Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty.
Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
Constitutional Law II
3rd Exam
March 6, 2019
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
 In the previous discussion, those statements made were that of the
SUSPECTS. Now, we are going to discuss about the accused. There is
already a pending case against the accused. There is already an
information filed in the court against the accused. What does that
mean?
o There was already a probable cause that the accused
committed the offense. That is why the person is already
considered as accused and the opponent is the state - the
People of the Philippines vs. you.
What are your rights? Do you have any right?
 We have cases involving criminal due process and we have discussed
some of them.
AGUINALDO V. VENTUS G.R. NO. 176033 MARCH 11 2015
FACTS:
 The accused here were charged with estafa before the city
prosecutor. And there was a recommendation and the same was
approved to file an information against him for estafa.
o The case charged is already formal before the court.
 The accused argued that the precipitate filing of information & the
issuance of the warrant of arrest put them at risk of incarceration
without the preliminary investigation having been completed.
 Why?
o They claim that in the PI, they were not afforded the
opportunity to move for a reconsideration of the finding
of the prosecutor
ISSUE: Are they correct?
o Take note that the case here was filed before the Office of
the City Prosecutor.
HELD: NO.
 The Court said that they were wrong.
 While they are correct in stating that the right to preliminary
investigation is a substantive – not merely a procedural right
[meaning it is right conferred to you by law] – petitioners are wrong
in arguing that there was a precipitate filing of the information
because they were not given the opportunity or right to file a motion
for reconsideration.
 First of all, they were claiming that they were denied due process
because they weren't given the right or opportunity to move for a
reconsideration
o But again, the essence of due process is only the
opportunity to be heard.
o Here, they submitted their counter affidavits before the
office of the city prosecutor.
o Because of the submission of those counter affidavits,
they were already heard.
o That counter-affidavit is already a listing of all your
defenses. You file that, you are already being heard;
because of that there is already compliance with the rule
on due process.
 What about the motion for reconsideration issue?
o There is no requirement under the laws or the rules of the
Office of the City Prosecutor that an information cannot
1|P a g e
be filed without compliance or without having to move for
reconsideration.
 In any case, due process simply demands the opportunity to be heard.
o It is satisfied when the parties are afforded a fair and
reasonable opportunity to explain their respective sides of
the controversy.
 Take note, however, that in the Office of the Ombudsman, the
motion for reconsideration is a requirement.
o If it's still pending, it is not allowed to be filed in the Office
of the Ombudsman. As the prosecutor, that case cannot
be filed before the courts yet. It has to resolve the motion
for reconsideration.
 Apparently, the rule is different for other prosecution offices
ABS-CBN CORPORATION V. GOZON G.R. NO. 195956 MARCH 11 2015
 The airing of the footage that was exclusive only for this specific
station, thinking that this was available and that it could be aired.
 The ABS-CBN, GMA staff were charged with violation of the
intellectual property code
 Now, there was a complaint filed before the Office of the Prosecutor
 Initially, there was a finding of a probable cause. Because of the
finding of the probable cause, the next remedy there is MR, and then
if unfavorable, they can file for a petition for review with the
Department of Justice Secretary himself
 What does that mean?
o You file a complaint. For example, you were raped. So you
file a complaint, and then, this is subject to the
investigation of the prosecutor.
o The prosecutor will conduct a preliminary investigation
determining if there is probable cause
o Now, if there is probable cause, as a rule, the case should
be filed. But you can file a motion for reconsideration, as
the accused, to have that changed.
o If that is still unfavorable, the next step would be to go to
the Secretary by way of petition for review, pursuant to
the rules of procedure
 It is like an appeal of that probable cause
finding
 Here, the DOJ ruled in favor of the accused and held that good faith
is a defence. Nevertheless, both parties moved for the
reconsideration of that ruling of the DOJ secretary.
 Now, while the case was still pending, the information was already
filed before the court.
o That was when the accused filed for a petition to review.
 So there is a pending case before the court, pursuant to that finding
of probable cause.
o It is unlike the office of the ombudsman where the MR
needs to be resolved first. Here, the case filed before the
court proceeded.
 The petition for review was with the DOJ to reverse the probable
cause finding, and it was reversed
 But the trial court, since the case was already filed before the trial
court, it deterred the proceedings pending the determination of the
petition for review.
 Now, this was the incident that was challenged, among others, by the
accused for being in violation of the right to due process.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o The court should not have deterred or stopped the
proceedings. It should have went on with the incidence of
the case because it is already pending before it
 What happens, therefore, if there is now a discord between the
findings of the prosecutor and the actuations of the court?
 The case was already filed before the court, so the court now has
control. What if the state, the prosecutor, through the DOJ secretary
finds that the probable cause was wrong and discontinues the case?
 Who has the say on whether or not the case will still continue?
o It is the Court because it is already pending before the
court.
 If the State wants to have the case dismissed, they should move or
ask permission from the court, considering that the court already has
power over the case.
o The suspension of the arraignment here should always be
within the limits allowed by law.
 It is important to note the case of Crespo v. Judge Mogul.
o This is where the court outlined the effects of filing the
information before the trial court, which includes
initiating a criminal action in giving the court the authority
to determine the case.
 Take note: Who conducts the preliminary investigation, as a rule, to
determine if there is probable cause?
o It is the prosecutor. Because it is he who will prosecute
that case
 And when you find probable cause, the case is now filed before the
court.
 Now, should the prosecutor find it proper, through the prodding or
motion of the accused to conduct a reinvestigation, the permission of
the court must be secured.
 If, after such reinvestigation, it is found that there is really no
probable cause, the findings thereof should still be submitted to the
court of appropriate action.
 While if it's true that the prosecutor has the quasi-judicial discretion
to determine whether or not a criminal case should be filed in court
or not, once the case had already been brought to Court whatever
disposition the prosecutor may feel should be proper in the case
thereafter should be addressed for the consideration of the Court,
the only qualification is that the action of the Court must not impair
the substantial rights of the accused or the right of the People to due
process of law.
o What does that mean? So if the case was filed in the court,
the court now has the power to determine how it will
proceed.
 What happens now if the DOJ will not agree that there is no probable
cause? Can he pull out the prosecutors there and tell them to not
prosecute the case? What happens?
o The court said that, the role of the prosecutor is to see
that justice is done. So, if the court thinks that the case
should proceed – even if the prosecutor thinks that the
case is a losing case or has no probable cause – he must
continue with the same to give due process to the state.
o He can’t abandon the case. It is the duty of the prosecutor
to proceed with the presentation of evidence of the
prosecution to the court, to enable the courts to arrive at
their own independent judgment as whether the accused
should be convicted or acquitted.
o The role of the prosecutor is not really to persecute; rather
it is to see to it that justice is done. If he does not believe
in the case, he can go with the process, and if it will be
dismissed then good for him, but if not, then so be it as
2|P a g e
long as he did his job. He did not deprive his state of its
right to due process. He should not shirk from the
responsibility of appealing for the people under such
circumstances, much less that he abandons the
prosecution of the case, and leading it to the hands of the
private prosecutor, for then the entire proceedings would
be null and void.
o The least that he should do is continue to appear from the
prosecution although he may turn over the presentation
of the evidence to the private prosecutor but still under
his direction & control.
 So again, once the complaint is filed before the court for the
disposition of the case as to its dismissal, the conviction or acquittal
of the accused rests in the sound discretion of the court even if the
prosecutor no longer agrees with it.
 Now, there is an issue: What if is the case is pending and there is a
petition for review because under the rules of the DOJ the case can
continue before the court while the petition for review of the DOJ to
finally settle if there is probable cause is pending.
 What is the remedy to stop that eventuality from happening?
o The solution, according to the court, is that the Secretary
of Justice should, as far as practicable, be refrained from
entertaining a petition for review for appeal if the
complaint and information has already been filed before
the court.
o So that there is no issue as to who should continue, etc. so
if the Secretary of Justice knows that the case is already
pending before the court, as a rule, he should already stay
his stand because the case is already within the power and
competence of the court.
 In this case, the trial court proceeded with the proceedings of the
case after the 60 day period from the filing for the petition of review,
etc. The court here delayed its action on the matter. Anyway, that’s
what you need to get from the case. Once the case is filed, as a rule,
the court has control over what happens.
ESTRADA V. OMBUDSMAN G.R. NOS. 212140-41, JANUARY 21, 2015
 On charge against President Estrada or Senator Estrada for plunder.
He claims that he was denied due process.
 There was an investigation conducted by the Office of the
Ombudsman insofar as his hidden wealth (the lawfully ill-gotten
wealth) is concerned. So, after the investigation of the Office of the
Ombudsman, they were able to come up with a report.
 They filed this report in the same office, the office of the Ombudsman
for preliminary investigation. So after P.I it was found that there
probable cause to charge Jinggoy with plunder. The case was filed
before the SandiganBayan.
 So, he claims that while the case was still with the Ombudsman, he
was denied to the right of due process, particularly during preliminary
investigation.
 The court said that there was no denial or violation of his right to due
process. Again, what is determined in PI is only probable cause.
o PI is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of
determining whether there was sufficient ground to
engender a well founded belief that is a crime was
committed by the accused, and that he should be hailed
in court for trial. The purpose is to ensure that the courts
are not clogged with weak cases that will only be
dismissed.
 Also take note, that when you are under PI & you are investigated for
the determination of probable cause, you are not yet considered as
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
an accused. So, you cannot claim that you have rights as an accused
during P.I.
o What are you rights as an accused?
 Meeting your witnesses face to face giving and
cross examining them.
o If you are not yet an accused, you cannot claim to have the
rights of an accused during P.I. You are only a respondent.
o But after P.I, there is already a case pending & you are an
accused, you can now claim the rights of an accused.
o What are your rights during PI?
 The rights conferred during PI depend on what
are provided to them by law. These rights are
statutory rights and not constitutional due
process rights. In fact, the investigation of
determining probable cause does not initiate a
criminal action to trigger the operation of the
Constitution vis-à-vis the rights of an accused.
 Now, another issue here which did not discuss earlier in due process
is the issue of the dissenting opinion here that in preliminary
investigation, you should already have the rights during
administrative cases.
o What are those 8 rights under Ang Tibay?
 Impartial court, etc. all of those rights should
have been given to you, as argued.
 Is that correct? Should you be given rights in administrative cases
during preliminary investigation?
o The court said that you cannot be given those rights
because if the disparity in the nature of a P.I. and an
administrative case.
o First, one of the rights in administrative cases is that you
must have an impartial tribunal. In P.I., you cannot expect
that the prosecution to be impartial because the
investigating officer, which is the role of the Office of the
Ombudsman here (or the prosecutor if you file the case
before the Office of the Prosecutor) will never be impartial
as required in Ang Tibay, because the office here is tasked
to conduct P.I to determine probable cause and in fact, it
is not tasked to make a final adjudication of the rights &
obligations of the parties.
 So, you cannot expect impartiality from the
office of the Ombudsman for you to be able to
invoke your rights under administrative cases.
There is no partial tribunal in other words.
o Second, the rights to due process in administrative cases
are granted by the Constitution. However, your rights
during P.I are statutory rights granted by law.
 So what does that mean?
 Your P.I. rights can be negated by legislation,
but your rights during administrative cases,
since they are granted by the Constitution,
cannot be legislated away.
o Finally, the quantum of evidence in administrative cases is
substantial evidence. In preliminary investigations what is
needed is only probable cause.
3|P a g e
March 7, 2019
VII. RIGHT TO BAIL
 A right granted to an accused
 We have been discussing rights PRIOR to being accused—so the
investigation rights—you are not an accused.
 Now, you are an accused. There is a case field against you before the
court. It’s pending already. There is a warrant of arrest to arrest you.
And so, what are your rights as an accused?
 One of your rights is the right to bail.
 Where do you find that right in the Constitution? Is that a
Constitutional right?
o It is.
ARTICLE III • SECTION 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.
o It is a very terse provision, but it has many consequences,
cases, discussions, and nuances that you will need to
uncover.
What is bail?
Rules of Court
Rule 114
Section 1. Bail defined. – Bail is the security given for the release of a
person in custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to
guarantee 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.
 In other words, before you can be bailed out, you must already be in
the custody of the law. Your liberty is already curtailed.
 If you are not yet arrested, you cannot file an application for bail,
because you are enjoying your liberty.
 Is there security given? Yes.
 You are given conditional liberty, but the primordial purpose of bail
is:
 To secure your attendance when the court requires your attendance
before it.
When is the right to bail available?
 Any person—you are an accused—is arrested or deprived of his
liberty, or if you have a standing warrant of arrest, you can avail of
the right.
 It presupposes that the accused is under legal custody, and the court,
therefore, cannot order his provisional liberty, if he is actually in the
enjoyment of his liberty.
What is the basis of the Constitutional provision on bail?
 The root is the presumption of innocence. You are allowed to get out
of jail provisionally, because while the case is still pending before the
court, you are, as a rule, presumed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Nuances of Bail
 Bail can be a matter of right.
o When we say it is a matter of right, there are no questions
asked. If you apply for it, the court will grant it.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 Bail can also be a matter of discretion. The court has to decide
whether it will grant bail or not.
Bail as a Matter of Right
 It’s in the Constitutional provision and clarified in Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court.
Rules of Court
Rule 114
Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. – All persons in custody
shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties, or
released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule (a) before or
after conviction by the Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b)
before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
 With reclusion temporal and lower penalties, because it is not death,
reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, you can avail of the right to
bail prior to your conviction, meaning your case is pending before the
court.
Bail as a Matter of Discretion
 Meaning the court does not automatically grant bail. There is usually
a summary hearing or another form of hearing. So it is not something
that you can claim as a matter of right.
Rules of Court
Rule 114
Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. – Upon conviction by the Regional
Trial Court of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua,
or life imprisonment, admission to bail is discretionary. The application
for bail may be filed and acted upon by the trial court despite the filing
of a notice of appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record
to the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court
conviction the accused changed the nature of the offense from non-
bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only be filed with and
resolved by the appellate court.
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be allowed to
continue on provisional liberty during the pendency of the appeal under
the same bail subject to the consent of the bondsman.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment exceeding six
(6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail shall be cancelled
upon a showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accuse, of the
following or other similar circumstances:
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement,
evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail
without valid justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation,
parole, or conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability
of flight if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime
during the pendency of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any party,
review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after notice to the
adverse party in either case.
4|P a g e
o After you are convicted by the trial court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment,
your admission to bail is already discretionary.
Why is it discretionary?
 You have lost your presumption of innocence upon conviction.
In relation to Paragraph 3:
 Example: You are already convicted by the trial court, but the penalty
was not indicated.
 Thus, we presume that since Paragraph 3 of the provision deals with
a penalty that exceeds six years, in Paragraph 1, the penalty is less
than six years of imprisonment. Bail is a matter of discretion.
 In Paragraph 3, you are imprisoned, you are guilty, but the penalty
imposed on you is imprisonment exceeding six years, and in that
instance, bail shall be denied, if the enumerated circumstances in the
provision are present.
 In this case, the court is much stricter.
o The bail-negating circumstances are in Paragraph 3(a) to (e) –
SEE ABOVE
What if the penalty to be imposed on you is RP, death, or life
imprisonment? Is bail a matter of right or discretion?
 It would appear that it is already in the discretion of the court.
 It does not mean that if you are already charged with this offense,
you can no longer post bail. That is the wrong notion, to pertain to
those as non-bailable offenses. It is still within the discretion of the
court whether or not to grant the bail because there is still to be a
finding, in these types of offenses, if the evidence of your guilt is
strong or not.
 In other words, it is still in the discretion of the court, after hearing
on the matter to determine that fact, whether to grant bail or not.
EXAMPLE: You have your friends and you all see in the news that “Ah, that
is a non-bailable case; He should not be granted bail, etc. Like Enrile in his
plunder case, it is punishable by RP. Why was he allowed to get out of jail?”
 Because you are law students, you already know that that is not the
import of the provision.
 Just because the offense is identified to be “non-bailable”, it does not
mean that upon filing of that case, the accused is already barred for
filing an application because still, there is still a determination by the
court.
REMEMBER: There is still a determination by the court if the evidence of
your guilt is strong or not.
What are these offenses, where bail may still be granted/denied at the
discretion of the court?
 Capital Offenses, which an offense under the law at the time of its
commission may be punished by Death. (We don’t have capital
offenses now, or rather, the punishment of death is limited to certain
offenses – Drug-related offenses, among other things.)
AGAIN: For capital offenses, not automatically bailable because there is
still a determination as to whether the evidence of your guilt is strong or
not.
Rule 114, Section 7, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, not bailable. – No person charged with a capital offense,
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment,
shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong, regardless of
the state of the criminal prosecution.
 This is the situation wherein bail shall be denied – if you are charged
with a capital offense.
 If you are charged with a capital offense and the prosecution fails to
prove that your guilt is strong, then you are allowed to post bail.
SUMMARY:
When is bail a matter of RIGHT?
1. Before or After conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC
 BUT if conviction is already FINAL, you can no longer post bail because
if the conviction is already final and the punishment is imprisonment,
you will already be imprisoned.
 (Bail as a matter of right in this situation presupposes that the
conviction is not yet final.)
2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than RP
 For those offenses which are not capital offenses, one may still post
bail before conviction.
When is bail a matter of DISCRETION?
1. If you are convicted by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than
RP or Death
2. If you are convicted by the RTC and you are imposed a penalty
exceeding 6 years, bail is a matter of discretion and the court will
apply the bail-negating circumstances
When is bail NOT ALLOWED?
1. After final conviction by any court because when this is the case and
the penalty is imprisonment, you must already be imprisoned.
2. Before conviction for an offense punishable by Death or RP if the
evidence of guilt is strong
3. After conviction for a crime punishable by RP or Death while the case
is on appeal
o SUPPOSE: You are convicted before the RTC, then the case
was elevated to the CA. The offense for which you were
convicted is punishable by RP, LI, or Death
o Now, you raise the case before the appellate court
claiming that since your case is still pending on appeal, you
can still file a petition for bail. In this instance, your right
to bail will be DENIED already.
o WHY? Since you are already convicted for the offense
punishable by RP, LI, or Death, evidence of your guilt is
already STRONG.
4. After conviction for an offense with a penalty exceeding 6 years but
not more than 20 years, if the bail-negating circumstances are
present.
CONDITIONS OF BAIL
Rule 114, Section 2, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Conditions of the bail; requirements. – All kinds of bail are subject to
the following conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval, and unless
cancelled, shall remain in force at all stages of the case until
promulgation of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court, irrespective
of whether the case was originally filed in or appealed to it;
5|P a g e
(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever
required by the court of these Rules;
(c) The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without justification
and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right to be
present thereat. 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 required by this
section. Photographs (passport size) taken within the last six (6) months
showing the face, left and right profiles of the accused must be attached
to the bail.
DISCUSSION:
“Section 2 (b). The accused shall appear before the proper court
whenever required by the court of these Rules;”
Why? Because that is the purpose of bail; to force you to appear before the
court
Section 2 (c). The failure of the accused to appear at the trial without
justification and despite due notice shall be deemed a waiver of his right
to be present thereat. In such case, the trial may proceed in absentia;
If you are out on bail and you do not appear before the court, what are the
effects?
1. You bail bond will be forefeited.
 Example: Your bail bond was set at 1Million and then when you were
ordered to appear before the court, you failed to do so, perhaps
because nagliwaliw ka abroad. You failed to give a valid reason. So,
your 1Million bond will be forfeited and it now belongs to the court.
3. You arrest will be ordered by the Court.
 Your bail will be cancelled.
 A new warrant of arrest will be issued because you “jumped bail”, so
to speak.
Rule 114, Section 3, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
No release or transfer except on court order or bail. – No person under
detention by legal process shall be released or transferred except upon
order of the court or when he is admitted to bail.
In instances where the determination of whether or not the guilt of the
accused is strong or not, who has the burden or proving that? Is it the
burden of the accused to show that the evidence of the prosecution is
weak?
 NO. It is the burden/duty of the prosecution to prove that the
evidence of guilt is strong. It is found in Section 8:
Rule 114, Section 8, Revised Rules of CrimPro
Burden of proof in bail application. – At the hearing of an application
for bail filed by a 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 hearing 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
latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to testify.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
MEANING, pun intended: Relax lang ka dira; just sleep there, whatever.
Hahaha
If the evidence is not able to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong, even
if you do not present evidence, you may be granted bail.
FORFEITURE OF BAIL
Rule 114, Section 21, Revised Rules of CrimPro
Forfeiture of bail. – When the presence of the accused is required by
the court or these Rules, his bondsmen shall be notified to produce him
before the court on a given date and time. If the accused fails to appear
in person as required, his bail shall be declared forfeited and the
bondsmen given thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal
and to show why no judgment should be rendered against them for the
amount of their bail. Within the said period, the bondsmen must:
(a) produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-
production; and
(b) explain 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 bail. The court
shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the bondsmen,
unless the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted.
 There shall be a forfeiture of the bail if there are violations of its
conditions.
RIGHT TO BAIL c/f RIGHT TO TRAVEL
 We discussed cases about the Right to Travel.
 We already know that it is NOT ABSOLUTE.
 One of the limitations to this right is when you are out on bail. You
are supposed to be within the power of the court.
o When you are directed by the court to appear before it,
you have to comply. You cannot claim absolute exercise of
such right.
Rule 114, Section 23, Revised Rules of CrimPro
Arrest of accused out on bail. – For the purpose of surrendering the
accused, the bondsmen may arrest him or, upon written authority
endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking, cause him to be
arrested by a police 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
permission of the court where the case is pending.
 This is a recognition of the fact that the right to travel is limited by
power of the courts.
So those are some of the provisions in the Rules of Court that touch upon
Bail, as we will be discussing. Now let’s go to some of the cases that will
shed some light on this concept.
We already know –
 Bail, its definition
 Primordial purpose
What are the instances that it will give you right?
What are the instances that it will give you discretion?
What are the instances were the same will be denied?
6|P a g e
CASES:
OCAMPO V. HON. ABANDO G.R. NO. 176830 FEBRUARY 11 2014
PEOPLE VS. DE GRACIA 764 SCRA 479 (2015)
Facts:
 He was charged with the crime of murder and the imposable penalty
is reclusion perpetua. During the hearing, he filed a petition for bail.
 So because it is an offense that requires the determination of
whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong or not, the prosecution
will be given the opportunity to present evidence to show that the
evidence against you is strong.
 During the hearing of the petition here, the prosecution presented
their witnesses to prove that the guilt of this accused was for murder.
Later on, the trial court granted the petition for bail.
 However, later on in the court’s trial it proved that treachery, which
is an essential element of murder, was not sufficiently established.
Issue: Was the grant of bail here proper?
Held:
 We are talking here of an offense, murder which is, in pedestrian
terms, a non-bailable offense.
o Is that correct that just because you are charged with
murder you can no longer be allowed to bail? Is there really
a need to put you in prison? What if the charge was
fabricated? Anyway, does that mean that you can no
longer avail of your right to bail if it involves a non bailable
offense? No.
 An accused charged with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
such as murder may still be granted bail because there is still a
determination of whether the evidence of guilt is strong or not.
 The accused here was charged with murder which has the penalty of
reclusion perpetua, a non-bailable offense.
o From the standpoint of a layman, an accused indicted for
a "non-bailable offense" cannot be granted bail prior to
his conviction. Such interpretation, however, is
technically inaccurate. Because again as we discussed
earlier the court still has to determine after your
application for bail whether or not the evidence of guilt
against you is strong or not.
 Where does the right to bail flow from?
o It flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of
every accused.
 Under Section 13, Article III of the 1987 Constitution:
Section 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.
 Those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, are not entitled to bail before conviction.
 A reading of the provision reveals that bail shall only be denied when
the evidence of guilt for the offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
is strong.
 In other words, if the evidence against you is not strong bail will be
granted. In all other instances, bail must be granted before the
conviction of the accused. That is if the charge against you is
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
punishable by reclusion perpetua and either death, and it is shown
that the evidence against you is not strong.
