUAZ

RCPI VS. NTC

f.) Vague Laws

PEOPLE VS. NAZARIO

g.) Publication of Laws

TAÑADA VS. TUVERA

BASIC ELEMENTS IN DUE PROCESS:

1. Notice – to warn you

WHEN DUE PROCES IS NOT REQUIRED:

2. Preventive Suspension of students/workers.

Important points in this case:

e.) The evidences must be duly considered by the investigating

3. Provisional Rate Increases

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

AMERICAN TOBACCO VS. DIR. OF PATENTS

Test for substantive due process:

GENERAL RULE: If an administrative body exercises quasi-legislative function, there is no need of

Procedural Due Process – it concerns procedure or the manner of conduct

EXCLUSIVE AREAS ON WHICH POLICE POWER CAN BE EXERCISED BY THE GOVERNMENT

BASIC PRINCIPLES ATTACHED TO POLICE POWER:

1. It is inherent in the government.

3. It is the least limitable of all powers.

4. It enjoys a presumption of validity and constitutionality.

TEST FOR A VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER:

The law must pass two tests:

Lawful Subject : Health

The law in issue prohibits the slaughter of carabaos.

DEPARTMENT VS SAN DIEGO

DEL ROSARIO VS BENGZON

Pres. Marcos promulgated an EO which prohibited the inter-provincial movement of carabaos