 Now question is, if the court already determines that the evidence
against you is not strong are you acquitted from the offense?
o No. Because bail proceeding is different from the actual
trial. It’s just a preliminary determination at that stage of
whether you are granted bail. It doesn’t mean that
prosecution has no evidence against you. By the way, the
right to bail flows from the presumption of innocence.
 What is the effect if the evidence of guilt is strong?
o The accused cannot enjoy provisional liberty before his
conviction.
 Why is there a qualification when offense is punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, and after the hearing for
bail application, it is determined if the evidence of guilt against you
is strong or not? Why is your right to bail denied in such case?
o It is because when the court determined that the evidence
against you is strong, it means that the propensity for you
to escape will be higher. It is likely that the accused rather
than wait for the outcome of the proceeding against him
where the penalty demands a lifetime incarceration will
escape. That is why he will not be given the opportunity to
bail because he will now be court arrested. He can no
longer enjoy his provisional liberty as his petition for bail
will be denied.
 How was the application for bail decided by the court?
o It is of course presented. The determination of whether
the evidence of guilt is strong, in this regard, is a matter of
judicial discretion. By judicial discretion, the law mandates
the determination of whether proof is evident or the
presumption of guilt is strong.
 What is the quantum of evidence in that stage of the application for
bail in determining whether the evidence of guilt against you is
strong or not? Is it proof beyond reasonable doubt?
o If proof beyond reasonable doubt, so that is trial already,
so No.
o "Proof evident" or "Evident proof” in this connection has
been held to make clear, strong evidence which leads a
well-guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion
that the offense has been committed as charged, that
accused is the guilty agent, and that he will probably be
punished capitally if the law is administered.
 Clear, strong evidence – that is the quantum of evidence. Who
proves in that stage? It is the prosecution.
Now let us go to the bizarre case of Enrile vs. People. Why is this case bizarre?
Because it opened the floodgates to slippery slope argument.
ENRILE VS. PEOPLE 766 SCRA 1 (2015)
 Enrile was charged with plunder. It is a non-bailable offense. It is
punished by reclusion perpetua. He should not be granted bail.
 What he did here was he filed a motion to fix bail. He did not file an
application for bail, thinking that bail is a matter of right.
 What he want is to already fix the bail without first giving the
Sandiganbayan – as the case was filed before the Sandiganbayan –
the opportunity to determine if he can bail out or not.
 The motion to fix bail was denied by the Sandiganbayan because
according to the Sandiganbayan it is premature. There has yet to be
an application for bail so the Sandiganbayan can determine whether
the evidence against him is strong or not and eventually decide
whether or not to grant him bail.
7|P a g e
 The prosecution was not given with that opportunity because he
skirted the procedure by immediately filing a motion to fix bail.
 What were the grounds in his motion to fix bail?
o Old age and non-propensity to get out of the country, not
a flight risk, etc.
 It was denied by the Sandiganbayan so he went to the Supreme
Court.
 What did the Supreme Court do?
o SC reversed the decision of Sandiganbayan and ruled that
Enrile be granted bail.
 What is bizarre in here is that the procedure was skirted. There was
no determination of whether or not he can avail of that right, yet the
court already fixed the bail.
 What was the reason of the Supreme Court?
o It went to the primordial essence that the purpose of bail
and that is Enrile is not a flight risk. He will be granted bail
because anyway you will not go out of the country. He’s
old aged, sickly, etc. That was the ruling of the Court.
 Bail protects the right of the accused. Due process that they be
presumed innocent – that’s where the right to bail flows from.
o You’re not supposed to be incarcerated pending
determination whether you are guilty because the state
still has to prove it.
o The purpose of the bail here, as emphasized by the Court,
is that it’s not granted to prevent the accused from
committing additional crimes. Rather the purpose of bail
is to guarantee the appearance of the accused in the trial
whenever so required by the trial court.
 In Enrile’s case, the purpose will be fulfilled when he was granted bail
because in any case he will not be a fugitive from justice; even always
guaranteed that he will appear at trial when asked by the court to be
present.
 Take note that this case involves plunder punishable by reclusion
perpetua. In this case, the Court grants bail as a matter of discretion.
It’s not of course an instance where bail can be granted as a matter
of right.
 So here discretion upon the Court and when the Court exercise its
discretion, the Supreme Court exercised its discretion, it granted the
same in favor of Enrile.
 Take note of the explanation of the Court aside from primordial
purpose of bail to ensure his appearance in court should not be
defeated anyway because he will appear; it is also because of his poor
health.
o It is also because of his poor health because he is already
70 years old at the time of the alleged commission of the
offense and he voluntarily surrender.
 Again, the purpose of the bail is to guarantee his appearance
whenever so required by the court.
 What else?
o Human rights, the dignity of a human person,
fundamental human rights, fragile state of health, solid
reputation in his public and private life, etc.
 So, the Sandiganbayan purportedly committed grave abuse of
discretion and it neglected to consider all of those factor
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Leonen
 His dissent here is very simple.
 The fact that the prosecution was not given the opportunity to
present evidence whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong or not
is already a reason for the dismissal of Enrile’s petition before the SC
for prematurity.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 Again, he did not apply for bail. So, there is no opportunity for the
prosecution to prove their case in that proceeding.
 According to Leonen, when bail is a matter of discretion, an
application for bail must be filed and a bail hearing must be
mandatorily conducted to determine if the evidence of guilt is strong.
Absent this requirement, bail can neither be granted nor denied.
 In this case, he was charged with plunder punishable by RP to death.
The accused here, instead of submitting an application for bail, filed
a motion to fix bail.
 Therefore, the prosecution was not given the opportunity to prove
that the evidence of guilt was strong. Why?
o By limited grounds presented by the accused here. Also,
it limited the prosecution from proving its case because,
again, they could not approve it in that instance because
it is already a motion to fix the amount.
o Because of the prematurity, this should not have been
granted by the SC.
 Of course, since we are talking about Leonen, he really did have some
words of wisdom, etc., prophetic visions, for example, he (Enrile)
should not be made an exception to the rule.
 What was the sentiment here of Justice Leonen?
o Because the SC provided a favor, it is actually a lenient
treatment in favor of Enrile because he is old age and etc.
o Leonen says here that there are even prisoners whose
conditions are worse than that of Enrile and they could not
be granted bail because at that time this decision had not
yet been issued. This time, these grounds are allowed. He
emphasized that these people do not have the resources
to craft exceptions to what is contained in our law.
PEOPLE VS. VALDEZ 776 SCRA 672 (2015)
FACTS:
 The accused here was a public officer and charged with malversation
through falsification. What is the imposable penalty for that?
o Punishable by RT in its maximum period to RP.
 This case was decided prior to the amendment of the RPC.
 So, the threshold was still very small. It exceeded the threshold during
that time. That’s why the imposable threshold penalty for that is RT
in its maximum period to RP and it is complexed because it was dine
through falsification.
What is Art. 48, the effect if the offense if it is a complex crime? What
happens to the penalty?
ARTICLE 48. Penalty for Complex Crimes. — When a single act
constitutes two or more crimes, or when an offense is a necessary
means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime
shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.
 You have to use the penalty with the higher penalty to be imposed in
its maximum period. Now, the accused applied for bail.
 The assertion of the state is that considering that this is a complex
crime, you apply the maximum penalty here. The range here is RT in
its maximum period to RP. Applying Art. 48 maximum penalty to RP.
Therefore, bail is a matter of discretion.
 Now, the position of the accused is that you do not apply Art. 48 in
bail proceedings because the penalty will not be determined yet as
you are not yet in trial.
 You cannot, at that stage, determine if there really is falsification so
according to her, we should follow the imposable penalty in the RPC.
This is malversation exceeding the amount and that is the threshold,
so the applicable penalty is RT in its maximum period to RP.
8|P a g e
 Since it is a range, it is not RP. Bail now is a matter of right because it
is not RP.
 Since she is not punished with that offense which is still pending
before the court, bail should be granted as a matter of right.
ISSUE: Who is correct, the state or the accused?
RULING:
 Here, the court said that the accused is correct.
 She is entitled to it as a matter of right. This is a bail before the
conviction by the RTC for the defence punishable by less than RP, life
imprisonment or death.
 It will fall as bail as a matter of right, MTC, etc. and before the
conviction in the RTC with the offense less than RP, LI or Death, it is a
matter of right.
 Why did the SC rule that way? This is a complex crime. Is it not that
the impossible penalty for malversation of public funds through
falsification should be imposed to its maximum, therefore RP?
o No. the term should be construed as the "penalty
prescribe".
 Where do we find the "penalty prescribed"?
o You can find it in the provision itself. That this is the
prescribed penalty.
 In other words, you do not apply the mitigating, the aggravating and
even Art. 48 in determining for purposes of determining whether or
not bail should be granted in that instance.
o You base it on the prescribed penalty.
 So here, prescribed penalty for the offense is RT in its maximum
period to RP. It is not RP only there is a range.
o So, in other words it is not one of the offenses that bail is
a matter of discretion, rather, a matter of right.
 It is only after trial should the commission of the crime be proven to
the prosecution by reasonable doubt that the imposable penalty
which is the actual penalty to be imposed will be determined because
it is in that time during trial that you will prove whether not the
elements of both offenses are present.
 Therefore, that cannot be done for purposes of determining bail if the
offense is bailable because the imposable penalty may only be
determined after trial and during bail proceedings.
 Construe that they are punishable as the prescribed penalty in law.
PEOPLE VS. PIAD 781 SCRA 678 (2016)
Talks about the effects if an accused jumps bail.
 You filed bail, it was granted, submitted your bail bond and then you
are asked by the court to appear, you fled and in subsequent orders
you no longer appear. So, you jumped bail, you escaped.
What happens?
 You are deprived from all your rights, including your right to appear
in the trial to participate therein; to cross-examine that witness.
 In fact, on appeal if you’re convicted but you were not incarcerated
because you are out of bail and you escaped, you can no longer
appeal your conviction because you lose that right when you jump
bail. You are defying the jurisdiction of the court.
 You are depriving it from its power over you, which only logically
results to you not being able to invoke it to pursue your remedies
before the court.
 Unless he surrenders or submits to the jurisdiction of the court, he is
deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the court.
 If you do not surrender then you cannot avail of your rights.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
PEOPLE V. ESCOBAR (JULY 26, 2017)
FACTS:
 Escobar was charged as a co-conspirator of kidnapping for ransom
and that offense is punishable by death, which is now reduced to
reclusion perpetua. They committed this kidnapping for ransom.
 They filed this petition for bail, and it was denied by the RTC. He went
to the CA to appeal that denial of that bail and it was affirmed by the
CA. So, he left it there.
 One of his co-accused was arrested and he filed an application for bail.
It was granted. He wondered why since they are co-accused and they
committed the same sinful thing.
 Now, he again reapplied and filed again for a petition for bail and the
RTC said that it was already res judicata.
o That it has already been decided by the RTC and later on
by the CA. It is already a settled issue, you can no longer
revive that. Thus, denied by the RTC.
ISSUE: Was it correct for the RTC to apply the concept of res judicata in a
bail proceeding? Was his application barred by res judicata?
RULING: NO.
 It is not barred because res judicata is not applicable in bail
proceedings. It is a civil law concept.
o As a rule, it's not applicable in criminal cases.
Res judicata refers to a "matter adjudged." This doctrine bars the re-
litigation of the same claim between the parties, also known as claim
preclusion or bar by former judgment.
o Res judicata is a concept not recognized in criminal proceedings.
o Res judicata settles with finality the dispute between the parties
or their successors-in-interest in civil cases.
o Res judicata is a principle in civil law and has no bearing in
criminal proceedings.
 Is it not that we also have the concept of res judicata in criminal
proceeding in the guise of double jeopardy (as we will discuss in the
future)? Is this already an application that while it is not res judicata
but the trial court is correct in denying because it is already double
jeopardy?
o WRONG! Double jeopardy has many elements. Among
which is that, it requires a conviction or acquittal by final
judgment.
 In a bail proceeding, you are not yet convicted.
It is actually an interlocutory proceeding which
results to interlocutory order.
 What does an interlocutory order mean?
o It is an order while the case is still pending. The case is still
pending and that order does not settle the issue. It's just
a temporary relief, among other things, when the case is
pending.
 That is the nature of bail. It does not dispose of
the case but rather gives you a relief within the
case.
 So, it is an interlocutory order – it does not
amount to a conviction, therefore res judicata
and double jeopardy does not apply.
 In fact the Court emphasized here that it has a similar concept with
res judicata.
o Res judicata applies only when there is a final judgment on
the merits of a case; it cannot be availed of in an
interlocutory order even if this order is not appealed.
9|P a g e
o Being an interlocutory order, the denial of the bail in the
RTC and later on in the CA, did not have the effect of res
judicata.
 So, it should have been granted by the trial court. The basis to apply
res judicata was wrong.
REVILLA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (JULY 24, 2018)
[This is one of the cases that the discussion of the Court is very factual. This
is an example of NOT how to answer the question in the exams. ]
FACTS:
 Revilla, Napoles, Cambe and several other accused who were charged
with plunder punishable by reclusion perpetua before the
Sandiganbayan for stealing 224M pesos public funds.
 They applied for bail but their application were denied.
 Now, the case reached the Supreme Court, with Revilla withdrawing
his petition before the Court; but Napoles and Cambe insist that the
Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion when it denied
their right to bail because the prosecution was not able to prove that
the evidence of their guilt was strong.
ISSUE: Was the evidence of guilt here is strong?
(The question is now factual. It requires you to go to the facts for you to
appreciate. That's very factual. It does not ask you a legal question.
Anyway...)
RULING:
 So the Court here found that the Sandiganbayan did not commit
grave abuse of discretion because as found by the Sandiganbayan,
indeed, the evidence of guilt here was proved by the prosecution to
be strong.
 Take note that plunder is punishable by reclusion perpetua and
therefore the Court has to determine – if an application for bail is filed,
is the evidence of his/her guilt is strong.
o It hinges on the issue of whether or not the evidence of
guilt of the accused is strong. It requires the conduct of
bail hearings where the prosecution has the burden of
showing that the evidence of guilt is strong, subject to the
right of the defense to cross-examine witnesses and
introduce evidence in its own rebuttal.
 In this case, the evidence of guilt is strong. So, the Supreme Court
enumerated the elements of plunder:
a. That the offender is a public officer, who acts by himself or in
connivance with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other
persons;
b. That he amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth
through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts
described in Section l(d) hereof; and
c. That the aggregate amount or total value of the ill-gotten
wealth amassed, accumulated or acquired is at least Fifty
Million Pesos (₱50,000,000.00).
 And the Court, seeing the facts of this case, found that all of these
elements are present or at least presented by the prosecution with
clear and convincing evidence to be present. Therefore, the denial of
their bail was only proper.
o First element, they were public officers. Even if you are
not a public officer but the theory is conspiracy, you are
included in that charge.
o Second element, the series of overt or individual acts of
Revilla et. al. convincingly appeared that it facilitated in
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
amassing, accumulation and acquisition of ill-gotten
wealth.
 How can Revilla deny? That's why he already did not pursue his bail.
Why is it that this 2nd element is present?
o Because Revilla is the one receiving this PDAF, when this
was not yet unconstitutional.
 He has the discretion as to where he would give these funds. He may
fund non-existent projects. Where did these non-existent projects
come from?
o Through Napoles. She created these false NGOs where the
money was coursed through.
o There are liquidation papers that the money was spent, to
justify the expense. And later on it was found out that
these NGOs doesn't even exist. So, it is a conspiracy.
 Cambe, on the other hand, acted in behalf of Bong Revilla because he
signed and approved some documents in behalf of Revilla. (See,
Revilla was acquitted? Good for him! )
 He was acquitted because, apparently, the prosecution was not able
to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. So, what is the technique
there? You make sure that you do not have your signature in any of
those documents. So, you make a scapegoat. So, that is the scheme.
Not only by Senators but everyone else. (I'm not teaching you to do
that. DO NOT DO THAT! You are lawyers. You are supposed to be
upholding justice, integrity, all good things. )
 Anyway, all the elements here are present. The evidence of guilt was
proved by the prosecution to be strong and therefore there was no
grave abuse of discretion here of the Sandiganbayan when it denied
the application of the accused here of bail.
 The third element is the amassing of the wealth. How much was
proved by the prosecution in that stage? 103M pesos.
 So, the evidence of guilt is strong, all the elements are present, there
is a clear and convincing evidence. So the denial of right to bail is
proper.
 What is the quantum of evidence? Clear, strong evidence.
March 11, 2019
We are already in Bail. Let’s continue with the concepts.
1. When right may be invoked
 When can you invoke the right to Bail?
o That is already in the custody of the law: you are confined.
In order to get your provisional liberty, you can invoke
your right to bail but of course we learn before that bail
may be a matter of right or a matter of discretion for the
court.
CASES –
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 529 SCRA 764 (2007)
FACTS:
 Jinggoy Estrada was charged with plunder. He was arrested. Because
of the charge, the Court issued a warrant of arrest to Sandiganbayan
to apprehend him to put him into jail.
 Jinggoy filed a Very Urgent Omnibus Motion alleging that he is
entitled to bail as a matter of right. That motion was denied by the
Sandiganbayan. He filed a second motion which was also denied by
the Sandiganbayan.
 Jinggoy challenged the decision by the Sandiganbayan before the
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court told him that this bail is
discretionary.
 The Supreme Court ruled that in order to determine if the evidence
of guilt against Jinggoy is strong or not, because plunder is a non-
10 | P a g e
bailable offense, the SC directed the Sandiganbayan to conduct a
hearing to determine if the guilt against Estrada is strong or not.
 And after which the Sandiganbayan conducted a hearing, and found
out that in that proceeding, it granted his bail.
 Jinggoy was allowed to enjoy this provisional liberty by posting a bail
of P500,000.00.
o And this was assailed by the state because, among others,
this was a grave abuse of discretion by the Sandiganbayan.
The case is plunder then it allowed the accused to post bail.
ISSUE: Did the Sandiganbayan committed a grave abuse of discretion?
RULING: NO.
 The Supreme Court decided that Jinggoy was not a flight risk that is
why he was allowed bail.
o Even if the capital offense charge is bailable, owing to the
weakness of evidence of guilt, it can be justifiably denied
by the Court if the probability of escape is great.
 The communication of the resolutions denied Estrada his right to
bail, but nevertheless, he did not seem to be a flight risk.
 So the Sandiganbayan allowed which was also affirmed by the SC,
Jinggoy’s provisional liberty.
o In fact, his likelihood to escape was almost nil (zero) since
he was elected as Senator of the Philippines. So with this
election, his probability of escaping the country will be
zero.
 This is a discussion that a discretion of the court is given. One of the
conditions considered, as the non-probability of Jinggoy to be a flight
risk, is his election as a Senator.
o Those with a reputation and a respectable name to
protect and preserve are very unlikely to jump bail.
 So Estrada has a reputation and respectable name to protect that is
why he was allowed here to post bail; but primarily, the reason was
that he’s not a flight risk.
VALERO VS. CA 535 SCRA 453 (2007)
FACTS:
 On March 18, 2000, Jun Valerio, Chief of the Office of the
Government Corporate Counsel, was shot and killed in front of his
house at Diliman, Quezon City.
 An information for murder was filed against several people.
 The wife, Milagros, was also charged because the accused spoke and
told the police that in fact the wife was the one who instigated this
killing. So, Milagros was charged with parricide.
 Milagros filed an application for bail, claiming that the evidence of
guilt against her was not strong. This was granted by the RTC.
o She was allowed to be set free by posting the amount.
 The (private complainant) relatives of the deceased husband
challenged the decision of the trial court, claiming that Milagros
should not have been granted bail.
ISSUE: Was there grave abuse of discretion committed by the trial court?
RULING: YES.
 Why? One of the accused already said that Milagros, the wife, was
the one who masterminded all of this to kill her husband.
 The wife here, Milagros, claimed she is entitled to bail as a matter of
right because the evidence of guilt against her was not strong.
 Q: Is bail a matter of right?
o Of course not! Because the charge here was for parricide.
The penalty is reclusion perpetua.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o The Court is to determine if the evidence of the guilt is
strong or not.
o The trial court disregarded the hearing. In fact that the
evidence of guilt against her was strong because the
killer himself has confessed to the crime and has
implicated Milagros as the mastermind.
o It was a grave abuse of discretion for the trial court to have
granted the application for bail. It is not a matter of right
because the offense and the evidence of guilt was strong.
TR1LLANES VS. PIMENTEL 556 SCRA 471 (2008)
FACTS:
 On July 27, 2003, more than 300 heavily armed soldiers led by junior
officers of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) stormed into the
Oakwood Premier Apartments in Makati City and publicly demanded
the resignation of the President and key national officials.
 After a series of negotiations, military soldiers surrendered that
evening.
 In the aftermath of such event dubbed as the Oakwood Incident,
petitioner Antonio F. Trillanes IV was charged with coup d’état before
the Regional Trial Court of Makati. He was incarcerated in that place.
 He filed an omnibus motion where he requested to be able to attend
Senate hearings. He also claimed that he has a right to bail.
ISSUE: Can he be released on bail?
RULING:
 The Court noted: the Rules state that no person charged with a capital
offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment (LI), shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is
strong.
o Now, this is applicable to coup d’etat cases because this is
a felony punishable by reclusion perpetua.
 So, the Court has yet to determine whether the evidence against him
is strong or not. It is to be ascertained in a hearing for the application
for bail by the accused and determined by the Court.
 Now, one of the reasons that the Court considered here to justify the
denial of Trillanes’ prayer to be set free, is because of his propensity
to be a flight risk.
o In fact, it was discovered that he went past security detail
for some reason and was able to proceed from the
courtroom to a posh hotel etc. So he had a propensity to
do that, to evade detention from the authorities.
o These circumstances indicating probability of flight find
relevance as a factor in ascertaining the reasonable
amount of bail and in cancelling a discretionary grant of
bail.
 Moreover, once it is established that the evidence of guilt is strong,
bail shall be denied as it is neither a matter of right nor will it be a
matter of discretion.
 If the Court determines that the evidence of guilt is strong, the Court
will be compelled to deny bail.
o Trillanes was not allowed to get out of his incarceration.
o How about that he was elected to Senate? That is not one
of the factors that would allow the court to grant him bail.
QUI VS. PEOPLE 682 SCRA 94 (2012)
 This is bail before the appellate court.
 We discussed before, one of the instances where a bail is a matter of
discretion is when you have been convicted by the RTC of an offense
that is punishable of RP/Life Imprisonment (LI) or Death.
11 | P a g e
 So you were convicted, you want to question your conviction so you
go to appeal; and in the meantime you want to be free, you file your
application for bail before the appellate court.
 This is one of those cases.
FACTS:
 He was charged with a violation of the Special Protection of Children
against Child Abuse and Exploitation and Discrimination Act (R.A.
7610) before the RTC. She was convicted and she was charged with
imprisonment of up to 7 years, 4 months, and 1 day of prision mayor
in its minimum period as maximum.
 Now she filed her notice of appeal and she also filed an application
for bail so upon the pending appeal she can still be free.
 This was opposed by the solicitor general from the ground that she
was a flight risk. Why?
o There were many instances where she was not able to
attend court hearings for several reasons and because of
this, her application for bail before the appellate court was
opposed.
 She claimed that she should be granted bail because the evidence of
guilt against her was not strong and that she is still constitutionally
guaranteed to be innocent because her conviction is not yet final
since she was able to file an appeal.
 She still enjoys innocence, and bail is anchored on the presumption
of innocence so bail should be granted.
ISSUE: Is she entitled to bail pending appeal?
RULING: NO.
 Bail pending appeal is governed by Rule 114 Section 5. Upon
conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by Death,
Reclusion Perpetua (RP), or Life Imprisonment (LI) admission to bail
is discretionary so the court will now determine. It is not a matter of
right because the courts is to determine whether or not to grant it or
not.
 Moreover, if the penalty imposed by the RTC is imprisonment
exceeding 6 years, we now apply the bail negating circumstances.
One of which is the (1) The probability of flight.
o The penalty imposed on her is more than 6 years, and it
was found out that she has a propensity the probability
of flight. So it was proper for the court to deny her
application for bail.
 Again, the grant of bail is a matter of discretion upon conviction by
RTC of an offense not punishable by death, RP, or LI. It is not a matter
of right.
 Moreover, as we emphasized earlier, she was found by the court here
to be a flight risk which is a bail negating factor under the rules.
 When she came to attend the hearing before the RTC, the court was
compelled to issue warrants of arrest against her, plus she also
excused herself from one of the hearings because she claimed that
her father was sick and eventually died. The court found out that that
was in 2010.
o It was found out that her father was already dead as early
as 2009 so she lied on her submissions before the court.
Plus she also transferred residences without informing the
court.
 Take note what is important here is that after one is convicted by the
RTC for an offense not punishable by death, RP, or LI the presumption
of innocence is no longer attendant because you have been
convicted.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o Which means that the state was able to prove your guilt
beyond reasonable doubt. So your presumption of
innocence vanishes in the RTC level for purposes of
determining whether or not you can apply for bail.
Q: If you appeal, does that mean that your presumption of innocence is
restored?
 No, because the case will prosper not because the state was not able
to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt but because you are
questioning that finding by the trial court. Not because you are
innocent anymore.
 So that is why once you are convicted, the constitutional presumption
of innocence is removed and the removal of that right includes the
constitutional right to bail. That is why when you are convicted by the
RTC, you can no longer claim bail as a matter of right.
 Except when the case is at the MTC that even when you are convicted
you can still claim bail as a matter of right.
o Why? Because in the MTC the maximum imposable
penalty is not exceeding 6 years.
 All those factors led the court to conclude that the denial of her bail
was proper.
2. When bail is a matter of right, when it is a matter of discretion
See Sections 4 and 5, Rule 114, Rules on Criminal Procedure
RULE 114 • Bail
Section 4. Bail, a matter of right; exception. — All persons in
custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with
sufficient sureties, or released on recognize as prescribed by
law or this Rule (a) before or after conviction by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal
Trial Court in Cities, or Municipal Circuit Trial Court, and (b)
before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment.
(4a)
All persons in custody. What are the instances?
1. Before or after conviction by the MTC.
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, RP, or LI.
Section 5. Bail, when discretionary. — Upon conviction by the
Regional Trial Court of an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, admission to
bail is discretionary. The application for bail may be filed and
acted upon by the trial court despite the filing of a notice of
appeal, provided it has not transmitted the original record to
the appellate court. However, if the decision of the trial court
convicting the accused changed the nature of the offense
from non-bailable to bailable, the application for bail can only
be filed with and resolved by the appellate court.
Should the court grant the application, the accused may be
allowed to continue on provisional liberty during the
pendency of the appeal under the same bail subject to the
consent of the bondsman.
If the penalty imposed by the trial court is imprisonment
exceeding six (6) years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his
bail shall be cancelled upon a showing by the prosecution,
with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar
circumstances:
12 | P a g e
(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual
delinquent, or has committed the crime aggravated by the
circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement,
evaded sentence, or violated the conditions of his bail
without valid justification;
(c) That he committed the offense while under probation,
parole, or conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability
of flight if released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime
during the pendency of the appeal.
The appellate court may, motu proprio or on motion of any
party, review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court after
notice to the adverse party in either case. (5a)
Bail is discretionary upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, RP, or LI.
 A matter of right before or during trial or after conviction in the MTC,
MTCC, MCTC. Even if you are convicted in the MTC you can avail of
bail as a matter of right.
o You are convicted and you go to the RTC on appeal, you
are still allowed to bail before the RTC as a matter of right
because, it is still a matter of right even if you have been
convicted in the MTC.
o Of course, if you have been convicted it does not mean
that conviction is final. But if it is final you can no longer
avail of bail as you were incarcerated already.
 Bail is also a matter of right before conviction before the RTC of an
offense not punishable by death, RP, or LI.
o Also, bail will be granted if you are charged with an
offense punishable by death, RP, or LI and the evidence of
guilt against you is not strong. If the prosecution fails to
prove that level of evidence, the bail will be granted.
 Bail is a matter of discretion if you are convicted by the RTC of an
offense punishable by death, RP, or LI.
o Bail is also discretionary before conviction by the RTC of
an offense punishable by death, RP, or LI because the
court will determine if the evidence of guilt against you is
strong or not.
When is bail denied? When it is not allowed?
1. After final judgment by any court because the decision is already
final. You can no longer appeal, you will have to be imprisoned to
serve your penalty.
2. You can also not be granted bail before conviction for an offense
punishable by death or RP if the evidence of guilt is strong. It should
be denied.
3. At your conviction of a crime punishable by death or RP if the case is
on appeal.
o You are convicted by the RTC of an offense punishable by
death, RP, or LI and you go to the appellate court on
appeal, can you claim bail as a matter of right?
o No, because the evidence of guilt against you is already
strong because you have been convicted.
4. Also bail will be denied if you have been convicted of an offense with
a penalty exceeding an imprisonment of 6 years but not more than
20 years if the bail negating circumstances are present.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
GACAL VS. JUDGE INFANTE AM-RTJ-04-1845 Oct. 5, 2011
FACTS:
 This involves a murder case.
 An act of preliminary investigation; the judges were still allowed to
conduct this investigation.
 The judge who conducted the investigation did not recommend bail.
And so an information was charged after this recommendation.
 The prosecutor also made a preliminary investigation and found that
there is probable cause that he committed murder, but he
recommended bail in the amount of P400k.
 After the information was filed before the court it was raffled to the
branch of Judge Infante. Now Judge Infante issued twin orders even
without a petition for bail and even without a hearing. What were his
orders?
1. Granting bail to Ancheta (the accused)
2. Releasing him from custody
 Take note that Ancheta was accused of Murder so there should have
been a determination whether the evidence of guilt is strong or not.
There was no application but the judge motu proprio granted the bail
and also ordered his release.
 So the lawyer of the (private complainant) victim filed an MR
opposing the order of the Judge because the said decision was wrong:
1. There was no hearing to determine if the evidence of guilt is
strong or not;
2. Why did this Judge even release the accused without that
hearing?
 In MR, it was threshed out that the public prosecutor had
recommended bail as a matter of course and he did not write any
opposition to this grant of bail. In other words, the prosecutor did not
care. “Grant him bail.”
 And because of this, the court believed the prosecutor.
 He even said to the lawyer of the victim: “Even the Public Prosecutor
believed that the accused should be granted with bail. Who am I to
deny this person of his bail?”
 So this case reached the Supreme Court because of the unusual
processes here, charging the Judge here to be grossly ignorant of the
law.
RULING:
The Court said that he is grossly ignorant of the law for the reasons that:
1) Bail here was mandatory in this case.
The willingness of Judge Infante to rely on the mere
representation of the public prosecutor that his grant of bail
upon the public prosecutors recommendation had been
proper and that his recommendation of bail had in effect
waived the need for a bail hearing perplexes the Court.
Why?
 The determination of the amount granting bail does not depend on
the prosecution but rather, depends on the Court.
 He thereby betrayed an uncommon readiness to trust more in the
public prosecutor’s judgment than in his own judicial discretion as a
trial judge.
 It was his (Judge) job of whether or not to grant bail. Moreover, bail
here was mandatory, thus he should have given notice to the defense
for them to prove if the evidence of guilt is strong or not.
 That did not happen here because the Judge already issued an order
granting the bail.
 Take note that murder is punishable by death or Reclusion Perpetua
and this requires a determination as to whether or not the evidence
against the accused is strong or not.
13 | P a g e
 Here, no application for bail is filed yet he granted bail. Bail hearing is
not dispensable to determine that fact.
 His failure to conduct a hearing was inexcusable and reflected gross
ignorance of the law on him.
CAN YOU GRANT BAIL TO SOLDIERS CHARGED IN VIOLATION OF THE
ARTICLES OF WAR?
3. Bail in military courts
CASES –
COMENDADOR VS. DE VILLA, 200 SCRA 80 (1991)
FACTS:
 Comendador et. al. were charged with several violations of the
Articles of War (mutiny, conduct unbecoming, etc) and they applied
for bail before the General Court Martial but the application was
denied.
 This prompted them to go to the Trial Court and filed a petition for
certiorari and mandamus with prayer for provisional liberty and a writ
of preliminary injunction.
 Basically, they were asking the courts to release them from their
incarceration of that place.
 And the Judge here granted provisional liberty to one of the accused
– Ligot and the bail was not complied with by the apprehending
officer.
 This prompted the accused to file a motion to enforce the order and
cite that person in contempt. This was still not followed until the case
reached the Supreme Court.
ISSUE: Do the Military personnel have the right to bail?
RULING: NO.
 They cannot avail of bail as a right. Is that not violative of the
constitution?
 The right to bail invoked by the accused here has traditionally not
been recognized and is not available in the military as an exception
to the General Rule as embodied in the Bill of Rights. Tradition
negates this right for this class of people. Why?
o It is because of the unique structure of the military. That
should be reason enough to exempt them from the
coverage of the Bill of Rights on the right to bail.
o Why?
 It is vital to note that mutinous soldiers, who
operate within the framework of democratic
system, are allowed the fiduciary use of
firearms by the government for the discharge
of their duties.
o National security considerations should also impress upon
this Honorable Court that release on bail of respondents
constitutes a damaging precedent.
 The truly disquieting thought is that they could freely resume their
heinous activity which could very well result in the overthrow of
duly constituted authorities, including this Honorable Court, and
replace the same with a system consonant with their own concept of
government and justice.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
Q: Is this not a violation of the right of equal protection? Why do we make
a distinction and is there a valid distinction between civilians and military
personnel?
o YES there is a valid distinction between civilians and
military personnel. So if there is a valid distinction, then
there is no violation on the right of equal protection.
o The guarantee of protection is only up to things similarly
treated and it does not apply when the subject is
substantially different from the others because of the
peculiar nature of the military.
But does it mean that when a soldier is charged with for example rape (or
any violation of laws outside the jurisdiction of the articles of war), then
can he not apply for bail as a right?
ASWAT VS. GALIDO, 204 SCRA 205 (1991)
FACTS:
 Enlisted men of the AFP who shot one of the soldiers. They voluntarily
surrendered and were charged in violation of ART 94 of the Articles
of War before the General Court Martial.
 They filed a directory to the Supreme Court to release them on bail
because they claim they have it as a matter of right.
ISSUE: Are they entitled to bail?
RULING: NO.
 Consistent with the previous case, the right to bail is not available
for military personnel as an exception to the general rule embodied
in the Bill of Rights.
 In this case, the accused here is subject to Military Law and they are
charged with a crime that has serious effects that is under the Articles
of War.
Under Art. 70 of the Articles of War:
“Any person subject to military law charged with crime or with a serious
offense under these articles shall be placed in confinement or in arrest,
as circumstances may require.”
 So based on that, it would appear that in these cases, the accused to
be denied bail as a right, he must be a person subject to Military Law
and he must violate the articles of war.
 That is the instance why he may be denied bail. So if not, it would
appear that he may be able to post bail.
 So if theft, malicious mischief, acts of lasciviousness, etc. which has
nothing to do with the articles of war, it would appear based on this
Article 70 of the Articles of War that they can, in that instance, ask for
bail.
 Where was it filed anyway? It was filed before the Court Martial
because it’s not a violation of the Articles.
4. Standards for fixing bail
Section 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 factors:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged;
14 | P a g e
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
(i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when
arrested; and
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail.
Excessive bail shall not be required. (9a)
What are the standards for fixing bail?
 We have Rule 114, Section 9 on the guidelines for fixing the amount.
Not only the amount but in fact, the courts can also impose additional
conditions which do not relate to the amount.
 Normally if there is a complaint filed against you, for example for the
crime of rape, then the prosecutor who finds probable cause will be
the one to recommend the bail amount.
When is that?
 That is presented to the court in the Information.
 The court is not bound by that determination. The court can be
guided by that or it can make its own determination as to how much
the bail should be.
 Take note that there is already a new 2018 issuance by the National
Prosecutions Service as to how much the bail should be.
 The general rule is that the imposable penalty for every year of
incarceration would be times 6000. But there are also exceptions to
that general rule in that circular.
CASES –
VILLASENOR VS. ABANO, 21 SCRA 312 (1967)
FACTS:
 Take note that this case happened in 1967 when your 25 centavos
can still buy many things.
 The accused was charged for murder then he filed an application for
bail and he was admitted to bail where the amount imposed by the
court is 60 000.
 Later on, the Information was amended. The charge was changed to
Direct Assault upon an Agent of Person in Authority with murder.
 So the penalty was increased and the court took out the bail,
cancelled the bond, ordered for his arrest and resolved to admit him
on a new bail for an amount of 60,000 but in the form of a property
and such property must be owned by a resident of the province of
Marinduque which must be in the possession and ownership of said
resident for five years.
 The accused claimed that it was excessive because his monthly salary
is only 210 pesos and he is the sole breadwinner of a family of five.
ISSUE 1:
W/N the bail set by the Trial Court excessive.
W/N violative of the Constitutional provision.
RULING: NO
 Why? The court may, upon good cause shown, either increase or
reduce the amount of the bail.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 In fixing the bail what should the courts balance?
o (the factors we discussed earlier) One is that the amount
should be high enough to assure the presence of
defendant when required but no higher than is reasonably
calculated to fulfil this purpose.
 That should be the balance wherein it should be compelling enough
for the person to fear that it will be forfeited in case he does not
appear but not high enough that he can no longer afford it therefore
negating his right.
 There is a need for a tie to the jurisdiction and the right to freedom
from unnecessary restraint before conviction under the
circumstances surrounding each particular accused
 Therefore, in this case, his claim that he cannot afford the bail for his
monthly income only amounts to 210 pesos would not only be the
sole criterion to consider as to how much the amount of bail would
be fixed.
 The Court is not to consider solely the inability of a defendant to
secure bail in a certain amount.
 The Court here brought forth certain guidelines in fixing the bail
which are closely similar with our current rules.
 But, what is the principal factor that the Court should consider?
o The principal factor considered, to the determination of
which most other factors are directed, is the probability of
the appearance of the accused, or of his flight to avoid
punishment. This is because after all, at the end of the
day, bail is supposed to secure their appearance before
the Court.
 Therefore in this case, the 60 000 bail amount fixed by the court is
not excessive.
ISSUE 2:
W/N the conditions imposed by the Court that, first, it is a property owned
by a Marinduque resident and second, that was possessed and owned by
the person for 5 years, are valid conditions
RULING: YES.
 For the first condition that the property must be owned by a resident
of Marinduque, it must be so that it can be easily located by the Court
and forfeit it in favor of the State.
 For the second condition that it must be in possession and ownership
of the said resident for 5 years, it is because to prevent the
commission of frauds in connection with the posting of personal bail
bonds and to protect the interests of the Government. Really, if the
bondsman is not the owner, bail fails of its purpose and prejudice to
the government sets in.
DE LA CAMARA VS. ENAGE, 41 SCRA 1 (1971)
FACTS:
 The accused was charged with multiple frustrated murder and
multiple murder for the killing of 14 and the wounding of 12 laborers
of Tirador Logging Corporation.
 This case happened in 1971 and the bail was fixed at 1.1 Million
Pesos.
 According to the accused, this bail is excessive might as well denied
his right.
ISSUE: W/N the bail is excessive
RULING: YES.
 The Court said that the bail was too excessive.
15 | P a g e
 Every person is bailable except if charged with capital offenses
when the evidence of guilt is strong. Such a right flows from the
presumption of innocence in favor of every accused.
 Bail, is a right and so in order to not negate such right, it should not
be excessive. It should not be rendered nugatory by requiring a sum
that is excessive. Otherwise, the right to bail becomes meaningless.
 It would have been more forthright if no mention of such a guarantee
were found in the fundamental law.
 So consistent with those doctrines, the Court found the amount here
to be excessive. Take note, this was in 1971, so 1.1 million was already
a fortune during that time.
 According to the court, the judge here ignored the factors in
determining the amount of bail and set a very high amount. There is,
in fact, a denial of the right.
 The excessive amount required would only mean that provisional
liberty would be beyond his reach. It would’ve been better for the
accused if he were informed categorically that he had no right.
 So the court said here “Don’t be paasa.” 
o Why? There would have been no disappointment of
expectations then.
 It does call to mind these words of Justice Jackson, a promise to the
ear to be broken to the hope, a teasing illusion like a munificent
bequest in a paupers will. It is no wonder that the resulting frustration
left resentment and bitterness in its wake.
o Why? Because of the very high imposition, it will be more
likely for the accused to escape. “I won’t be able to avail
of bail since it’s too high. No thanks.”
 The court said that it would’ve been more forthright if you were
informed categorically that such rights cannot be availed of, rather
than setting an excessively high amount that the accused cannot
afford.
 So, the bail here was excessive, so it was reset by the Supreme Court.
YAP JR VS. CA 358 SCRA 564 (2001)
FACTS:
 This is bail on appeal
 He was charged and convicted of estafa which involves the amount
of 5.5 million pesos and he was sentenced to an imprisonment of 20
years.
 He was convicted in the RTC, appealed to the CA and filed an
application for bail.
 The amount fixed by the appellate court was the same amount he
misappropriated, 5.5 million, plus it also imposed several conditions:
(1) He (accused-appellant) should secure a certification/guaranty
from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a
resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident
therein until final judgment is rendered or in case he transfers
residence, it must be with prior notice to the court;
(2) The Commission of Immigration and Deportation (CID) is
hereby directed to issue a hold departure order against
accused-appellant; and
(3) The accused-appellant shall forthwith surrender his passport
to the Division Clerk of Court for safekeeping until the court
orders its return;
(4) Any violation of the aforesaid conditions shall cause the
forfeiture of accused-appellants bail bond, the dismissal of
appeal and his immediate arrest and confinement in jail.
 He claims that (1) the bail was excessive and (2) the conditions set by
the court should not have been imposed by the CA.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
ISSUE: Was the Court of Appeals correct in the imposition of the conditions?
RULING:
 As to the imposition of conditions, yes. But as to the bail fixed, the
court reduced the amount.
 This talks about bail on appeal. He was already convicted by the RTC
of an offense that is not punishable by Death, RP or LI, bail therefore
is discretionary. In fact, the penalty imposed on him was
imprisonment exceeding six years.
 So this calls to mind the prevailing circumstances (probability of flight,
etc.). So this is an application for bail which is discretionary.
 Why did the SC consider that the conditions imposed by the CA are
appropriate?
o Because it would only ensure his appearance before the
court. Again, the purpose of bail is to secure your
appearance before the court when asked by the court.
 What about the amount?
o The court said that this was excessive.
o To fix bail at an amount equivalent to the civil liability of
which petitioner is charged (in this case, P5, 500,000.00)
is to permit the impression that the amount paid as bail is
an exaction of the civil liability that accused is charged of;
this we cannot allow because bail is not intended as a
punishment, nor as a satisfaction of civil liability which
should necessarily await the judgment of the appellate
court.
o It cannot be allowed that the amount of civil liability,
especially if the amount is excessive, that that should be
the benchmark for fixing bail because that amount should
not be exacted from you during the proceeding for bail.
o It is not supposed to be imposed as a penalty nor a security
for satisfaction of civil liability when you are convicted. So,
the court adjusted the amount.
 Take note, that this already bail on appeal and is discretionary upon
the courts. How should the discretion of the court, in such instances,
be exercised?
o The Court has held that the discretion to extend bail
during the course of the appeal should be exercised with
grave caution and for strong reasons, considering that the
accused had been in fact convicted by the trial court.
o So the court should consider that he is already convicted
and that:
(1) The evidence of guilt is already strong,
(2) The presumption of innocence is already removed;
and
(3) That there is a pending case against him which is on
appeal that has imposed a penalty.
o The propensity to escape would be higher because he
already knows his penalty, which is still on appeal.
o Nevertheless, invitation to escape is still there. So, when
courts are determining the extension of bail in cases on
appeal, they should be careful on granting the same.
 In fact, bail should be denied after judgment of conviction as a matter
of wise discretion, if the accused is charged with an offense
punishable by Death, RP or LI. Because, again, the evidence of guilt
against him is already considered to be strong.
16 | P a g e
5. Right to bail and right to travel abroad
Is there an inconsistency? You have a constitutional right to travel, but
when you’re on bail, you cannot travel. So, which right prevails? We have
already discussed that the right to travel is not absolute. Specially, if you’re
on bail.
CASES –
MANOTOK VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 142 SCRA 149 (1986)
FACTS:
 Manotoc was charged with violation of securities law. He deceived
some people by using a Torrens title as security that was non-existent
or falsified.
 He was charged with estafa and admitted to bail in the amount of
P105, 000.
 Pending the case, he was granted provisional liberty, so he was free
to roam around the country.
 He filed a motion before the RTC for permission to leave the country,
stating as a ground his desire to go the US. This was opposed by the
state and was not granted by the RTC.
 His argument was that having been admitted to bail as a matter of
right, neither the court nor the SEC should prevent him from
exercising his constitutional right to travel.
ISSUES:
(1) Is a person facing a pending criminal indictment before the
RTC and granted provisional liberty, have an unrestricted right
to travel? No.
(2) Should his motion to leave the country be granted? No.
RULING:
 The court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from
leaving the Philippines. This is a necessary consequence of the nature
and function of a bail bond.
 What is the purpose of a bail bond?
o To secure your appearance before the court.
 So the court has the discretion to grant or deny the motion to travel
abroad.
o Again, Rule 114, Section 1 of the Rules of Court defines
bail as the security required and given for the release of a
person who is in the custody of the law, that he will appear
before any court in which his appearance may be required
as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance.
o Its object is to relieve the accused of imprisonment and
the state of the burden of keeping him, pending the trial,
and at the same time, to put the accused as much under
the power of the court as if he were in custody of the
proper officer, and to secure the appearance of the
accused so as to answer the call of the court and do what
the law may require of him.
 You cannot insist on your right to travel because you already prayed
for the court’s permission to be on bail. Even if bail is a matter of right,
the court can still deny your motion to leave the country, if
circumstances are present that would defeat the purpose being
granted bail.
 The condition imposed upon petitioner to make himself available at
all times whenever the court requires his presence operates as a valid
restriction on his right to travel.
 Why? The result of the obligation assumed by the person being
granted bail is to hold him amenable at all times to the orders and
processes of the lower court, which includes the prohibition by the
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
court from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines, because,
otherwise the court will not be able to implement its decisions on
you.
 You have to be imprisoned here. It would defeat the criminal
processes if you are able to evade the orders or processes of the court
if you can freely get out of the country, otherwise, those orders and
processes will be nugatory, and inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the
courts from which they issued does not extend beyond that of the
Philippines.
SANTIAGO VS. VASQUEZ, 217 SCRA 633
 Miriam Defensor-Santiago was charged with and indicted before the
Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti-Graft Law, RA 3019.
 An order for her arrest was issued and she filed an ex-parte motion
for acceptance of bail bond. So she was out on bail.
 While the case was pending, the Sandiganbayan issued a Hold
Departure Order against her because in several interviews she
intimated her desire to avail of her scholarship something
(fellowship) outside the country.
 Knowing this, the Sandiganbayan issued a hold departure order so
she would not get out of the country.
 She claims that this cannot be done by the Sandiganbayan because:
(1) it did not acquire jurisdiction toward her.
o She did not appeal yet before the Sandiganbayan so why
can it order the issuance of a hold departure against her
and;
(2) It violates her right to travel.
 Did the Sandiganbayan acquire jurisdiction over her? How?
o Yes. By her filing of that ex-parte motion to ask to be
released on bail. She already asked a relief from the
Sandiganbayan and the same was granted. That is already
an invocation respecting the power of the court
submitting yourself to its orders.
o The voluntary appearance of the accused, whereby the
court acquires jurisdiction over his person, is
accomplished either by his pleading to the merits such as
by filing a motion to quash or other papers with prayers or
by filing bail. Which was what she did here.
 Why is it that the court acquires jurisdiction over you when you file
an application for bail?
o Because you cannot be admitted to bail if you are not yet
under the custody of the law.
o You are admitting, therefore, when you filed that bail that
you are already in the custody of the law.
o Otherwise, if you are not in the custody of the law, why
would you pray to be out on bail and also because the
logical fact that you are already asking the court for a
prayer, you are recognizing its jurisdiction over you.
 Did this Hold Departure Order violate her right to travel?
o No, because when you are out on bail your right to travel
is already reasonably curtailed by the court processes.
SILVERIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 195 SCRA 760
FACTS:
 This person was charged with the violation of the Revised Securities
Act before the RTC.
 He filed a petition for application for bail and he was able to post it.
Now, he went out of the country several times without permission
from the court.
17 | P a g e
 This prompted the prosecutor to file a motion to cancel his passport
and to issue a hold departure order against him. This was granted by
the RTC.
 He claims that it was error for the court to do that because his right
to travel was restricted.
o The only ground by which the right to travel can be
impaired is only if there is an interest of national security,
public safety or public health as the Constitution itself
says.
o His presence or going out of the country is not of national
security, public safety or public health interests. So it
should not be denied and that the right to travel should
be enjoyed.
ISSUE: Is he correct?
RULING: NO, because from the wording of the Constitution, it does not
mean that it already negated the power of the courts to have control over
this person because otherwise its processes would be defeated.
 A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the court from
leaving the country or, if abroad, compelled to return.
 Moreover, 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. These are but
necessary conditions on his/her provisional liberty.
 Why was his passport canceled?
o Because his failure to appear at scheduled arraignments.
Getting out of the country, forcing the court to cancel his
arraignment.
 According to the Supreme Court, it was but proper.
 Again, the description of the right to travel is not limited to the
grounds of interest of national security, public safety, or public health
because one of the grounds of your right to travel can be impaired is
when you are out on bail.
MARCH 13, 2019
6. Waiver of the Right to Bail
Is this right to bail waivable? Can this right be waived?
CASES –
PEOPLE VS. DONATO, 198 SCRA 130 (1991)
FACTS:
 There were several accused here charged with the crime or felony of
rebellion under the Revised Penal Code and they were taken into
custody by the military. They were charged before the court.
 While they were being incarcerated, the case continued. They also
filed a petition before the Supreme Court, for a habeas corpus,
against the persons detaining them.
 Now, in their petition, they manifested, in that proceeding before the
Supreme Court, their lawyer representing the accused that they
agreed to reach an agreement with the government; that all the
accused in the case pending before the trial court would still be under
the jurisdiction of the court.
 The case against them continued. They can, however, enjoy their
provisional liberty.
 But one of the accused there, Rodolfo Salas, it was agreed that he
would remain under custody. This agreement was entered into
between the State and the accused and there was no objection
interposed by any of them.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 So, it became a binding agreement. So, all of the accused filed their
applications for bail so they could get out except for Salas. Because
of this agreement, he could not get out.
 Then, later on, he filed his own application for bail which was denied
by the court. So now, he claims that his Constitutional right to bail
was denied because it was not granted by the trial court.
ISSUE: Should the trial court have granted that application for bail of
Rodolfo Salas?
RULING: NO.
 The Court said that no because his right to bail was waived by this
person.
 How was it waived here?
o In the application for habeas corpus which was filed in the
Supreme Court where all of the accused agreed to the
terms and conditions between the State and them.
o Among which is that this Rodolfo Salas was to remain
under custody while his co-accused would be released
immediately.
 Also, in a conference after the agreement, they finalized the terms of
the agreement which included that Salas would remain in legal
custody in case trial before the court having custody over his person.
And so, in agreeing to remain in legal custody even during the
pendency of the trial, he has expressly waived his right to bail.
 Now, take note, that the right to bail is available only when you are
in legal custody, when you are in detention. Because if you object
your liberty, then there is no reason or logic for you to file an
application for bail.
 If there is a warrant of arrest against you, you may already file for
bail because you will be arrested, among other things.
 Custody here has been held to mean – nothing less than actual
imprisonment. It is also defined as detainer of the person by virtue
of a lawful authority.
 Here, the Court disagreed that Salas will remain in legal custody in
this trial before the Court having custody over his person. This meant
that he would remain in actual, physical custody of the Court or in
the actual confinement or detention.
 His co-accused were to be released because they only maintained in
the agreement that the Court would have jurisdiction over their
persons. That was not construed to mean that the Court would have
physical custody unlike with Salas that he will remain in legal custody.
There was a distinction.
 For Salas, the Court will have legal custody. The other persons, they
may go but the Court will have jurisdiction over their persons.
 Is the waiver of the right allowed? Is this valid?
o The Court said that YES. Rights may be waived under the
Civil Code unless the waiver is contrary to law, morals,
public order, public policy, morals or good customs.
 A person may waive any right – that which affects his property and
any alienable right or privilege which belongs to him even if it is
guaranteed by the Constitution, confirmed by statute.
 The rule is that these waivers are not presumed. They are not viewed
favorably but these rights may be waived, nevertheless.
 What is the basis of your right to bail?
o It’s a Constitutional right.
18 | P a g e
There are two classes of rights of an accused:
1. Those rights which the State as well as the accused are
interested in; and
2. Those rights which are personal to the accused, which are in the
nature of personal privileges
 Bail belongs to the second category of rights.
 The first category where the State also has an interest, those rights
are not waivable.
 The second category is waivable.
 The Court has, in fact, recognized waivers of other Constitutional
rights.
Examples: right against unreasonable search and seizures, right to
counsel, right to remain silent, and right to be heard, among other
things. These rights are waivable just like the right to bail.
 Right to bail is another Constitutional right which can be waived. It
is a right personal to the accused and whose waiver would not be
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs.
That is a waivable right.
LARDIZABAL VS. REYES, 238 SCRA 640 (1994)
Facts:
 There is no discussion here in so far as the waiver of right to bail is
concerned but only on the irregularity of the proceedings.
 A 12-year old girl filed a complaint for rape against the accused.
 The case was filed before the court, it ordered the arrest of that
person and at the same time motu proprio fixed the bail of the
accused in the amount of PHP80,000 without any application on the
part of the accused to be admitted to bail and without conducting
any hearing thereof.
 Later on, the amount was reduced.
Issue: Whether or not there was an irregularity in the proceedings because
he allowed the accused to go on bail without the application
Ruling: YES.
 Just like in the previous case, the penalty was reclusion perpetua for
murder. The Court granted the provisional release of the accused
even without the application and thereafter, without hearing. The
Court said that that was an irregular procedure.
 Here, the judge acted irregularly, depriving the prosecution the
opportunity to interpose objections to the grant of bail.
 Here, the offense is rape which is punishable by reclusion perpetua
and may be granted only after a motion for that purpose had been
filed by the accused and after hearing thereof conducted by the
judge.
 It’s the prosecution’s job to prove that the evidence of guilt is strong.
 The prosecution here was deprived of that opportunity because the
judge granted it immediately. There was an unjustified haste in
granting the bail here. That’s the irregularity.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
PEOPLE VS. PANES 303 SCRA 231 (1999)
Facts:
 The accused here was charged with murder for killing this Tamorite.
The prosecution recommended no bail for his provisional liberty.
 The trial court instituted a warrant of arrest against the accused.
However, it ordered the case archived for failure to locate the
accused.
 After a year, the accused were arrested.
 In the arraignment, they did not use the information and the court
tried the case. In the meantime, the accused filed a petition for bail
which was opposed by the prosecution but this was not heard by the
trial court.
 Neither did the accused invoke the right to bail at any stage of the
trial. Ultimately, they were convicted.
 Now, they claim that there were serious errors of law that happened
while the case was still pending before the court. Among which was
that the case was continuing without hearing the petition for bail.
 What should the court do for offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua, life imprisonment or death when an application for bail is
filed?
o Of course, the court must hear the petition to determine
whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong or
not in order to determine to grant or deny the bail.
 In this case, the trial court proceeded to try the case without resolving
the petition for bail they filed but the accused did not call the
attention of the court to the unresolved application for bail.
 It was only on appeal that they raised this issue. Because they failed
to raise this and they did so only after appeal when they were already
convicted, their failure to do so is already considered a waiver of their
right to bail.
 They can no longer petition for bail before the court because they
were already convicted in the trial court.
 So, in the appellate court, their problem with the ruling with the court
there, in so far as the bail proceedings is concerned, can no longer be
resolved by the court because the proceedings thereof had already
been terminated.
 Thus, the issue had been rendered academic by their conviction.
 So, bail is a waivable right.
7. READ: ANNOTATION ON BAIL 260 SCRA 161
RIGHT TO BAIL 647 SCRA 613 (2011)
VIII. RIGHTS DURING TRIAL
—Art, III, sec. 14
 We’re still in the rights of the accused. If you’re already an accused,
there is already a case pending before the court. In the information,
you are arraigned, there’s a case against you to be held to determine
whether or not you are liable for a criminal offense.
 So, after arraignment, pre-trial and then, you go to trial.
 Do you have rights during trial? Do accused have rights?
o YES.
Why are accused given rights?
 As you learned already in criminal law that the state can use its
powers that is why its powers have to be limited through the
installation of these rights so that your person will be preserved, your
rights will remain, you will not be abused while the process is
continuing.
o It is very difficult if we do not have these rights. That is
why we are given such rights at that stage. Otherwise,
19 | P a g e
what would happen is that the State would be able to
convict us even if their eyes were closed.
 On trial, you are already in court to present evidence.
 Who presents first?
o It is the prosecution.
o The one alleging the information that the accused
committed and the State will prove the elements present
to establish the case.
 The State is the one alleging then later on, after it rest its case, it will
be the turn of the defense to present evidence. That is the general
process.
 It can only be reversed if the accused admits to the commission of
offense but raises exceptional circumstances.
Where can you find that rights during right as the accused? It is in Article 3,
Section 14.
ARTICLE III • SECTION 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 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.
 The last sentence is about trial in absentia which is allowed provided
that you will not appear but you will be notified the court will not wait
for you as long as your reason for non-appearance was justifiable.
 Now let us go to the 10 rights covered by this provision:
(1) Right to due process;
(2) Right to presumption of innocence;
(3) Right to be heard;
(4) Right to have counsel;
(5) Right to be informed;
(6) Right to speedy trial;
(7) Right to an impartial trial;
(8) Right to a public trial;
(9) Right to meet witnesses; and
(10) Right to compulsory process.
1. Due Process in Criminal Cases
 Right to be afforded the process entitled to an accused in that stage,
during trial.
 This due process is not substantive due process but rather procedural
due process. You have to follow the proper procedure.
 What are the elements of procedural due process which are
applicable to criminal cases?
There are four:
1. There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power
to hear and decide to hear the case.
o They must acquire a jurisdiction over you that have the
power to hear your case.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o Otherwise, if they do not have jurisdiction in the first
place, its judgement will be void and could not be binding
on you.
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person accused and
over the offense.
o The court must have the jurisdiction over the offense
meaning it can impose the penalty in the law against you
if you are found guilty.
o And of course, for the penalty to be enforced on you the
court must have lawfully acquired jurisdiction over your
person.
How is it done?
 Either you are arrested and you are presented to court then arraigned
or you voluntarily surrendered and presented to the court.
 If you were not arraigned and you are at large, the case will not
continue.
 Arraignment stage is very important, that is why if there is a case, the
State should pursue the enforcement of the warrant of arrest.
 Otherwise, all the witnesses might die yet the case haven’t continued.
 So, the court must acquire jurisdiction over your person.
 If it does not, then the judgment will not be binding on you. Because
if it will not acquire jurisdiction over your person, you will not be able
to present the evidence, how would you know that the case is already
going on, if it did not acquire jurisdiction over your person.
3. The accused must be given an opportunity to be heard.
o It is normal due process, so that you can give your side of
your story. It should not be one-sided that only the State
can be heard. You must be given an opportunity heard.
4. Judgement must be rendered on lawful hearings.
o Among the requirements, is that the court must be
impartial and the proper process is followed
CASE —
ALONTE VS. SAVELLANO 287 SCRA 245 (1998)
FACTS:
 Information for rape was filed against the accused here. They raped
this girl. Later on the victim, assisted by her parents, executed an
affidavit of desistance.
 What is this affidavit of desistance?
o You are no longer interested in proceeding with the case,
you are no longer willing to testify. But you are not saying
that the accused is innocent
 What were the reasons of the victim?
o The legal process was so slow, during the entire period of
the case, her parents no longer have a job and cannot live
in the locality because apparently the accused here is a
Mayor in that locality.
 During the trial, the Court asked the victim here to confirm the
voluntariness and validity of her affidavit of desistance.
 The victim here affirmed indeed that she is no longer interested in
the case. Thereafter, the accused moved for the dismissal of the case
against him.
 After the motion for dismissal, the Court set the case for decision. In
other words, the accused was no longer given the opportunity
because the decision was already set.
 Later on, they were convicted because they were not able to present
their own evidence.
ISSUE: So was there anything wrong in this case?
20 | P a g e
RULING:
 Of course, the SC remanded the case to another court for further
proceedings.
 The Court noted the strange way the case proceeded. The accused
were not able to present any count-prevailing evidence during the
trial. They left everything to the so-called desistance of the
complainant.
o So, there was no trial here that was conducted the by the
court. All that happened was the court determining the
validity of the validity and voluntariness of the desistance.
There was an undue perspicacity of the conduct of the
proceedings.
What are the requirements of due process in criminal proceedings?
1. There must be an impartial and competent court with judicial
power to hear and determine the matter before it
2. Jurisdiction of the court over the accused
3. The accused must be given an opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment rendered only upon lawful hearing
 The third requirement of procedural due process was denied from
the accused because there was no hearing instituted in the court
given them the opportunity to present their side.
 The Court also noted the order of trial in criminal cases in criminal
cases under the Rules of Court:
1. First, the prosecution presents evidence to prove the charge
2. Second, the accused may present evidence to prove its defense
3. Third, the parties may only then respectively present their
rebutting evidence.
 After admission of the evidence, the court will either admit it or not.
Upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted
for decision unless the court directs the parties to argue orally or
submit memoranda.
 That is the general procedure. Here what happened?
o After the prosecution, the decision already set. So, the
accused was not given the opportunity to present his
evidence.
 Let’s also talk about the affidavit of desistance because it may be used
as tool to defeat criminal prosecution. Well we cannot deny that for
practical purposes, that’s what the parties do when they no longer
want to prosecute. They’re just “just pay me instead so that I will no
longer appear in three successive hearings or more”.
 And failure to prosecute will dismiss the case. That’s the reality.
 Now, if there’s an issue in so far as the affidavit of desistance is
concerned,
o For example, the affidavit of desistance is the only piece
of evidence relied upon by the court and it dismissed the
case.
o Is that a valid ruling?
 As a general rule, affidavit of desistance are
frowned upon. It is because there are several
factors that surround such affidavit: tainted,
the voluntariness of the accused.
 As a general rule, it is not enough to cause the
dismissal of the case.
 Except if it is the only piece of evidence that the
prosecution was able to present. If the only
piece of evidence that the prosecution can
present is the testimony of that person, and
that person deists from proceeding with the
case, the case will really be dismissed because
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
there can no longer be evidence. There’s no
more.
 That is the only exception. That the court will
consider the affidavit of desistance in deciding
the dismissal of the case.
 Going back to the case, he is denied due process because the accused
were not given the opportunity to present their evidence.
PEOPLE VS. MACARANG 424 SCRA 18 (2005)
FACTS:
 The accused here was charged with the crime of qualified rape which
is punishable by death.
 After pre-trial, the prosecution proceeded with the presentation of
evidence and thereafter, the accused present their defences.
 However, when they were supposed to present their evidence, there
were so many cancellations of times when they were to present their
evidences.
 Normally, the court schedules that. Like if both parties are available,
then the court would make a time agreed by both parties. So those
times where the parties agreed to present their evidences, the
Defence’s lawyer was always absent.
 Later on, the court got pissed because of such, so as a consequence,
the court told the parties that if they are absent at the time of the
presentation of evidence, “your opportunity to present your
evidence is deemed waived.” and the Court will eventually decide the
case based on the evidences presented by whoever was able to
present its evidence. So that happened.
 When the trial day came, the defence’s counsel was absent which
prompted the court to declare that the accused has deemed to have
waived his right to present evidence and the case was deemed
submitted for resolution.
 The counsel here was always absent. In fact in this case, the lawyer
moved for withdrawal as counsel which was granted by the court.
 There are two notable instances here:
(1) The accused was not able to present his evidence;
(2) The counsel of the accused has withdrawn as counsel.
 So the accused was convicted. And this reached to the Supreme
Court. One of the arguments was that he was denied due process.
ISSUE: Is he correct?
RULING: YES.
 The court is aware of the usual practice of judges in warning a party
in a case that he will be considered to have waived his right if he will
not present his evidence in the next hearing of the scheduled
hearings.
o That is allowed but in criminal cases where the imposable
penalty is death. The presiding judge is called to see to it that
the accused is made aware of the consequences of not heeding
the warning given by the trial court.
 So what the court failed to do here was to inform the accused that he
must show or that if he is not going to find another lawyer, and that
if he is not going to present his evidence, you will lose the opportunity
because it will be considered deemed waived.
 Did the accused here intend to waive his right?
o NO. It was the court that decided that the accused waived his
right.
 Why was he not able to present his evidence?
o Not because he did not want to present the same, but that he
was not ready especially his counsel.
21 | P a g e
 So, a simple warning to the accused that the next
time he will not be ready with his defense evidence,
he will be deemed to have waived his right to
present it. That did not satisfy his constitutional right
to due process.
 What the court should have done was to first apprise the accused and
explain to him in clear terms and exact nature and consequences of
the waiver.
 And the court should have satisfied itself that the accused
understood the courts action. Moreover, the accused counsel here
has withdrawn and the court should have provided the accused with
counsel de oficio.
 Considering all of these, the court said that he was deprived of his
right to due process.
ANNOTATION — DUE PROCESS — 287 SCRA 314
DIMARUCUT VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 659 (2010)
FACTS:
 Here, the accused was charged with frustrated murder and the trial
court promulgated its decision convicting him of frustrated homicide.
 So, he was convicted and he filed an appeal.
 Upon receiving the notice to trial, the CA ordered them to file the
appellant’s brief.
 The counsel of the accused here, always asks for extensions for
several reasons. He is a counsel de parte.
o What is the difference between counsel de parte and
counsel de oficio?
 Counsel de parte is a private counsel, a counsel
secured by the party by his own will and choice.
 Counsel de oficio is a counsel appointed by the
court to assist you.
 So, this counsel de parte moved for several extensions to file his
appellant’s claim. However, the claim was never filed.
 So, the court filed a resolution dismissing the appeal. The conviction
was affirmed.
 The accused filed for a motion for reconsideration claiming that it was
the fault of his lawyer.
o This was denied by the CA.
 The case reached the SC on the ground that he was denied of his right
to due process not being able to file this appeal because of his
lawyer’s fault.
ISSUE: Was he denied due process?
RULING: NO.
 The power of the appellate court to dismiss the appeal is consistent
with the provision of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure. (Rule
124, Sec. 8, Par. 1)
o Sec 8. Dismissal of appeal for abandonment or failure to
prosecute. The Court of Appeals may, upon motion of the
appellee or motu proprio and with notice to the appellant
in either case, dismiss the appeal if the appellant fails to
file his brief within the time prescribed by this Rule, except
where the appellant is represented by a counsel de oficio.
 So, it is allowed under the rules. There is, however, a nuance in this
case because under the rules, there should be a notice to the party
that the court will be dismissing the appeal.
o In other words, before the courts can dismiss your appeal,
it must first notify you that it be dismissed. You will be
asked to explain why your appeal should not be dismissed.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 That is where the accused anchored his
argument. Saying that: “I am not notified that
the court will be dismissing my case. Under the
rules, there should be notice that it will dismiss
my case. Therefore, there is a violation of the
right to due process.”
 Is it correct?
o The court said that, indeed it was true. It is required in the
rules for the appellate court to notify the accused that his
appeal would be dismissed.
 But here, that lack of notice did not invalidate the CA’s dismissal of
the appeal. Why?
o First of all, you were given a total of 4 extensions to file
the appellant’s brief.
o What is the purpose of that notice to dismiss your appeal
anyway?
 To give you a chance to explain why you filed
the appeal.
o Here, he was given 4 times of extension to file his appeal.
By that, he should not have been shocked of the result.
 More importantly, we note that he was able to file a motion for
reconsideration. And that cured the notice requirement. Why?
o In that MR, he was able to explain why his appeal should
not be dismissed.
 Therefore, no violation of due process.
 What is important to know is that the right to appeal is not a
constitutional right, not a natural right, but a statutory right.
o Which means that this is not something that you can claim
as a matter of right but a privilege
o This is a right that imposes requirements that you have to
follow. If you fail to follow, you are deemed to have not
availed of the right.
 Again, it is not a violation of your right to due process because the
right to appeal is not even a constitutional right.
— Appeal LAI VS. PEOPLE 761 SCRA 156 (2015)
FACTS:
 The accused here was charged with homicide.
 He was convicted by the trial court and his conviction was sustained
by the CA.
 Now, before the SC the accused argues that he was denied due
process. Why?
o Because the person who prosecuted him was now the
judge that decided the case.
 When asked to comment, the judge in the trial court said that he was
not actually the one who prosecuted the case, I only came into the
picture only after the presentation of evidence and the prosecutor
retired. He only continued the case.
o In other words, his entry into the case proceedings was
not during the presentation of evidence but rather after
the same.
o So, when he became the judge, he decided in that case,
which he is prosecuting, there was no bias. Therefore,
there was no need for me to inhibit, there was no denial
of due process.
ISSUE: Was there a violation of the right to due process?
RULING: YES.
 Why?
22 | P a g e
o Because what is required is the right to an impartial
tribunal. Not only in actual impartiality but in appearance.
 What about the participation of the judge here?
o Prior to the accused’s conviction, he was assigned as the
public prosecutor in the branch where the case was heard.
And later on, he was appointed as the Judge. He was the
prosecutor.
o Definitely, you can see your submissions.
o Being a prosecutor and now that you are already the judge,
will you claim that your evidences against the accused are
wrong?
 Of course, you approve yourself. Otherwise,
that would be weird that you would claim that
you are wrong.
 So that’s what happened here.
 Why did he not inhibit in the case?
o As we said earlier, because he did not personally
prosecute the case. And this was affirmed by the CA.
 These justifications, however, are not meritorious.
 The constitutional right to due process cannot be denied to the
accused. An essential part of the right is to be afforded a just and fair
trial before his conviction.
 Any violation of the right cannot be condoned, for the impartiality of
the judge who sits on and hears a case, and decides it is an
indispensable requisite of procedural due process. “the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge”
 When is there an injustice?
o When you would know that you will be convicted in that
court. Why will you go to court knowing that you will be
convicted?
 That is why it is very importance for the courts to not only be impartial
but also to appear to the public to be impartial. Otherwise, the people
will have not faith in the courts.
 Here, there are 2 situations or instances under the Rules of Court
where a judge must and may inhibit.
o Inhibit – he cannot continue hearing the case.
(1) Those instances where it is mandatory; and
(2) Voluntary inhibition.
 What are the instances that his inhibition is mandatory?
o If he acted as executor, administrator, guardian, trustee or
counsel, or in which he has presided in any inferior court.
(BEFORE HE BECAME A JUDGE)
 The second type of instances. (Voluntary)
o A judge may, in the exercise of his sound discretion,
disqualify himself from sitting in a case.
 Some judges want that. “hay salamat! Lesser
ang load.”
 What was the inhibition that was present here?
o The 1st type – Mandatory inhibition because the Judge was
the counsel of the prosecution of this case. And now he
will be deciding on the same case that he prosecuted.
 That defeats the right to an impartial tribunal.
There is denial of the right of the accused.
 The case was remanded for the proper hearing before the
appropriate judge.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
2. Presumption of innocence
 You are presumed to be innocent if you are an accused.
 Why is it that you are presumed to be not guilty?
o We go back to the premise that when you are the accused,
your adversary is the State.
o The state has to prove your guilt, it is not you proving your
innocence.
o Otherwise, it would be unfair on the part of the accused.
 Example is that you do not have resources, whatever, beggar there
charged of a made up offense, and then you have to prove that you
are not guilty. That goes against the natural order of things. You
should be presumed innocent.
 So much so if the state fails to prove your guilt you will be acquitted.
It is the burden of the state to prove your guilt beyond reasonable
doubt considering that it has all the power to do so. It cannot be
reversed. So, that is the general rule.
 Now, there are instances, however, when there is a presumption
that when you already committed something, the law will already
install a presumption against you.
 In some cases, malversation, if you are a public officer charged with
collecting money. And you are demanded by other authority to
produce some funds and you are not able to produce the funds, you
are presumed to have malversed it.
 What’s the scenario?
So let’s make a clearer picture.
(Illustration):
o You are a treasurer in a Municipality, so you do the
accounting and you disburse the money. And then, there is
an audit, and it was discovered that there’s a shortage
which means that you cannot account the amount you are
supposed to account for. It was found out that there is
lacking of cash, so there is a balance, which would be
considered as a shortage.
o And now, the Commission on Audit issued a notice of
suspension, notice of disallowance, and later on they would
issue a demand letter, for you to produce the amount. If
after the demand, and after the period you were given by
the demand letter and you were not able to produce the
sum, there is a presumption now that you since you cannot
account for it, you cannot present it you must have spent it
somewhere because if you were able to account for it then
there is no reason for the presumption to attach.
o Malversation is very difficult to prove because the State is
supposed to do actual conversion. It should be transparent
where the money was spent but these things get easier if
there is a demand for the production of the fund and you
are not able to do so. Otherwise, it is presumed that you
have malversed it.
o Another example is anti-fencing, buying a stolen good. If it
is in your possession, there is a presumption that you fence
it; you bought it from someone who stole it from the owner.
Are these presumptions valid?
Are they not contrary to the presumption of innocence?
Are you not supposed to be presumed innocent?
If it is malversation, you are presumed to have stolen the money. Is that not
countering the presumption of innocence?
o These presumptions are valid because the fact presumed
is but a natural inference from the fact that proved, so that
it cannot be settled if there is a rational connection
23 | P a g e
between the two. There is rational reason why the
presumption is there.
 Presumption of malversation - you could produce the amount so it is
presumed that you stole it. Because otherwise, you can account for
the amount lost.
Why do these presumptions of a fact not violate the Constitution?
1. THE PRESUMPTION IS ONLY PRIMA FACIE, meaning it is still
subject to rebuttal, it can still be overturned by the accused; and
also
2. THERE IS A LOGICAL RELATION OR CONNECTION BETWEEN THE
FACT PROVED AND THE FACT PRESUMED.
 As a general rule, you are presumed innocent.
What happens if you admit the offense?
 For example murder, and then you claim self-defence, does the State
has to prove that you killed with all the elements of the crime present?
You already admitted to the offense.
Let’s make it different.
 For example, malversation. You took public funds and stole it and
then you claim “I did not steal it. Someone else stole it. ” So you admit
that the funds are missing but that someone else stole it. A thief went
to the office, stole everything.
 In that instance, the State has nothing to prove because you already
admitted that something is missing. You’re accountable for it; it’s just
that someone else did it and not you.
March 14, 2019
CASES –
Skipped: BIRAOGO VS. PHIL TRUTH 637 SCRA 78 (2010)
Does not have anything to do with the right to presumption of innocence.
LEJANO VS. PEOPLE 638 SCRA 104 (2010)
What is this right to be presumed innocent?
Facts:
 Lejano v. People is about the Vizconde massacre.
 There was a movie about this criminal act, rape and murder by a
group of people and one of the accused is the son of former Senator
Webb.
 Because of the extensive media mileage that this case experienced,
the minds of the people are already conditioned to the fact that the
accused committed the offense.
(If you will see a show in which this person is being raped and this case
was still pending before the appellate courts. So, you form an opinion
that this accused is guilty man. Someone was raped in the movie,
whoever was that woman, who was the star in the Vizconde massacre
movie.)
 And now, there were many incidents in this case. There was this star
witness, Alfaro. Convicted in trial court and then raised on appeal
before the Supreme Court.
o What did the Supreme Court do? The Supreme Court
acquitted the accused.
 Why?
o The main reason why the SC acquitted Lejano et al in the
case was because of the unreliable testimony of the star
witness which was Lejano.
 The Court here had a very little discussion on the importance of the
DNA evidence because this was also relevant. There was this DNA
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
sample, it was supposed to be tested and compared to the DNA of
the accused but the sample went missing.
 This prompted the defence to file a motion for the acquittal of the
accused which led ultimately to the acquittal not because of the
missing DNA evidence but because of Alfaro’s testimony.
 What does this case have to do with our topic?
o The discussion on the presumption of innocence is
extensively written in the concurring opinion of former
Chief Justice Sereno. She emphasizes that at the core of
our criminal justice system is the presumption of
innocence of the accused until proven guilty.
 Reminding us that we were acquainted with the painful reality that
the rights of the accused to a fair trial were violated with impunity by
an unchecked authority in our not so distant history (Marcos era).
o There were so many abuses during that time, like the lack
of fair trial. That is why; we need to strengthen our
institutions like the observance of our rights.
 There were several prosecutorial mishaps done in this case which she
emphasized.
 Take note that there is this settled authority insofar as the guilt of the
accused: “It’s better to set free 100 guilty men than to convict 1
innocent person”.
 The Constitution declares that the risk of letting the guilty walk free
would be error in the side of justice but its outcome is infinitely better
than imprisoning an innocent person.
 Now why do we have this presumption of innocence?
o It’s because of the awesome powers of the State. It is the
burden, the duty of the State, armed with of its powers
and resources to prove that this person is guilty beyond
reasonable doubt.
o It’s not for the accused, faced with all of these obstacles,
to prove that he is innocent. It’s the State that proves that
the accused is guilty.
 What were the things discussed by the former Chief Justice here?
o The mishandling and the withholding of the evidence in
this case, particularly the DNA sample.
o As well as of course, she also banked on the majority
opinion as well as the testimony of Alfaro.
 But more on the DNA evidence, the failure of the prosecution to
preserve the evidence violated the rights of the accused here. His
right to access the evidence necessitates the correlative duty of the
prosecution to produce and permit the inspection of the evidence
and not to suppress or alter it.
 What happened to the DNA evidence? What would be the
importance of the DNA?
o It was the semen that was taken from the vagina of the
rape victim here and it could have proved the identity as
to the person who committed the same.
o So if it was tested and then the accused would also be
tested, and if the result would not match, then definitely
none of them (the accused) is guilty.
 The proof that could have resulted from the finding would have
placed reasonable doubt on the mind of the Court.
 And what is on place if there is reasonable doubt?
o You will be acquitted.
o That is how the defence works.
o That is why the job of the prosecution is very difficult, to
remove all reasonable doubts on the mind of the Court.
o So as the defence lawyer, your only job would be to put
that reasonable doubt to the mind of the Court.
24 | P a g e
 Now, here, because of the missing DNA evidence, then it is now
difficult to prove the very vital information.
 What the defence was after when they sought DNA testing was
neither to prove nor disprove the commission of the rape but rather
to pinpoint the identity of the assailant. In this case, the semen or the
spermatozoa was in fact, obtained and it did possess exculpatory
potential that may be beneficial to the accused.
 So, it was supposed to be in the possession of the NBI and when it
was sought to be presented in the trial court, the DNA sample was
not offered as evidence.
 So it was deposited somewhere, at NBI but then, it was not there and
presumed to be at Court, yet was not found at Court too, it was
missing (by a miracle), it suddenly disappeared.
 So because of this mishandling according to former Chief Justice, this
was a material because it deprived the accused their rights, among
others, the right to present evidence on their behalf.
 So that was just in our discussion, in the main opinion, the basis for
the acquittal was the unreliability of the testimony of the Alfaro. So
there is a violation of the accused's rights that resulted in his failure
to secure a just trial as such judgment of conviction cannot stand.
DEL CASTILLO VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 450 (2012)
 Talks about a search; there was a search warrant because there was
a report that people here were with drugs.
 So, the search warrant specifies the place where the search is to be
conducted and the police went there, led by Barangay tanods.
 When they went to the place, one of the accused saw the police and
ran towards a hut.
 The police searched the place with a search warrant but they were
not able to find the contraband. But since they found one of the
accused, they chased him. And in a small hut, which apparently
belonged to this accused, they found sachets of shabu.
 So they used these pieces of shabu to charge this accused with illegal
possession of illegal drugs.
 He disclaimed here that the sachets are inadmissible as evidence
because it was a result of an illegal search. The Court said that they
are excluded as evidence.
 Why? Where was the search conducted?
o The search warrant only specifies to search this particular
place, this house. So when they made the search on the
hut, it is not part of the extent of the search warrant.
Therefore, it was a warrantless search conducted.
 Did it fall under any of the exceptions to the general rule?
o NO. The accused was not arrested there so none of the
exceptions happened when the search in the hut
happened.
o So whatever was taken there should be inadmissible as
evidence because it is a product of an unlawful search, not
being one done with a search warrant and not falling
under any of the exceptions to the general rule.
 Insofar as the presumption of innocence issue here is concerned, the
case against the accused is about the possession of shabu.
What are the elements of illegal possession of shabu?
1. He is found in possession of the regulated drug.
2. The person is not authorized by law to possess the same;
3. He had knowledge that the drug is a regulated drug.
 So it is incumbent upon the prosecution to show the property or the
contraband was under his possession or control.
 The evidence presented by the prosecution was a presumption that
this hut belongs to the accused because there were items which
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
belonged to his profession which was a mechanic, electrician. That
was the proof of the State. Therefore, because it is his hut, there is a
constructive possession.
 The Court said that this was not enough.
 The prosecution must prove that the accused has knowledge of the
existence and presence of the drugs in the place under his control and
dominion and the character of the drugs.
 They failed to prove that the nipa hut was under petitioner's control
and dominion, therefore it casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt.
 Take note that in considering a criminal case, it is critical to start with
the law's own starting perspective on the status of the accused – that
is in all criminal prosecutions, he is presumed innocent of the charge
laid unless the contrary is proven beyond reasonable doubt. That
presumption was not overcome in this case.
PEOPLE VS. MARARAO 674 SCRA 151 (2012)
Facts:
 The accused here were two people talking to each other and then
they were able to see two policemen. Now, one of the accused had a
bag and upon noticing the policemen going towards them, one ran
away. He was not apprehended.
 Meanwhile, the man who was left behind dropped a maroon bag on
the pavement. That is based on the testimony of the prosecution
witness. And so, he was charged with possession of drugs and they
were convicted.
ISSUE: And so, they raised the issue, before the appellate court, the failure
of the prosecution to establish by proof beyond reasonable doubt.
HELD:
 Court believed them. They were acquitted.
 What was the reason, why were they acquitted?
 Because there was a reasonable doubt cast on the mind of the Court
here.
 What was that?
o The conflicting testimonies of the police officers who
apprehended one of the accused.
 Why?
o In their joint affidavit, the arresting officers wrote that the
maroon bag was left behind by the man who ran away.
o But in the trial, what was stated by the accused was that
the bag was dropped by the person who did not run away.
So, there is an inconsistency as to who really possessed
the bag.
 Now that they made up their mind, the Court had a doubt regarding
as to who really possessed the bag.
 Now, what happens in a criminal case?
o If your counsel is stupid, whatever, and you were not able
to present evidence.
 Is it automatic that you will be convicted because you were not able
to prove your innocence?
o As we emphasized earlier, you are presumed innocent.
Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that
you are guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
 Now if it fails to do so, even if you were not able to present evidence,
you will be acquitted.
 In conviction, the presumption of innocence of an accused in a
criminal case is a basic constitutional principle.
 Conviction, therefore, must rest on the strength of the
prosecution’s evidence and not on the weakness of the defence.
25 | P a g e
 In this case, the prosecution’s evidence failed to overcome the
presumption of innocence, and thus, appellant is entitled to an
acquittal.
DUNGO VS. PEOPLE 761 SCRA 375 (2015)
FACTS:
 This is a 2015 case on hazing of Marlon Villanueva and he died in the
hazing.
 The first case that we discussed about hazing was ADM vs. Capulong,
where the victim there died and there was a law passed in his
memory to punish hazing activities.
 Now, apparently, 2006, there was another hazing that happened,
which someone also died. They were members of APO Fraternity and
the victim died.
 Now, the accused here Dungo and Sibal, were charged before the
court for having violated the Anti-Hazing Law (RA No. 8049) and they
were convicted.
 Before the SC, they claimed that there was a violation of their right to
due process, particularly on their right to be informed of the charges.
 Why?
o The information against them states that they were
actively participating, did then and there wilfully,
unlawfully and feloniously assault and use personal
violence against the victim. So, they were there. They
were the ones committing the physical violence.
 But during trial, what was proved was that they merely induced the
victim. They did not do the physical harm but they merely invited or
convinced the victim to go this hazing activity/ rites.
 Therefore, there was inconsistency because they did not participate
in the actual physical harm but they merely induced the victim. And
because of this, they should be acquitted because they were not
informed of the charges.
ISSUE: Are they correct?
HELD:
 The Court here affirmed their conviction.
 Hazing is penalized under RA 8049.
 Is hazing mala in se or mala prohibita offense? (Because it is a special
law, is it automatically mala prohibita?)
o There is a discussion in this case regarding the nature of
hazing
o And it is actually mala prohibita because it is prohibited by
a special law.
o But just because it is prohibited by a special law, it does
not automatically mean that it is mala prohibita. Because
there are certain offenses in the RPC (Presumption is RPC:
mala in se or inherently evil; Special law: mala prohibita),
that are considered to be only mala prohibita. Example is
technical malversation.
o What is technical malversation?
 You did not steal the money, but you used it to
some other public purpose.
 However, even if this is penalized by RPC, it is
prohibita.
 On the other hand, there are offenses that are
prohibited by special law, which are not by
themselves, automatically considered as mala
prohibita. Example is plunder. It is not evil
because it is punished by special law but it is
evil in itself. So it is mala in se.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 So what is the difference? It is important to distinguish.
o Because in mala in se, you have to prove criminal intent
whereas, if it is mala prohibita, intent is immaterial.
 Going back to the hazing, it is mala prohibita.
o So their defences of not having the intent for the incident
to happen, they are not relevant.
 So hazing is malum prohibitum/mala prohibita.
 Hazing is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission
into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing
the recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or
humiliating situations.
Elements of hazing:
1. That there is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for
admission into membership in a fraternity, sorority or
organization;
2. That there must be a recruit, neophyte or applicant of the
fraternity, sorority or organization; and
3. That the recruit, neophyte or applicant is placed in some
embarrassing or humiliating situations such as forcing him to do
menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or activities or
otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering
or injury.
However, the law itself does not prohibit all forms of initiation rites.
Initiation rites of fraternities, sororities or organizations may be allowed
provided that the following requisites are met:
1. That the fraternity, sorority or organization has a prior written
notice to the school authorities or head of organization;
2. The said written notice must be secured at least seven (7) days
before the conduct of such initiation;
3. That the written notice shall indicate:
a. The period of the initiation activities, which shall not
exceed three (3) days;
b. The names of those to be subjected to such
activities; and
c. An undertaking that no physical violence be
employed by anybody during such initiation rites.
Section 3 of R.A. No. 8049 imposes an obligation to
the head of the school or organization or their
representatives that they must assign at least two
(2) representatives, as the case may be, to be
present during these valid initiations. The duty of
such representative, is to see to it that no physical
harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a recruit,
neophyte or applicant.
 So, here, the victim died so definitely, there was physical harm that
happened.
 Now, in charging anyone for violating the Anti-Hazing Law, there are
several classes of principals. They are all principals, but they have
different participation in the commission.
o The first class is those who actually participated in the
hazing.
o The second class is those officers, former officers, alumni,
who actually planned the hazing.
o The third class are those officers or members of an
organization or fraternity who knowingly cooperated in
carrying out the hazing.
o And the last class are the parents of the officers or
members of the fraternity, group or organization, where
26 | P a g e
the hazing was held in the home of one of the officers or
members.
 The prescribed penalty on the principals depends on the extent of
injury inflicted to the victim.
 The law also provides for accomplices in the crime of hazing. The
school authorities, including faculty members, who consented to the
hazing or who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any
action to prevent the same from occurring shall be punished as
accomplices.
 It is a network participation. That is what we should take into
consideration in deciding in this case.
 Now, the issue on the process, particularly on the failure of the
prosecution here to specify their participation.
o Why? Because they claim in the information that the
charge of hazing was of ACTUAL participation, but during
trial it was proven that they ONLY INDUCED the accused.
 Is that a violation of their right to due process?
o The Court said that no, because the information itself also
states that the accused here participated during a planned
initiation rite.
o Because this phrase “during a planned initiation rite” is
broad enough to cover all the stages of hazing which
includes inducement.
 So because of this “planned initiation rite” which is stated in the
information, they were aware that they participated even in the
planning stage. Therefore, they cannot say that they were not able to
prepare the defences for what the information explicitly states as the
hazing here was planned, and they participated in it; in the planning
stage and in the actual execution.
 When is the information sufficient to sustain a criminal indictment?
o The test is whether it enables a person of common
understanding to know the charge against him, and the
court to render judgment properly.
 Was it sufficient here? Yes
o The Court agrees with the OSG that the "planned initiation
rite" as stated in the information included the act of
inducing Villanueva to attend it.
o In ordinary parlance, a planned event can be understood
to have different phases. Likewise, the hazing activity had
different stages and the perpetrators had different roles
therein, not solely inflicting physical injury to the
neophyte.
 What was their actual participation?
o They induced the victim. The hazing would not have
happened were it not for their inducement. And so, of
course, they are part of the entire scheme of things.
 Now, let’s talk about the issue on the presumption of innocence,
because it was stated in the Section 4, paragraph 6 of RA 8049 that:
o “Any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of
participation as principal, unless he prevented the
commission of the punishable acts.”
 What does that mean?
o If you are there, you are presumed that you are a principal
of the offense.
 Now, they argue that this provision is unconstitutional, because it
removes the presumption of innocence.
o By this provision you are already declared to be a
principal. That is the height of your participation.
 The Court said that this provision is not unconstitutional.
o This provision is unique because a disputable (meaning
not conclusive) presumption arises from the mere
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
presence of the offender during the hazing, which can be
rebutted by proving that the accused took steps to
prevent the commission of the hazing.
 It does not contravene the presumption of innocence.
o Why? Because before this presumption hatches to you,
there are acts that you should prove.
o It does not automatically mean that you are guilty just
because it was stated in the information that you were
there.
o There’s still a process to be done in the trial court which
is, among others, the prosecution has to prove that (1) you
are actually there and after that (2) you will have the
opportunity to rebut the same.
 The petitioners attempted to attack the constitutionality of Section 4
of R.A. No. 8049 before the CA but, did not succeed. "[A] finding of
prima facie evidence x x x does not shatter the presumptive
innocence the accused enjoys because, before prima facie evidence
arises, certain facts have still to be proved; the trial court cannot
depend alone on such evidence, because precisely, it is merely prima
facie. It must still satisfy that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the offense charged. Thus, the provision is valid.
Now we are done with the cases under the presumption of innocence. Let’s
proceed to the right to be heard personally or by counsel. Because before
you have to attend there, you have the right to be heard otherwise, what
would be the point?
ANNOTATION — 569 SCRA 903
3. Right to be heard personally or by counsel
 It pertains to the right of the accused to present evidence in his behalf
which includes the right to testify in his favor, the right to call
witnesses, and the right to be given reasonable opportunity to
present witnesses.
CASES –
PEOPLE VS. SIONGCO 623 SCRA 501 (2010)
FACTS:
 We have here persons charged with kidnapping, and so they were
apprehended. They were charged with kidnapping and serious illegal
detention under the RPC.
 Now before in the trial stage of their prosecution, the RTC appointed
Atty. Moralde as the counsel de oficio during their pre-trial
conference, direct examination and cross-examination. This was so,
despite Atty. Moralde’s manifestation during one of the witnesses’
cross-examination that the defense of his actual client conflicts with
that of the other accused.
 In other words, the interest of one of the persons accused is not
consistent or similar to the other accused.
 So they say that this lawyer was biased to that person.
ISSUE: Is there a violation of the right to counsel here?
HELD: NO.
 The Court said that no, there was no denial of the right to counsel in
this case where a counsel de oficio is appointed during the absence
of the accused's counsel de parte, or in this case the regular counsel
de oficio.
 Who appoints this counsel de oficio?
o It is the court.
27 | P a g e
 Why is it necessary that a court must appoint the counsel de oficio?
Or can the accused delay the proceedings by not yet having a counsel
of his personal choice?
o The Court said no, that cannot be done.
o The choice of counsel by the accused in a criminal
prosecution is not a plenary one. If the chosen counsel
deliberately makes himself scarce, the court is not
precluded from appointing a de oficio counsel, which it
considers competent and independent, to enable the trial
to proceed until the counsel of choice enters his
appearance. Otherwise, the pace of a criminal prosecution
will be entirely dictated by the accused, to the detriment
of the eventual resolution of the case. Hence, the court
can appoint a counsel de oficio.
 Now what about the conflicting defenses here of the counsel that
assisted the accused?
o It is immaterial, because at the first place Atty. Moralde
expressly declared that the questions he propounded to
one of the witnesses were only for one of his
clients/accused.
o Thereafter, there was another lawyer (Atty. Antoniano)
who appear for the other accused, and she was furnished
with copies of the transcript of stenographic notes of the
proceedings she missed and was given ample opportunity
to conduct her own cross-examination during the
subsequent hearings.
o So there was another lawyer who assisted the persons
accused. Thus, they cannot deny that they were denied of
their right to counsel.
o Eventually, she adopted the cross-examination conducted
by the other defence counsels. So the persons accused
here were indeed guided in the entire proceedings.
MILLA VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 309 (2012)
 Milla was charged with two counts of estafa through falsification of
public documents.
 After the prosecution rested its case, Milla filed before the court a
demurrer to evidence.
 What is this demurrer to evidence?
o It is a pleading you file before the court after the
prosecution rests its case to convince the court that the
prosecution was not able to prove your guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
o It’s like a test which is shown to the court as to whether
the prosecution fulfilled that.
o If it will be granted by the Court, it will not continue
anymore with the proceedings. Right then and there, the
Court will end the trial and have it resolved; submit the
case for resolution. That is the effect of a demurrer to
evidence.
 Take note of the nuance. If you will file a demurrer to evidence
without leave of court, meaning you asked permission to the court,
like a permission to leave.
 You say that you are filing a demurrer of evidence.
 If you do that, and you also file your demurrer, there will be no
problem because, what happens when your demurrer was denied by
the court?
o The case will continue and will lobby your part to present
your defence evidence.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 What is scary, however, is when you file your demurrer evidence
without legal court. Why?
o You are confident; you will no longer ask permission from
the court because you just file it without leave of court, if
your demurrer to evidence is denied in that criminal case,
you will be deemed to have waived your right to present
defence evidence.
 So, what is the lesson?
o Always file a demurrer to evidence with leave or court.
o Anyway, here, the demurrer file was with leave of court.
The RTC denied the demurrer.
 What does that mean?
o The case will proceed and now the defence will present its
evidence and order the accused to present evidence.
o But, he failed to do so despite having been granted the
opportunity.
o Considering that he failed to present, the court
considered that actuation as waiver of the right to present
evidence.
o Nevertheless, it allowed the accused to file a
memorandum. Memorandum is that paper where you
write all your arguments etc. more like a memorial so the
court may see your position.
o He was not able to present defence evidence but he was
allowed to file a memorandum. Then, when the case was
decided, the court found him guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the charges.
o Now, he prayed before the Supreme Court that he was not
assisted by his counsel - his right to counsel was violated
during the trial because of the negligence of his lawyer.
o Because of the negligence of his lawyer, he was deprived
of due process.
ISSUE: Was he denied of due process?
HELD: NO.
 What is the rule on the negligence of the counsel?
o The general rule is that the mistake of the counsel binds
the client.
o And, the exception is that when in instances when the
negligence is so gross and palpable, the courts must step
in to grant relief to the aggrieved client.
o So, that is the required level of being dumb by a lawyer –
it must be gross or palpable.
o If there are simple and innocuous mistakes, it is not yet in
the level of gross negligence that will amount to process
violations.
 Was that the kind of negligence committed here?
o No.
 Is counsel here was able to file a demurrer to evidence?
o So, he was represented by that, and when it was
presented in the court but the same was denied, the
defence was still given the opportunity to present the
evidence.
o The demurrer was denied. *Now it's your turn*
o Now, that there were not able to present their evidence,
the court has no fault thereof. Because they can complain
the same. It is the fault of the lawyer.
o Nevertheless, even the defence failed to present an
evidence, the court still allowed them to submit a
memorandum for the interest of justice.
28 | P a g e
o And because of these considerations, the court said that
the court granted the accused the opportunity and he
even did so by filing a memorandum.
 So the accused was not denied of due process.
 The accused was given the opportunity to defend this case and he
was granted with concomitant reliefs cannot be said to be mistake
and negligence of his former counsel was so gross and palpable to
deprive him of due process.
PEOPLE VS. LARA 678 SCRA 332 (2012)
RE: Police Line-up, Right to counsel during custodial investigation,
 In a police line-up, as a rule, it is not yet custodial investigation.
Therefore, you do not have the right to counsel. You only have the
right to counsel during trial.
IBANEZ VS. PEOPLE 782 SCRA 291 (2016)
 Allegedly stabbing, hitting, and stoning Rodolfo. The accused here
were charged with frustrated homicide.
 Now, during the arraignment, they were assisted by counsel de
officio. And in the subsequent settings in the proceedings of the case,
they were represented by the counsel de oficio in arraignment, pre-
trial, trial.
 Now, there was one hearing, however, that the counsel de oficio was
not present. And, also, one of the accused was not present.
 There was a presentation of witnesses done by the prosecution.
 So the counsel of the defence was not around, so what was the
effect?
o Nobody will cross-examine.
 The accused was also absent so his right to participate in the
proceedings was waived.
 So all the testimony was admitted and there is no issue. Here, the
accused was convicted.
 One of their assertions to challenge the conviction was the cause of
their denial of the right to cross-examine the witnesses on that
specific date when the accused and their counsel were absent.
ISSUE: Is the admission of the testimonies of the witnesses of the
prosecution without being cross-examined is tantamount to denial of due
process? Were the accused here deprived of right to counsel?
HELD: NO.
 First of all, they were assisted by counsel de oficio in all of the stages
of the criminal proceedings.
 So, they were given such a lawyer. They were not only assisted by
counsel de oficio during arraignment, but also the counsel de oficio
actively participated in the proceedings before the trial court
including the direct cross-examination of the witnesses.
 Except for one hearing, where the court-appointed-lawyer was
absent and the prosecution was able to present their testimonies.
ISSUE: Is this already failure, miscarriage of justice? Was the due process
denied here?
HELD: NO.
 First of all, the right to cross examine is a waivable right and it is
waived when you do not appear, your lawyer did not appear.
 What is the essence? When is this right observed?
o When you are given the opportunity to cross-examine the
witness. The mere opportunity and not the actual cross-
examination is the essence of the right to cross-examine.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
ISSUE: Was the right to cross-examine denied in this case?
HELD: NO.
 Because it was their and their counsel's failure to be present when
the prosecution presented their witnesses. It constituted waiver of
their right to cross-examine.
 It is a fundamental right to cross-examine. However, this is a personal
right, which may be waived expressly or impliedly. Because the
accused and his counsel did not appear during cross-examination,
their right has been waived.
ISSUE: Is their waiver valid?
HELD:
 Of course, even if it is a constitutional right. So there was no denial of
the right to counsel nor the right to due process.
4. Right to free legal assistance
ARTICLE III • SECTION 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.
 The court is duty bound to inform the accused of his right before he
is arraigned. The court should inform that if you have no counsel, the
court will appoint a counsel de officio.
 He must ask him if he desires services of a counsel, if he does and he
was not able to get one, the court will assign him a counsel de officio.
 If the accused wishes to get a private counsel, the court must give him
time to obtain one.
 It is not enough for the court to apprise the accused of his right to
attorney, or to ask him whether he desires an aid of an attorney.
 It is essential that the court should assign one de officio. If he so
desires, the court must grant him enough time to procure an attorney
of his own.
 So, there was a guarantee, that even if you are poor, you are & you
will be given access to courts and given adequate legal assistance.
Poverty should not be the reason for your conviction.
CASE –
PEOPLE VS. RIO, 201 SCRA 702 (1991)
Re: Rape
FACTS:
 The accused here was convicted. He wanted to appeal but he could
not afford counsel.
 So, he filed a manifestation, manifesting his intention to withdraw his
appeal because he could no longer afford a counsel.
 This was seen by the court and in the appellate proceedings, the
SolGen represents the state, have seen the manifestation.
 The SolGen wrote a recommendation, appointed a counsel de oficio
on appeal because poverty should not be accrued anyone from
pursuing a cause.
 So, because of this, the case proceeded on its appeal.
 Now, the lawyer is different, who handles the appeal, and the theory
changed as well.
 The first theory of the counsel during trial was denial, but the new
counsel's theory was participation but with consent. The theory
became conflicting, which ultimately led to the affirmance of the
conviction of the accused.
ISSUE: The provision of a counsel to someone, who cannot afford the same.
29 | P a g e
HELD:
 The court emphasized that that should be done because that is
mandated by Article III Sec. 11 of the Constitution. It is a law of rulers
and for people equally etc.
 Why should you be assisted by counsel?
o The SC said: Even the most intelligent or educated man
may have no skill in the science of law particularly in the
Rules of Procedure.
o And without counsel, he may be convicted, not because
he is guilty but because he does not know how to establish
his innocence.
o So, now that we have that constitutionally granted right,
what the courts require to do under the Rules of Court as
we discussed before?
 It is not enough for Courts to apprise the accused.
o “You want a lawyer?” It’s not enough for you to ask in the
question, but rather the court should assign one counsel
de oficio for him if he so desires and he is poor or grant
him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own.
 Does the right to a counsel de oficio cease upon the conviction of an
accused by a trial court?
o No, this right to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon
the conviction of an accused by a trial court. It continues,
even during appeal, such that the duty of the court to
assign a counsel de oficio persists where an accused
interposes an intent to appeal
 What if the court finds out that an indigent party withdraws his
appeal?
o It is the duty of the court to inquire for the reason of such
withdrawal.
o Even in a case, such as the one at bar, where the accused
had signified his intent to withdraw his appeal, the court
is required to inquire into the reason for the withdrawal.
o Where it finds the sole reason for the withdrawal to be
poverty, as in this case, the court must assign a counsel de
oficio, for despite such withdrawal, the duty to protect the
rights of the accused subsists and perhaps, with greater
reason. After all, "those who have less in life must have
more in law."
 Anyway, when the counsel de oficio was assigned, he lost. He actually
lost beforehand. But the thing is, he was given the right to due
process, counsel; he was allowed to take all the necessary procedures
before he was finally convicted.
MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)
 Same, access to legal assistance.
 The accused here filed a motion to be allowed to litigate as a pauper
on appeal. He was already convicted, but he didn’t have the money
to ask for the records continuing the case. So, he was considered as a
pauper and there were certain privileges granted to him (free access
to the transcript of records, stenographic notes, etc.).
 This motion to be allowed to litigate as a pauper was not granted by
the Court of Appeals. Why?
o When petitioner filed on 23 August 1994 (take note of the
dates) his original motion to appeal as pauper before the
appellate court the applicable rule according to the same
was the second paragraph of Sec. 16, rule 41, of the 1964
Revised Rules of Court, which provides-
Sec. 16. Appeal by pauper – Where a party desiring to appeal shall establish
to the satisfaction of the trial court that he is a pauper and unable to pay
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
the expenses of prosecuting the appeal, and that the case is of such
importance, by reason of the amount involved, or the nature of the question
raised, that it ought to be reviewed by the appellate court, the trial judge
may enter an order entitling the party to appeal as pauper. The clerk shall
transmit to the appellate court the entire record of the case, including the
evidence taken on trial and the record on appeal, and the case shall be
heard in the appellate court upon the original record so transmitted without
printing the same.
 When the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure came into effect on 1 July
1997 the provision above-quoted was not re-enacted. Section 21 of
Rule 3, as now worded, outlines the procedure for, as well as the
effects of, the grant of a motion to litigate as pauper -
Sec. 21. Indigent party. - A party may be authorized to litigate his action,
claim or defense as an indigent if the court, upon an ex parte application
and hearing, is satisfied that the party is one who has no money or property
sufficient and available for food, shelter and basic necessities for himself
and his family.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of docket and
other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic notes which the court
may order to be furnished him. The amount of the docket and other lawful
fees which the indigent was exempted from paying shall be a lien on any
judgment rendered in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court
otherwise provides (xxx). (added from the full text)
 On the other hand, Sec. 18 of Rule 141 prescribes the evidentiary
requirements for the exemption of pauper litigants from payment of
legal fees -
Sec. 18. Pauper-litigants exempt from payment of legal fees. - Pauper-
litigants (a) whose gross income and that of their immediate family do not
exceed four thousand (P4,000.00) pesos a month if residing in Metro Manila,
and three thousand (P3,000.00) pesos a month if residing outside Metro
Manila, and (b) who do not own real property with an assessed value of
more than fifty thousand (P50,000.00) pesos shall be exempt from the
payment of legal fees (xxx). (added from the full text)
 The Court resolved to apply the new rules on petitioner
retrospectively.
o Why? Because of the importance of the legal assistance to
the underprivileged.
 The new rules removed the restrictive policy under the 1964 Rules.
 So the new rules should be applied retrospectively. Procedural rules,
after all, are retroactive.
 What is the basis of the ruling?
o This interpretation, according to the Court, of the present
rules is more in keeping with our Bill of Rights, which
decrees that, "(f)ree access to the courts and quasi-judicial
bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied
to any person by reason of poverty."
 So the petition was allowed. The petitioner was allowed to litigate as
a pauper. He was no longer required to pay.
Now, let’s go to the right to be informed of nature and cause of the
accusation. Again, if you are not properly informed of the charges, it could
cause the dismissal of the case. It would start anew, because it requires the
revision of the constitution of the information so that one shall be charged
properly of the offense. So if the case took 20 years, back to zero, etc. So
one shall be careful in drafting the information, and make sure that
everything is already there; the elements, the facts that would establish
the offense.
30 | P a g e
5. Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation
 Why are you given this right? Why is this important? When can you
invoke this right to be informed? Where do you find it?
o It is in the information charged against you, e.g. rape. All
the elements must be in the information.
o If there is a missing detail there or element that is not
enumerated in the information, you can claim that you
have not been informed.
 Why is it important for you to be informed of the charges?
o So that you can formulate your defenses.
o The information, this is the document presented before
the court after there is a finding of probable cause against
you. Charging the accused of the crime must be stated
with precision.
o There must be specific allegations of every fact and
circumstances necessary for the crime charged. So much
so for you to be able to prove that the elements were not
stated in the Information.
o It could result in your acquittal because you can raise that
your right to be informed was violated.
o Also, the information has to be read to the accused. What
controls, however, is the body of the information and not
the caption.
 The purpose of the right is
1. To enable him to defend himself; and
2. To enable him to avail the protection of double jeopardy
if prosecuted or charged for the same offense.
CASES –
PEOPLE VS. GUEVARRA 570 SCRA 288 (2008)
 The accused was charged here with murder.
 The information here was only one paragraph:
That on or about August 24, 2002 at around 9:15 o’clock in the evening at
Ebora Road, Brgy. Kumintang Ibaba, Batangas City, Philippines and within
the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the above-named accused, while
armed with a caliber .45 pistol, a deadly weapon, with intent to kill and with
the qualifying circumstance of treachery, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously attack, assault and repeatedly shot with said
firearm suddenly and without warning one P/Chief Inspector Marcos Barte
y Paz while the latter was unarmed and completely defenseless, thereby
hitting him on different parts of his body which directly caused the victims
death.
That the special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed
firearm is attendant in the commission of the offense. (added from the full
text)
 Now, it was asked why was it have to be like that (only 1 paragraph);
why it was not divided and so on.
o It was the prevailing rule, I guess, no one wants to try
otherwise.
o One of the exceptions, however, is in a case of Enrile,
which was separated into several paragraphs.
 Anyway, that was what happened here, there was only one
paragraph, alleging all the facts and elements. It was emphasized
there the intent to kill and the qualifying circumstance of treachery,
did then and there willfully, etc. It was also mentioned there the
special aggravating circumstance of the use of an unlicensed firearm
is attendant in the commission of the offense.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 So the accused was convicted, and he claims that the information was
insufficient because there was no specific allegation of the qualifying
circumstances that would warrant the charge for murder.
 Is he correct? Did he even read the information?
o It was clear there: “the qualifying circumstance of
treachery…” and “the special aggravating circumstance…”
 So, he cannot say that he was not informed because the information
states the circumstances.
 But, for our purposes, what is the rule on the qualifying and
aggravating circumstances in information and cases?
o It is settled that aggravating / qualifying circumstances
must be alleged in the information and proven during the
trial before they can be appreciated.
 So be careful of the nuances and the details; the elements and the
ultimate facts. But not too specific as to cause a difficulty on the part
of the prosecution.
 Take note of this rule on qualifying and special aggravating
circumstances.
 Was treachery alleged?
o Yes.
 What about the special aggravating circumstance of the use of an
unlicensed firearm?
o Yes.
 So there was no reason to claim that these things were not alleged in
the information.
PEOPLE VS. BARTOLINI 626 SCRA 527 (2010)
 The father here was married to CCC. The father was the accused and
they (father and CCC) begot six (6) children. He raped two of the
children, one of which became pregnant of the rape. So, he was
charge for raping his two daughters.
 Charged with qualified rape with criminal case 2085 and another
criminal case with qualified rape 2084. He was convicted.
 On appeal before with appellate court, it modified the penalty in one
of the cases because there was no alleged special circumstance for
qualified rape which is the age of the victim.
o You should be a minor and the relationship to the offender
must be specified. In the second information, it was not
mentioned, so the CA changed its verdict.
 Now, the state on appeal claims that the information is sufficient.
 The accused, on the other hand, argues that he was not properly
informed of the charges.
 As for the first criminal case, case no. 2085 all the allegations in the
information contained the elements of the charges for qualified rape.
So the conviction there was sustained and proper.
 What is the penalty for qualified rape by the way?
o During this time, it is punishable by death. So the Court
noted that you have to be careful in deciding these cases
because one’s life is at stake; the life of a rapist.
o Now to justify the imposition of the death penalty, the
single special qualifying circumstance of the minority of
the victim and the relationship of the victim to the
offender must be specifically alleged.
 In the second information, the victim’s age was not specified, without
stating the actual age of the accused and why is it so strict?
o He was a rapist and there was an error in the information
that the minority was not alleged; the age of the victim
when the crime was committed.
o In a rape case, the Court emphasized, the very life of the
accused is at stake, such an inexact allegation to negate
31 | P a g e
and qualify the age of the victim in qualified rape and raise
the penalty to death.
o The sufficiency of the information is held to the highest
standard where the only imposable penalty is death.
o The constitutional right of the accused to be properly
informed on the nature and cause of accusation against
him assumes the latest importance when the only
imposable penalty in case of conviction is death.
 Here notably absent in the information was the specific averment of
the victim’s age at the time the offense against her was committed
against her. This was therefore, fatal to the imposition of the supreme
penalty of death, even if proven in trial that the accused was a minor
and was not charged specifically, it would not be appreciated because
the accused will not be able to create a defence to protect himself.
PATULA VS. PEOPLE 669 SCRA 135 (2012)
FACTS:
 She was charged with estafa and he was convicted with the charge.
 She claims that the RTC violated her constitutional rights to be
informed of the nature and cause of the accusation because the
information of estafa did not alleged falsification or her means of
committing the estafa.
o It was not provided in the information that, “I was denied
of my right to be informed with the charges.”
ISSUE: Is she correct? Was that defect that non-allegation of the
falsification of the charge did that deny her of the right to due process?
HELD: NO.
 The Bill of Rights guarantees rights to every person accused of a
crime. Among them, the right to be informed of the nature and cause
of the accusation.
o Therefore, it should never be taken for granted by the
State the proper manner of alleging the nature & cause of
the accusation because the accused cannot be convicted
of the offense that is not clearly charged of the complaint
of information.
 To convict him in such an instance would be violation of his
constitutional right to be informed.
o So be careful; you, as the defence counsel, should target
the wordings in the information and claim that it was not
sufficient because this element was not alleged. Indeed,
the accused cannot be convicted of a crime even duly
proved unless the crime is alleged and necessarily
included in the information filed against him.
 Here, estafa was charged as an offense and it was proved during trial
that he has committed estafa by falsifying commercial documents.
She claims that she was proved to falsified documents but there was
nothing in the information that it was falsified so she was denied of
her rights to due process.
o The Court said, falsification is not even an element of
estafa. The fact that you were charged with estafa already
informs you of the defences you can formulate to defend
yourself. There was no need to allege falsification here
because it was merely the means used was not an element
of estafa. The information was proper. It sufficiently
alleged the felony charged. Falsification is not an element
of estafa.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
CANCERAN VS. PEOPLE 761 SCRA 293 (2015)
 Is there such felony such as frustrated theft? No. Frustrated rape?
No.
o Because theft and rape can only be attempted or
consummated. With theft, the fact/moment that you take
the thing and the thing is deemed consummated in the
case of Villanueva vs. People.
 So here, while that decision was not yet formulated by the Supreme
Court, the accused here stole away 14 cartons of Pond’s White
Beauty cream valued at 28,000 pesos. They were charge with
frustrated theft.
o It was frustrated because they were not able bring the
items or had it delivered to their vehicle to escape. So it
was frustrated theft.
 Later on, the Supreme Court laid down its ruling in Valenzuela vs.
People in June 21, 2007. This information charged the accused with
having the offense on October 2002 for frustrated theft.
 2007, no longer frustrated theft so in line with that, there was no
longer frustrated theft. The RTC convicted them with consummated
theft; remember the charge was frustrated theft. No more frustrated
theft, therefore the victim committed consummated theft.
 Can that be done? What is the highest level? Consummated,
frustrated or attempted?
o The highest is consummated and then frustrated and then
attempted.
 Here they were found guilty of consummated theft but they were
charge of the information for frustrated theft. It cannot be done
because frustrated is different from attempted and consummated
theft. They are different from each other.
 So the Court found here that his argument was proper. Why?
o It’s because the information did not charge him of
consummated theft and therefore he cannot be convicted
by the trial court of consummated theft but the trial court
proved that it was consummated theft.
 So was the case dismissed because of the wrong information?
o His conviction was sustained but now only for attempted
theft. Why attempted theft?
 Because the attempted stage is covered by the
frustrated stage. So that was the logic of the
Supreme Court here.
 The allegation on the information was more on frustrated theft.
Careful reading that it would show that he is only charged with
frustrated theft however there is no such crime as frustrated theft.
Therefore the information cannot be read to charge him with
consummated theft.
 The information was construed to mean that Canceran was being
charged with theft in its attempted stage only. Necessarily, Canceran
may only be convicted of the lesser crime of attempted theft. So he
was not relieved scot-free of the charges.
 His conviction was sustained but for attempted theft, but did it
violate? Can the accused be convicted of (going back to our concept)
an offense higher than that alleged in the information?
o No. he cannot be convicted of a higher offense than that
which was charged in the information. It matters not how
conclusive evidence of his guilt may be because unless it
was charged in the information, he will not be convicted.
 Why?
o Because it will violate of his right to be informed of the
charges against him. However in this case, it was proved
that it was consummated theft, the information was
frustrated and he was convicted for attempted theft.
32 | P a g e
March 20, 2019
We are still in Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation
which is very crucial on the accused.
 The main purpose of which is for the accused to be able to prepare
his defenses. If the state fails to observe this right, it can cause the
dismissal of the case against the accused.
 To rectify the information so that the accused will be now properly
informed, re- file the case.
 Dismissal and not acquittal of the case for refiling so that it will be
proper charges.
ESTRELLADO-MAINAN VS. PP 764 SCRA 90 (2015)
FACTS:
 The petitioner offered for sale to Eric Naval (Naval) portions of land
located in Matina Aplaya, Davao City. During the negotiations for this
sale, the petitioner told Naval that the title to the land she was selling
had no problems.
 The parties executed an Agreement to Buy and Sell.
 Naval paid a down payment totaling ₱100,000.00, and then asked
permission from the petitioner if he could construct his house on the
land he bought. After the petitioner issued an Authorization dated
March 24, 2003, Naval built his house on the subject land.
 On 2005, representatives from JS Francisco & Sons, Inc. (JS Francisco)
demolished Naval's house. It was only then that Naval discovered that
the lot sold to him had been the subject of a dispute between the
petitioner's family and JS Francisco.
 Naval demanded from the petitioner the return of the amount he
paid for the land, as well as to pay the value of the house demolished,
but the latter refused to heed these demands.
 The prosecution charged the petitioner with the crime of other forms
of swindling under Article 316, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code
 However, the MTCC found the petitioner guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of other forms of swindling under Article 316, paragraph 2 of
the Revised Penal Code
o There is a difference between the offense charged and
the finding of the court.
o The finding would be valid if the ruling of the elements of
the offense which she was found guilty would be included
in the charge. If not, it will not be included in the verdict
of the court.
o Otherwise, it would violate the accused to be informed of
the charges. The charge is different from the verdict given.
So that’s the issue.
ISSUE: Was the conviction here proper?
RULING: NO.
 The prosecution charged the petitioner with the crime of other forms
of swindling under Article 316, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, which punishes "[a]ny person who, pretending to
be the owner of any real property, shall convey, sell, encumber, or
mortgage the same."
 She was found guilty of under Article 316, paragraph 2 which
punishes the act of any person who, knowing that real property is
encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance
is not recorded.
o Encumber means to burden with debts or legal claims. For
example, an interest in real property may be encumbered
by mortgages. When property is jointly owned, signatures
of all owners is usually required to encumber the property.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o The gravamen of the crime is the disposition of legally
encumbered real property by the offender under the
express representation that there is no encumbrance
thereon; and that the accused must make an express
representation in the deed of conveyance that the
property sold or disposed of is free from any
encumbrance for one to be criminally liable.
 Hence, the elements of Article 316, paragraph 1 where you pretend
to be the owner and paragraph 2 where you sell property claiming
that there is no encumbrance. They have different elements.
 Therefore, your conviction in the first paragraph or vice versa cannot
be justified by information charging you with the other article
because there are different elements. Considering that he was not
properly informed of the charges, she could not therefore mount up
to the proper defense. So the case was dismissed.
 Was she acquitted based on the findings?
o She should be acquitted not only because there was a
defect in the information but also her guilt was not proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
 Anyway, this is a classic example of an information that wrongly
accuses a person of an offense where she was found guilty of
another offense. So it is wrong, the case was dismissed.
6. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial
(A) Speedy trial
 Your trial should not last for 100 years – everyone will be dead already.
The factors, however, if you are able to prove that your right to a
speedy trial is violated, denial of due process, you can be acquitted.
 The right to speedy trial is relative. You cannot just say that your right
to a speedy trial was violated because it took 5 years for the trial to
be finished, among other things.
 In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right to
a speedy disposition of the case and to a speedy trial, four factors
must be considered:
a) length of delay;
 There must be proof of the extent of the delay.
How long was its length?
b) the reason for the delay;
 It could be that you were the reason for the
delay (e.g. you always have excuses; you don’t
appear in court, or you absconded, you fled).
c) the defendant’s assertion of his right;
 The invocation of the right.
 There are previous cases and jurisprudence
saying that if you fail to invoke this right, you
have waived it. But recent jurisprudence no
longer requires that requirement.
d) prejudice to the defendant/accused
 Delayed for 10 years, but were you prejudiced?
Were your resources depleted?
So these are the factors that the Court would consider if there is invocation
of the right or was there really a violation of your right to speedy trial.
 The right can only be violated if the delay is capricious or whimsical.
The delay must be arbitrary because the prosecution does not want
to present evidence, makes excuses, and wants you to suffer because
you cannot go out on bail.
 If proved to be capricious and whimsical delay, it could be a ground
for acquittal.
33 | P a g e
There are provisions in the Rules of Court, there are laws that limit the trial
period of a case, especially a criminal case in the Court. So it should be
speedy within the time frame but of course that would be very idealistic.
Sometimes, a case would last for decades. In any case, the accused is given
this right to a speedy trial.
The importance of this can be discussed through the cases.
CASES –
JACOLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
FACTS:
 The accused was charged before the Sandiganbayan for a criminal
offense.
 In all the hearings conducted by the Sandiganbayan, he invoked his
right to a speedy trial and moved for the dismissal of the case.
o What happens if your right to a speedy disposition of your
case, which is broader, what happens if this right is
violated?
 It will result to your acquittal. Not only of the
dismissal of the case so it can be refiled, but
you will be really acquitted which can be a bar
against the refiling of the same case.
o Anyway, it is very important to take note of these rights
because in the future you can justify the acquittal of your
client because of the violation of his rights to a speedy
trial.
 Here, that’s what the accused did. In every stage of the hearing, he
invoked his right to a speedy trial and the Sandiganbayan was
convinced that this right was violated.
 The Court, thru its Chairman, issued a court order dismissing the
cases. Of course, this was opposed by the prosecution. So let’s discuss
the concepts.
What is the right to a speedy trial?
 This right to a speedy trial may be defined as one free from
vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.
o So not only delayed in the case for several months,
years, or even decades, the qualification is the delay
must be vexatious, capricious, and oppressive;
willfully to vex this person.
 This right’s "salutary objective" being to assure that an innocent
person may be free from the anxiety and expense of a court
litigation.
o Why is it to finish the trial as soon as possible?
 It’s because of so many factors: life of your
witness – if it takes too long, it will affect the
sanctity or integrity of the evidence.
 If it takes a long time, the evidence may be lost
along the way etc. So, as much as possible, the
court must conduct the trial within the time
period prescribed.
 The right to a speedy trial is having his guilt determined within the
shortest possible time compatible with the presentation and
consideration of whatsoever legitimate defense he may interpose
because justice delayed is justice denied.
 In the Rules of Court, the period within which the trial shall
happen, shall only be 180 days from the first day of trial. But take
note that we have rules on continuous trial on criminal cases.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 Each witness must be presented in one day and then the dates are
successive. When the Courts will ask how many witnesses you are
going to present, dates, etc. then you are not going to present the
witnesses on the same day, you cannot ask for extension before
the Court for number of days. If you ask for such number of days,
you must finish the presentation of your evidence within the
period that you said to the court.
o You finish the presentation to expedite.
o This was successful for the courts to have the speedy
disposition of cases because of the implementation of
the speedy trial rule.
 Anyway, that’s the concept of speedy trial. Nevertheless, the
concept of a speedy disposition is a relative term and must
necessarily be a flexible concept.
 In determining whether the right of the accused to a speedy trial
was violated, the delay should be considered in view of the
entirety of the proceedings and not only on the length of the
delay.
o A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved is
clearly insufficient, and particular regard must be given
to the facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.
 The point is that the invocation of the right to a speedy trial does
not mean that the accused will be acquitted. The delay must be
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive.
 The purpose of the right is to prevent the oppression of the citizen
by holding criminal prosecution suspended over him for an
indefinite time, and to prevent delays in the administration of
justice by mandating the courts to proceed with reasonable
dispatch in the trial of criminal cases.
o When is this right violated?
 Again, the delay caused to the accused must be
vexatious, capricious, and oppressive.
 So therefore, in the case that lasted for 100 years,
that’s not the only ingredient that will be
considered by the Court. The delay must be
characterized by the three elements: vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive (VCO).
 In determining whether the accused has been deprived of his right
to a speedy disposition of the case and to a speedy trial, four
factors must be considered:
a) length of delay;
b) the reason for the delay (Is it not the fault of the
accused why the case has been delayed?);
c) the defendant's assertion of his right (Was he
circumspect in asserting the right or did he just
sleep on his rights); and
d) prejudice to the defendant.
 So, if there is proof that there is delay that attended the
termination of the trial, what should the state do?
o For the state to sustain its right to try the accused
despite a delay, it must show two things:
a) That the accused suffered no serious prejudice
beyond that which ensued from the ordinary
and inevitable delay; and
b) That there was no more delay than is reasonably
attributable to the ordinary processes of justice.
34 | P a g e
RULING:
 In this case, there was delay. He was arraigned June 1, 2000 and the
other accused on 2001. Since then, there was no significant
development on the cases.
o What caused the delay?
 It was the inaction of the Office of the Ombudsman
because there were motions for reinvestigation filed
by the accused but the Office of the Ombudsman did
not act on it to dispatch.
 Nevertheless, the Court did not order the dismissal
of the cases. It allowed the prosecution to explain
the reason of the delay.
In the subsequent cases, we will find out that the Court has been strict in
applying this rule. Literally in favor of the accused but strict against the
State.
MARI vs. PEOPLE 657 SCRA 414 (2011)
FACTS:
 Criminal case for rape against PO1 Rudyard Paloma y Torres
 A preliminary investigation of the case was commenced on
November 4, 2004 before the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court (MCTC) of Sogod.
 A warrant of arrest was issued against private respondent, so he
voluntarily surrendered to the Chief of Police of Sogod on November
18, 2004 and was then incarcerated at the Sogod Municipal Jail.
 On June 27, 2008, private respondent was committed to detention.
So, he’s been imprisoned from 2004 to 2008.
 What were the relevant incidents in the trial?
o The victim filed several motions to cancel the hearing and
filed a petition for transfer of venue before the Supreme
Court. They have a pending petition before the Supreme
Court to transfer the venue of this case to another Court.
o Because of that, they claimed the delay against the accused
is justified because the petition is still pending before the
Supreme Court. Why will we let continue the case if we
want to transfer it to another court. Whose fault is this? It’s
the Supreme Court because they have not decided yet on
the petition to change of venue.
 And also, there were many concerns attended this case: (1) motion
filed by the victim, (2) the presentation of evidence because the judge
is absent, (3) rescheduled but the lawyer attended a seminar etc.
 And so, it was only on January 2009 that the accused was notified of
the hearing schedule and on that date the private complainant (rape
victim) still did not present evidence.
 Because of this, the trial court ordered for the dismissal of the case
on the ground of violation of respondent’s rights for the speedy trial.
FIRST ISSUE: Was it proper for the trial court to dismiss the case because
of violation of the respondent’s rights to speedy trial?
RULING: YES. The Court said it was proper.
 There was no grave abuse of discretion when the case was dismissed.
There was inordinate delay here.
o When should the trial commence?
 Under the existing rules, it must be 30 days
from receipt of the pre-trial order.
 The lawyer of the complainant received the pre-trial order on
November 24, 2008 and the other party on December 3, 2008 so
within 30 days the trial should have started. However, it took a long
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
time, and on the time it was set by the Court the lawyer of the victim
was not present and did not receive evidence.
Q: Now take note of the pendency of the petition for transfer of venue. Did
that affect?
SECOND ISSUE: Should the period that the petition was pending before the
Supreme Court be considered in determining whether or not there was
inordinate delay in the termination of the trial?
RULING: NO.
 They are mistaken that the mere pendency of a petition for transfer
of venue should interrupt the proceeding of the trial. In other words,
the Court is saying it’s not our fault. It’s your fault.
 Such situation is taken in a petition for certiorari in the higher courts.
It is only when the court where it is pending where your petition will
be filed to stop the hearing. In other words, when the petition is
pending for the transfer of venue, the incidence will continue before
the Court. You cannot use that as an excuse to justify the delay.
 Therefore, the trial court was correct in dismissing the case.
 With more reason here, the accused is incarcerated already so there
is already prejudice. He was convicted for a long time already, yet the
trial has not yet started. And if the trial will start, it would also take a
long time (decades) so violative of his right to speedy trial.
 He was acquitted by the court.
 The deprivation of liberty for any duration of time is quite oppressive.
Therefore, the delay coupled with his incarceration prejudice him. So
he was acquitted because of the violation of his right.
COCOFED VS. REPUBLIC 663 SCRA 514 (2012)
FACTS:
 The Court emphasized here the right of correlative duty of a party to
a case to invoke that right. There were several people indicted by the
Sandiganbayan for the issue of the Coco Levy Fund. Standing thereof,
including the cronies of Marcoses.
 It is argued by one of the parties that the voluminous records of these
ill-gotten wealth cases readily reveal the various dilatory tactics by
the State. As a result there was a lapse of almost 20 years of
litigation.
 The State has not been required to, and has not even attempted to
prove, the bases of its perjurious claim that the sequestered assets
constitute ill-gotten wealth of former President Marcos and his
crony, Cojuangco. The party is imputing that the delay caused is due
to the fault of the State.
ISSUE: Was there a violation of the right to a speedy trial?
RULING: NO.
 Take note that this case, Cocofed vs Republic, involved a civil issue.
o It is not People vs Sandiganbayan or Sandiganbayan vs
People etc.
o The state wants to recover the Coco Levy funds spent by
the cronies of the Marcoses.
 Q: Can you invoke your right to a speedy trial in such an instance?
o The Court said there is a distinction between the right to
a speedy disposition of the case. That’s another right and
the right to a speedy trial. This is where we were made to
take note.
o The right to a speedy disposition of a case and the right to
a speedy trial. These are the state. Although they are
similar in the sense that they involve delay, the most
35 | P a g e
obvious difference is that the basis which is in separate
constitutional provisions.
o The right to a speedy disposition can be found in Article
III, Sec. 6 of the Constitution. It is even broader because
it covers the speedy disposition of the entire case.
o So the time the case is filed, it is counted if there’s a
violation. If trial, to be counted from the time of trial.
o Was there a violation of the right to a speedy trial? So in
speedy disposition cases, it’s broader.
o The right to a speedy trial is available only to an accused
and is a peculiarly criminal law concept.
o In this case, what was invoked was speedy trial. The Court
said that’s not probable because this is a civil case.
o What should have been invoked is the right to a speedy
disposition of the case which can be applied to criminal
or civil court proceedings. The appropriate right involved
here is the right to a speedy disposition of the case. In the
instant case, the appropriate right involved is the right to
a speedy disposition of cases, the recovery of ill-gotten
wealth being a civil suit.
o In any case, though there was a wrong invocation of right,
these two concepts: speedy disposition of one’s case and
speedy trial involved the same delay.
 So when the courts are tasked or are presented
with the invocation of this right, they used the
same standards. The length of delay, reason
for delay, the invocation of the right, and the
prejudice caused to this person invoking the
right.
 Q: So here, what was the element missing?
o According to the Court, the assertion of the party. His
failure to assert the right to a speedy disposition of his
case. It took him a long time to invoke his right.
o His individual rights should not work against and
preclude the people’s or the state’s equally important
right to public justice. So, it will be weighed by the Court.
 He slept on his rights, so you can say therefore
that delay is attributable to him had he timely
invoked his right.
 The Court will not be apprised of the delay, and
the proceedings would have been finished or
dispatched.
 The Court said you cannot use this delay
yourself that you have not invoked this right to
prejudice the right of the state also to
prosecute you.
o So, this right to a speedy disposition of your case is lost
unless seasonably invoked.
 The Court is very strict but in subsequent cases it became lax in the
requirement of the invocation because it is the duty of the state to
prosecute the case.
 This concept has been watered down in these subsequent cases. Take
note of this case: the distinction to the right of speedy trial and the
right to a speedy disposition of a case. They, however involved the
same factors that the courts will determine and the courts were strict
here in applying these factors against the person invoking that right.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE 664 SCRA 519 (2012)
FACTS:
 A case involving a fraternity (Aquilans) where they killed one of the
neophytes so those who were responsible were charged before the
court for Homicide. 26 of the accused were found guilty.
 Now they appealed to the CA. Later on, the decision was reversed
insofar as the cases for Escalona, Ramos, Saruca, and Adriano
because their right to speedy trial was violated.
 So this was challenged by the state and the families of the victims
because they said that the court should not have reversed because
the accused failed to assert their right to speedy trial within a
reasonable period of time.
ISSUE: Was the CA correct in dismissing the case?
RULING: YES.
 The right of the accused to a speedy trial has been enshrined in
Sections 14(2) and 16, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. This right
requires that there be a trial free from vexatious, capricious or
oppressive delays.
 What was the delay here?
o On January 10, 1992, the Information was filed and they
were all arraigned on November 1993, more than a year
later.
o The trial of this case did not commence until March 2005,
almost 12 years after arraignment.
o The unexplained interval or inactivity of the court here
resulted to an unreasonable delay and therefore, a
violation of the right of the accused.
o The reason for the delay here was that they allegedly
found it hard to secure the records for the case.
 The court said that it was the prosecution’s fault as it took them 12
years to start trial against some of the accused and therefore violated
their right to speedy trial.
RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT RTC CDO 719 SCRA 349 (2014)
 It is not only beneficial for the person invoking the right (not only can
he be acquitted) but there is also a correlative effect to the parties
involved in the case, especially the Court. It is found that the delay is
attributable to it.
FACTS:
 There was an audit conducted on Branch 20 of the Regional Trial
Court in Cagayan de Oro City, presided by respondent Judge Gregorio
D. Pantanosas, Jr. The said branch was found to have had a total
caseload of 599 cases consisting of 256 criminal cases and 343 civil
cases.
 There were findings that the court failed to take action on several
cases beyond the applicable period. The Judge however had already
resigned from his position as he already filed his COC and so the cases
which were pending during his resignation, he did not resolve.
 He did not decide a total of 115 cases and on pending matters
involving 100 cases. So the OCA here found him administratively
guilty and found that he should be removed from the service.
 The court here ordered the dismissal of the Judge from service but
since he had already resigned, the court decided instead on the
forfeiture of his benefits.
 The obligations of the Judges are important because if the public
sees that there is a delay in the proceedings in the case, it is always
the fault of the court.
 The speedy disposition of cases in our courts is a primary aim of the
Judiciary, so that the ends of justice may not be compromised and
36 | P a g e
the Judiciary will be true to its commitment to provide litigants their
constitutional right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of their
cases.
 Q: Can the Judge here excuse himself from his obligations? What was
the reason of the Judge here?
o The Judge said it was because other cases had incomplete
transcripts of stenographic notes.
o The Court said that it was not enough reason to do your
job as it was his job to follow up on transcripts. In other
words, it was his job and his fault (Why was he not able to
order his staff to produce the TSNs).
o Therefore, he was dismissed from the service and since it
cannot be implemented then all of his benefits were
forfeited.
BARCELONA VS. LIM 724 SCRA 433 (2014)
FACTS:
 We have here a public officer who was administratively charged
before the Civil Service Commission for dishonesty and grave
misconduct.
 He was dismissed after proceedings.
 First, there was a complaint filed against him before the office where
he was working. There was a recommendation before the committee
of the NLRC to dismiss him from the service.
 He was found guilty. Subsequently he went to the CSC to appeal that
decision.
 However, after 6 years after he filed his memorandum, the CSC
dismissed it.
 On appeal before the CA, the CA affirmed the dismissal of his case.
 He therefore claimed that his case stayed too long before the CSC
hence, his right to the speedy disposition of his case was violated.
ISSUE: W/N his right to speedy disposition of his case was violated
RULING:
 The Court said that the concept of speedy disposition here is flexible.
 There must be a determination that the delay is whimsical,
capricious, and oppressive.
 But the Court considered the most important factor in this case,
which was the non-timely assertion of that right. He failed to assert
such right before the proceedings in the Civil Service and, even
assuming that there was delay in resolution of his appeal before the
CSC, no prejudice was caused to him.
(B) Public trial
 What does that mean?
o The trial is open to all.
o Unfortunately, our courts are very small so only limited
number can enter or witness the proceedings in the trial
but the important is, it is open to the public as a general
rule.
 Why is it necessary?
o To protect you from the abuses of the court itself. And so
the court will be mindful of its decorum because people
are watching. It is necessary to prevent the abuses
committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant.
o There are instances however when the trail may not be
public. For example, in rape cases where the matter is
sensitive or minor being abused by the parent.
o But, as a rule, you have the right to a public trial.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 This also goes to the Sub Judice Rule. It does not mean that your right
to a public trial would also translate to a publicized trial, they are not
synonymous.
 This is supposed to protect the accused from the abuses of the Court.
 It must be viewed before the public so that the public can see what
the Court is doing against the accused.
CASE –
GARCIA VS. DOMINGO, 52 SCRA 143 (1970)
FACTS:
 The trial of the 8 criminal cases was held, with the conformity of the
accused and their counsel, in the chambers of Judge Garcia.
 The room was air conditioned but the accessibility was limited to the
public. They cannot enter because of the limited space.
 Before the promulgation of the judgment, a petition for certiorari was
filed before the RTC against the Judge, who was conducting the
proceeding in his chamber for being violative of the right to public
trial.
 This was filed before the RTC because it was an MTC case.
 The RTC judge acted to such petition and declared that there was a
violation of the Constitutional right of the accused to a Public Trial.
ISSUE: W/N the RTC judge is correct that there was a violation of the
constitutional right to a public trial
RULING: NO
 There was no violation of the right to a public trial.
 The purpose of this right is that, trial should be public in order to
offset any danger of conducting it in an illegal and unjust manner.
Not only for the protection of the accused but also of the State.
 Because if the trial will be private maybe they might be conniving and
etc. If the trial would be held in public, the proper procedure will be
therefore followed hence the parties would not be held accountable
by the public seeing the proceedings.
 This right to public trial signifies that the trial must be public. It
possesses that character when anyone interested in observing the
manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may do
so. There is to be no ban on such attendance except for certain cases.
 The thought that lies behind this safeguard is the belief that thereby
the accused is afforded further protection, that his trial is likely to be
conducted with regularity and not tainted with any impropriety. It is
thus understandable why such a right is deemed embraced in
procedural due process.
 Therefore, there was no violation of the right to public trial in this
case despite being conducted in an air conditioned chamber of the
Judge.
 There is no showing that the public was thereby excluded from
entering. It is to be admitted that the size of the room allotted the
Judge would reduce the number of those who could be our present.
Such a fact though is not indicative of any transgression of this right.
Courtrooms are not of uniform dimensions. Some are smaller than
others.
 It suffices to satisfy the requirement of a trial being public if the
accused could have his friends, relatives and counsel present, no
matter with what offense he may be charged.
 In any case, there was no objection to all the hearings related to this
case being conducted in the chamber of the Judge. In fact this right is
invocable by the accused. So no violation of the right.
37 | P a g e
(C) Impartial trial
 Of course, because if the court is already partial, what is the point?
Why would you go to court if you know you would still be convicted?
 The right to an impartial trial is the right to an impartial judge.
Impartiality must not only be in reality but must also be in
appearance.
 What does that mean?
o It does not mean that you know that the judge is impartial,
the judge must also appear to be impartial.
o For example, the actions of the judges are only limited.
They cannot socialize everywhere. Otherwise, they could
be found to be talking with other lawyers or people that
could be used as evidence against the judge. Because it is
important that the court should not only be impartial, it
must also appear to be impartial.
o If the judge has a photo with one of the parties who
attended a party, you could use that as a reason for his
inhibition because he would no longer appear to be
impartial even if he is impartial.
 The Judge must be neutral. To hold neutrality must be expected to
Judges, otherwise, what’s the point of having your cases.
 You’re just wasting resources if you already know how that judge will
verdict. So judges must not only be impartial, but they must also
appear to be impartial.
CASES –
RE: REQUEST RADIO-TV COVERAGE OF THE ESTRADA PLUNDER CASE -
JUNE 29, 2001 (360 SCRA 248) AND SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 (365 SCRA 62)
 Kapisanan Ng Mga Brodkaster Ng Pilipinas (KBP) wanted to have a live
media coverage of the trial of Estrada for Plunder before the
Sandiganbayan.
 This was opposed by Estrada. He was already subjected to senate
impeachment proceedings, he was also ousted because of people
power, and now he would potentially be subjected to live media
coverage.
 His reason was that the live airing of his trial may become a trial by
publicity.
ISSUE: Was the request to air the plunder trial of Estrada granted?
RULING: NO.
 The Court discussed here that television can work profound changes
in the behavior of people it focuses on. It is, in fact, farcical, to build
around them impregnable armor against the influence of the most
powerful media of public opinion.
 To whom does the right to a public trial belong to?
o It is the right of the accused. So, it should’ve been Estrada
who invoked the right to a public trial and not KBP.
 What is the goal of a public trial?
o So that he would be dealt with fairly and not be
unjustifiably condemned.
o This was the basis that was used by the KBP to justify the
airing of the Estrada trial.
o The court said that a public trial is not synonymous to a
publicized trial. What they wanted was not a public trial
but a publicized trial.
 What else was used by KBP?
o The right to be informed.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o If we weigh the right of the public to be informed, and on
the other hand, the right of the accused to due process,
which is weightier?
 The court said that it is still the paramount
right of the accused to due process which must
never be allowed to suffer diminution in its
constitutional proportions.
 How is that due process violated here?
o If the trial is publicized and the effect of the publication of
that trial will seep into the mind of the judges. Plus, there
could be protracted delays that may result.
o How? If a party here, Estrada, seeks a declaration of
mistrial on account of undue publicitiy. So, it’s like giving
him a ground to further delay the trial. A trial, in any case,
is not a free trade of ideas.
 In the MR of this case, the court allowed not a live broadcast but an
audio visual recording of the proceedings. So it will be recorded for
documentation purposes and archived, and shall be available for
public showing after the Sandiganbayan promulgated its decision in
every case to which the recording pertains.
 Why was the recording allowed by the court?
1. The hearings were of historic significance
2. The cases involved matters of vital concern to the people,
so the proceedings should be preserved
3. Audio visual presentation is essential for the education
and civic training of the people
(D) Right to an impartial tribunal and trial of civilians by military
courts
Can we, civilians, be tried by military courts?
CASES –
OLAGUER VS. MC NO. 34, 150 SCRA 144 (1987)
FACTS:
 Civilians were charged before the military courts for several cases.
The court that they called here was Military Commission No. 34.
 They went to the Supreme Court via a petition for habeas corpus to
enjoin the proceedings of the Military Commission against them.
 They claim that (1) the Military Commission has no jurisdiction over
them being civilians and (2) civil courts are open, there is no reason
for them to be subjected by the jurisdiction of this military court.
ISSUE: Are they correct? Can military tribunals try civilians?
RULING:
 Of course not, they have no jurisdiction to try civilians. They have
jurisdiction to try military people.
 What is the requirement?
o The right to a trial. But that means that the trial should be
before a court and not a military court, a civil court.
o It is a trial by judicial process not by executive or military
process. Military commissions or tribunals, by whatever
name they are called, are not courts within the Philippine
judicial system.
o Where is judicial power vested?
 By the constitution, in the Supreme Court and
in inferior courts as may be provided by law.
This military courts are not such judicial courts.
We are also not under a military government.
 Why is it dangerous to give military tribunals jurisdiction over
civilians?
38 | P a g e
o Because the setting is different, the presiding officer at a
court martial is not a judge whose objectivity and
independence are protected by tenure and undiminished
salary.
o Apart from these, there is also suggestion of the possibility
of influence on the actions of the court martial by the
officer who convenes it, selects its members and the
counsel on both sides, and who usually has direct
command authority over its members.
 To what department do military tribunals belong to?
o Not the Judicial but the Executive Department of the
government. So it is not a civil court in a sense that you
can claim a right to trial because in the first place, they do
not have jurisdiction over you.
o Thus, as long as the civil courts in the land remain open
and are regularly functioning, as they do so, military
tribunals cannot try and exercise jurisdiction over civilians
for offenses committed by them.
o This would be a violation of their Constitutional right to
due process because they would not have a tribunal.
 What did the court do here?
o It transferred the cases from the military commission to
the regular court. The case was not dismissed neither
were the accused acquitted but was only transferred to
the proper court.
CRUZ VS. PONCE ENRILE, 160 SCRA 702 (1988)
 There are cases involving military personnel pending before the
military tribunals.
 They filed a case before the Supreme Court to have those cases
dismissed consistent with the ruling of the court in Olaguer vs.
Military Commission.
 The Court said that insofar as military personnel are concerned, these
military tribunals have jurisdiction over you, you are not civilians in
the first place. So they cannot claim relief under this Olaguer doctrine.
Because over them, the court martial can validly exercise jurisdiction.
Take note of that the case of Olaguer vs. Military Commission applies to
all civilians and not to military personnel.
Does it matter that the civilians involved have cases that are political in
complexion?
 The Court said that the decision did not distinguish between the kind
of case. The only distinction was that they should be civilian. If they
are civilians, whatever the nature of the case, it should not be tried in
a military tribunals but before civil courts.
Can you claim double jeopardy? (Your case was dismissed in the military
tribunal because it was transferred to a regular court)
 You cannot invoke double jeopardy because one of the requisites of
double jeopardy is that there must be a court of competent
jurisdiction in the first case that a person is tried. Since in the first
case there was no competent court, therefore, there is no double
jeopardy.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019

7. Right to confront witnesses
 The essence of which is for you to be able to cross-examine the
witnesses against you through counsel.
 Why?
o Because the witness against you may be lying.
o So your counsel is given the opportunity to ferret out the
truth by allowing you through your counsel to elicit from
that person who caused damaging questions, the truth.
o It 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.
Case –
HO WAI PANG vs. PEOPLE 659 SCRA 624 (2011)
FACTS:
 Remember here the chocolate boxes, the accused here were Hong
Kong nationals and so there were charged with violation of RA 6425,
Dangerous Drugs Act.
 They were convicted, and they claim before the Supreme Court that
they were deprived of the right to know and understand what the
witnesses testified to because they were Chinese.
 Those who testified against them were Filipino and there was no
interpreter so they were not able to understand the language,
therefore violative of their right to confront the witnesses.
 It was not disputed however that their lawyer was able to cross-
examine the witnesses of the prosecution.
*If subpoena only (if it does not refer to a specific type of subpoena) it refers
to a Subpoena ad testificandum.
But if it is subpoena duces tecum, it should have - duces tecum.
In Section 8 of Rule 21 of the Rules of Court:
Section 8. Compelling attendance. — In case of failure of a
witness to attend, the court or judge issuing the subpoena,
upon proof of the service thereof and of the failure of the
witness, may issue a warrant to the sheriff of the province, or
his deputy, to arrest the witness and bring him before the
court or officer where his attendance is required, and the cost
of such warrant and seizure of such witness shall be paid by
the witness if the court issuing it shall determine that his
failure to answer the subpoena was willful and without just
excuse.
This is consistent with the right of the accused to secure the attendance of
his witnesses.
Rules of Court
Rule 21
Section 9. Contempt. — Failure by any person without
adequate cause to obey a subpoena served upon him shall be
deemed a contempt of the court from which the subpoena is
issued. If the subpoena was not issued by a court, the
disobedience thereto shall be punished in accordance with
the applicable law or Rule.

ISSUE: Was there a violation of their right to confront the witnesses? Section 10. Exceptions. — The provisions of sections 8 and 9
of this Rule shall not apply to a witness who resides more than
RULING: NO. one hundred (100) kilometers from his residence to the place
 There was no violation of the right here because in the first place where he is to testify by the ordinary course of travel, or to a
during the trial they did not register any objection to the presentation detention prisoner if no permission of the court in which his
of the prosecution's evidence, particularly on the testimony of the case is pending was obtained.
Filipino's here, plus it does not been shown that the lack of
interpreter prejudiced them.
 Finally, this right to confront witnesses, the chief purpose of which is
to secure the opportunity for cross-examination, so that if the
opportunity for cross-examination has been secured, the function
and test of confrontation has also been accomplished.
 Was it accomplished?
o Yes, because their lawyer can understand such language.

8. Right to secure attendance of witnesses

 There is a document that you need to secure but you cannot get it,
you can ask the court to issue for a subpoena.
 Or even, for example, a witness who is hostile, you can request for a
bench warrant so that the witness can be arrested, will testify and
will be presented to the court.
 Right to compulsory processes, for you to see the whole picture.

You can pray for the court to compel the production of documents and the
production of the witnesses if it could help your cause.

What rule will you invoke?

Rule 21 of the Rules of Court, Subpoena.

There are two types of subpoena:

1. Subpoena ad testificandum (or simply Subpoena)
2. Subpoena duces tecum
39 | P a g e
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
March 21, 2019
9. Trial in absentia • Rule 115, sec. 1 (c)
 If an accused has already been arraigned, he was informed of the
setting of a hearing, and he failed to attend that hearing despite
notice and for no justifiable reason, the trial will proceed. Otherwise,
the trial will be held hostage.
 If he will not appear, will the trial be suspended?
o No. It can proceed in his absence.
 Your presence in trial is not absolutely required. There are instances
where you must be present during the proceedings but not always
during trial.
RULE 115 • Rights of Accused
Section 1. Rights of accused at the trial. — In all criminal
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following
rights:
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at
every stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to
promulgation of the judgment. The accused may, however,
waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the stipulations set
forth in his bail, unless his presence is specifically ordered by
the court for purposes of identification. The absence of the
accused without justifiable cause at the trial of which he had
notice shall be considered a waiver of his right to be present
thereat. When an accused under custody escapes, he shall be
deemed to have waived his right to be present on all
subsequent trial dates until custody over him is regained.
Upon motion, the accused may be allowed to defend himself
in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can
properly protect his right without the assistance of counsel.
 Can the trial proceed even if you are not around?
o YES.
o The provision provides that when the accused is being
arraigned, he was not invited in the proceedings, he fails
to appear during trial and his failure to appear is
unjustified, the trial will continue.
o When you present evidence, your non-presence will be
ground for you to waive some of your rights which is,
among others, your right to cross-examine. It is your fault
for not appearing in court.
 Is that a violation of your Constitutional right that the trial went on
even without your presence?
o No, because it is your option to be there or not. And you
cannot defeat the processes of the court just by the
expedient of being absent.
o So trial will continue despite your absence, provided, that
you are notified and your failure to appear is unjustified.
 But there are several stages in a criminal case where your appearance
is mandatory:
1. During arraignment.
 That is when you plea guilty or not guilty. You must
be the one to say that, not your counsel, not your
mother or father, because you are the accused. You
will be the one to be read with the Information.
 Arraignment is necessary. If you are not there, the
case will not proceed, court will re-schedule until
you are found. They will issue warrants of arrest for
you to be arraigned.
40 | P a g e
2. During the identification stage.
 Where a witness is asked to identify the accused.
You have to be there, otherwise, who will be
identified.
3. During promulgation of judgment.
 As a rule, you have to be present but there are instances where your
presence is not required.
 (Re: If an accused escapes)
o Because he is disrespecting the courts and the justice
system, he will be, in the meantime that he is at large or
has escaped, deemed to have waived his right to be
present on all subsequent trial dates.
o Which means he cannot cross-examine the witnesses, and
the trial will continue without him
CASES –
GIMENEZ VS. NAZARENO 160 SCRA 1 (1988)
Facts:
 The accused here were charged with murder. They were all arraigned,
and they pleaded not guilty.
 The hearing was set on September 18, 1973. All the accused were
informed of this setting.
 However, one of the accused, De la Vega, escaped from his detention
center, and failed to appear in court.
 This prompted the prosecutor to file a motion in court to proceed
with the case against all of the accused, including De la Vega in
absentia.
 The court here proceeded with the trial of the case but gave the
escaped accused the opportunity to take the witness stand the
moment he shows up in court.
 In other words, there would be the effect that the proceedings will
be held in abeyance, because of the absence of De la Vega.
 The opinion of this court was that the right of the escaped accused to
cross-examine was not lost despite his escape.
Issue 1: Can the court stop the proceedings and the trial, insofar as this
accused is concerned, and proceed with the rest?
Ruling: NO.
 No, because we have provisions involving trial in absentia.
 Requisites before a trial in absentia may happen:
o There must be an arraignment: guilty or not guilty; the
information would be read to the accused in a language
known to them, and right then and there, they will be
asked whether they are guilty or not guilty;
o The accused has been notified of the setting of the
hearing; and
o He fails to appear, and his failure to do so is unjustified.
Issue 2: Was trial in absentia proper here?
Ruling: YES.
 Yes, because all of the requisites are present.
1. The accused who escaped was arraigned: he pleaded not
guilty;
2. He was also informed of the hearings;
3. But his failure to appear cannot be explained.
 What happens then in a trial in absentia?
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o The court will continue with the reception of the evidence
of the prosecution and the other accused in the absence
of the escaped person.
 What happens upon the termination of a trial in absentia?
o The court has the duty to rule upon the evidence
presented in court, despite the absence of the absent
accused.
o There is no need to wait for a time that the accused who
escaped from custody would finally decide to appear in
court to present his evidence and cross-examine the
witnesses against him.
Why is this the rule?
 To allow the delay of proceedings for this purpose is to render
ineffective the Constitutional provision on trial in absentia.
 What the Constitution guarantees to an accused is a fair trial, not a
continued enjoyment of his freedom, even if his guilt would be
proved.
 His absence cannot justify a delay, provided that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear has been unjustified.
What about the fact that this accused is still presumed innocent?
 Even if he is not present there, the accused is still presumed innocent.
 At the end of the day, the case would be decided based on the
evidence presented by the prosecution and the evidence by those
present.
 He was not convicted immediately. He is still presumed innocent,
until the presumption is overturned by evidence.
 So, an accused who escapes and is tried in absentia does not retain
his rights to cross-examine and to present evidence on his behalf,
because this is a virtual waiver of those rights.
o You are not there for no reason. That cannot be explained or is
unjustified. Then, you waive your right to be present in court
and to cross-examine the witnesses.
o That right can be waived. One of the means of waiving such right
is when the accused are absent in the trial without any
justifiable reason.
Take note of the requirements: arraignment, notice, and absence with no
justifiable reason.
PARADA VS. VENERACION 269 SCRA 371 (1997)
 The court kept on sending the notices of hearing to the former
address of the lawyer of the accused. In other words, they were not
notified of the setting. Thus, they failed to appear in the hearings
 The court continued with the hearings, and ultimately, the accused
was convicted.
 So virtually, the State had a field day. Just presented the case with
no opposition.
 This conviction was appealed to the CA.
o The CA nullified the decision because the trial court was
wrong in conducting a trial in absentia, considering that
there was no notice to the accused here, as the notices
were sent to the wrong address.
o The CA said that the judge of the RTC is liable for gross
ignorance of the law, because he should not have
conducted a trial in absentia.
o The three requisites must be present, and there was one
requisite that was missing: the notice.
41 | P a g e
o The third requirement is also missing: since the accused
was not notified, thus his absence became justifiable.
 The accused has not been duly notified of the trial because the notice
of hearing was sent to the former address of his counsel, despite the
fact that his counsel already notified the court of his change of
address.
(Side story: That’s what happened to us. They were already informed after
the criminal case had been charged. We already told them that “Ma’am,
please notify us. Because so far, we have not been receiving any of the
notices from the court.” Nasuko pa sya, saying it’s the fault of the process-
server. “Pero Ma’am diba…” “NO…” We simply opted to leave, because one
does not anger any court personnel, otherwise… wala lang.  )
 Here, the notice requirement was missing. And of course, because he
was not notified, his absence was justifiable. There was an invalid
service of the notices here.
What were the rights violated by the judge?
 The opportunity of this witness to be heard
 The right to be present and to defend himself in person and in every
stage of the proceeding
 The right to a hearing
 The right to be notified
 Because of the lack of notice and the court’s continuation of the trial
despite absence of notice, the rights of the accused were violated,
and so the decision was validly set aside by the CA. The judge here
was also found administratively liable and was fined by the court PHP
10,000.
BERNARDO VS. PEOPLE GR 166980 April 4, 2007
Facts:
 The accused here was charged with violation of BP Blg. 222, the
Bouncing Checks Law.
 Upon arraignment, assisted by counsel, he pled “not guilty”. At the pre-
trial conference, he failed to appear despite notice, prompting the trial
court to issue a warrant of arrest against him and set the cases for trial
in absentia.
 On the trial date set, he failed to appear despite notice, prompting the
court to proceed with his trial in absentia and issued again a warrant
of arrest against him.
 Ultimately, the court promulgated in absentia, because the accused
was not present, the decision convicting him of the charges.
Issue: Was the conviction proper?
Ruling: YES.
 There was a valid trial in absentia here.
 The accused was arraigned, he was notified, and his failure to appear
was unjustifiable. This holding of the trial in his absence is
justifiable/allowed under the 1987 Constitution, particularly in Article
III, Section 14.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
10. When presence of the accused is a DUTY
 Now, there are instances where the presence of the accused is a duty.
The effect is that you will be compelled by the court to appear, among
other things.
 Or, there are also effects in which you may waive some of the rights
(accorded to an accused)
What are the instances wherein the presence of the accused is a duty?
That he has to be present…
a. Arraignment and plea, whether of innocence or of guilt
Rule 116, sec. 1 (b)
RULE 116 • Arraignment and Plea
Section 1. Arraignment and plea; how made. —
(b) The accused must be present at the arraignment and must
personally enter his plea. Both arraignment and plea shall be
made of record, but failure to do so shall not affect the
validity of the proceedings.
 WHY? Because it is only the accused who may answer as to whether
or not his plea is guilty or not guilty of the charged against him. Not
his parents or friends.
 If you are arraigned, and in your arraignment you are not present, the
arraignment will be postponed until the accused appears.
SUPPOSE:
o You posted a bail bond so you can have your provisional
liberty. In your arraignment, you did not appear. The court
can cancel your bail bond or forfeit it and then issue again
a warrant of arrest against you. This is done in order to
compel you to appear in court and answer as to whether
your plea is guilty or not guilty.
o If you do not reappear, then the arraignment will not push
through and the case will be held in abeyance until you
appear.
 This arraignment cannot be done in proxy. The accused should be
present in court during arraignment. There is no arraignment if the
accused is absent. Thus, other persons cannot enter the plea of the
accused in his behalf.
 If you are an accused and you think that it’s alright not to appear since
your case will be pending or held in abeyance, and that it’s OK if you
just escape, this will be to your disadvantage.
 Not only will you lose the opportunity in the future to present your
evidence but suppose you have not been arraigned and you escaped,
you also lose your chance to present evidence against you because it
is not only the prosecution who will lose time to present time to
present their evidence, but also you.
 If you escape after you have been arraigned, it will also be accord you
disadvantage because trial in absentia will happen.
NOTE: In other instances not enumerated in this section, you may choose
not to appear. It’s just that, if you do not appear, you will not have the right
to participate in the proceedings, cross-examine the witnesses, etc.
42 | P a g e
b. During trial, for identification
If you are supposed to be identified by a witness, the court may compel
your presence. An accused may be compelled to appear especially if not on
bail.
PEOPLE VS. SALAS, 143 SCRA 163 (1986)
FACTS:
 The accused here, Mario Abong, was charged with Homicide. But
before he could be arraigned, the case was reinvestigated and the
amended information was filed, which changed the offense to a non-
bailable offense.
 However, before that amended information could be filed, he took
advantage of the fact that the offense filed was still Homicide and he
filed a petition for bail. And so he was able to go out and he escaped.
 After the amended information was filed, the judge learned that the
accused had escaped and he thought to himself: He tricked me into
granting his bail! His offense is now non-bailable! He cancelled the
bail bond and ordered the arrest of the accused but he could no
longer be located.
 Nonetheless, the prosecution moved that the hearing for the case
continue even in the absence of the accused – trial in absentia.
 However, the judge here was so angry. He denied the motion and
suspended all the proceedings until the accused reappears. (He really
wanted to see the accused who tricked him, among others.)
 And so, all the proceedings, insofar as the case was concerned, were
postponed because the accused escaped. So this presupposes that
the accused had been arraigned already.
ISSUE: Was the judge correct here?
SC RULING: NO.
 That cannot be done. He will have to continue the trial of the case in
absentia.
 After arraignment, trial will proceed notwithstanding the absence of
the accused, provided that he has been duly notified and his failure
to appear is unjustified.
 The purpose of this rule is to speed up the disposition of criminal
cases, trial of which could in the past be indefinitely deferred, and
many times completely abandoned, because of the defendant’s
escape. (From Full Text)
 In the past, this was allowed, that the absence of the accused will
suspend the proceedings but because the rule has been changed,
proceedings may continue in your absence, provided that the 3
requisites are present.
 Here, he escaped.
 What was the effect of his escape? Does this deem the notice
requirement waived?
o NO. His escape makes his non-appearance unjustifiable.
o Escape can never be a legal justification. In the past, his
escape “rewarded” him by postponing all further
proceedings against him and in effect ultimately absolving
him of the charge he was facing. Under the present rule,
his escape will, legally speaking, operate to his
disadvantage by preventing him from attending his trial,
which will continue even in his absence and most likely
result in his conviction. (From Full Text)
AS A RULE:
The right to be present at one’s trial may now be waived except only at that
stage where the prosecution intends to present witnesses who will identify
the accused.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
c. Promulgation of sentence, unless it is for a light offense, in
which case accused may appear by counsel, or a representative
In other words, there is already a verdict from the court, whether acquittal
or conviction. You have to be present therein, unless it is for a light offense,
in which case it can either be the counsel or the accused who may appear.
This is found in Revised Rules of Criminal Procedures, Rule 120, Sec. 6 –
RULE 120 • Judgment
Section 6. Promulgation of judgment. — The judgment is
promulgated by reading it in the presence of the accused and
any judge of the court in which it was rendered. However, if
the conviction is for a light offense, the judgment may be
pronounced in the presence of his counsel or representative.
When the judge is absent or outside of the province or city,
the judgment may be promulgated by the clerk of court.
If the accused is confined or detained in another province or
city, the judgment may be promulgated by the executive
judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction over the
place of confinement or detention upon request of the court
which rendered the judgment. The court promulgating the
judgment shall have authority to accept the notice of appeal
and to approve the bail bond pending appeal; provided, that
if the decision of the trial court convicting the accused
changed the nature of the offense from non-bailable to
bailable, the application for bail can only be filed and resolved
by the appellate court.
The proper clerk of court shall give notice to the accused
personally or through his bondsman or warden and counsel,
requiring him to be present at the promulgation of the
decision. If the accused tried in absentia because he jumped
bail or escaped from prison, the notice to him shall be served
at his last known address.
In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of
promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation
shall be made by recording the judgment in the criminal
docket and serving him a copy thereof at his last known
address or thru his counsel.
If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused
to appear was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the
remedies available in these rules against the judgment and
the court shall order his arrest. Within fifteen (15) days from
promulgation of judgment, however, the accused may
surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these
remedies. He shall state the reasons for his absence at the
scheduled promulgation and if he proves that his absence
was for a justifiable cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said
remedies within fifteen (15) days from notice. (6a)
What happens if the accused is absent?
What happens if there is a trial in absentia because he jumped bail or
escaped from prison?
 The notice to him will be served at his last known address. (*This
notice pertains to that which informs him that there is already a
promulgation of judgment.)
 In case the accused fails to appear at the scheduled date of
promulgation of judgment despite notice, the promulgation shall be
made by recording the judgment in the criminal docket and serving
him a copy thereof at his last known address or thru his counsel.
43 | P a g e
What is/are the effects?
“If the judgment is for conviction and the failure of the accused to appear
was without justifiable cause, he shall lose the remedies available in these
rules against the judgment and the court shall order his arrest.”
MEANING: He can no longer appeal and will be ordered arrested.
What are the options/remedies available to the accused?
“Within fifteen (15) days from promulgation of judgment, however, the
accused may surrender and file a motion for leave of court to avail of these
remedies.”
MEANING: He may reappear within 15 days from the promulgation so that
he can explain why he was absent.
 “He shall state the reasons for his absence at the scheduled
promulgation and if he proves that his absence was for a justifiable
cause, he shall be allowed to avail of said remedies within fifteen (15)
days from notice.”
 So, he will appear within 15 days from the promulgation to explain
why he was absent. He must state the reason of his absence and
prove that his absence was for a justifiable cause and if does so, he
will be allowed to avail of his remedies. He will be restored and given
a chance.
 If it was promulgated without his presence and his absence was
unjustified, and then he reappears within 15 days from the
promulgation, you have to explain to the court the reason why he was
absent. His remedies against that judgment will be restored.
Side discussion:
 Remember the rule on demurer to evidence, we just discussed that
in passing but there are news reports regarding the demurer to
evidence filed by Napoles and Jinggoy and the headline of the news
article is that they are closer to have the cases dismissed.
 It's true in a sense that the motion for leave to file demurer to
evidence was granted because as we explained before, demurer to
evidence in a criminal case could be with or without leave of Court.
When you say with motion for leave of Court to file a demurer, you'll
ask the Court for permission to file for demurer. And that motion is
usually granted by the Court.
 That's what happened to Estrada and Napoles, they were allowed to
file their demurer. Meaning, they still have to file their demurer and
after that demurer is filed that is when the Court will examine if the
prosecution was able to establish a prima facie case against them.
 So the article titles are misleading because the filing is in due course
and it is normal to file a motion for leave to file demurer of evidence.
It does not mean that the accused is already acquitted because the
motion for leave was granted. What it does is that it allows you to file
your demurer to evidence which happens almost always. Anyway...
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
IX. PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
 Let's go to privilege against self-incrimination. You do not incriminate
yourself. (Not self-discrimination as that in the news, it was
wrongfully invoked. )
 Privilege against self-incrimination, you do not say anything that is
harmful to yourself and that right/privilege is in Article III, Section 17.
ARTICLE III • SECTION 17. No person shall be compelled to be
a witness against himself.
 The rule is that it must be the State that must prove the charges,
especially in a criminal case that charges against that person, his
conviction, as a rule, cannot be based on his own incriminating
statements.
1. Scope --- Applies only to compulsory testimonial self-incrimination
When is a question incriminating?
 It is incriminating when the questions level tends to subject the
person to a punishment of a crime or it exposes someone to an
accusation or tends to establish guilt against that person but it does
not cover questions that are embarrassing.
CASES –
IN RE SABIO: 504 SCRA 704 (2006)
Remember this case of a legislative inquiry against the PHILCOMSAT
Holdings Corporation.
FACTS:
 There were several people that were invited by the investigating
Senate Committee.
 Those that were invited challenged this.
 According to them, the subpoena issued by the Senate Inquiry
Committee violated their right to privacy and their right against self-
incrimination.
ISSUE: Are they correct in invoking right there and then their right against
self-incrimination?
RULING: NO.
 Anent the right against the right against self-incrimination, it must be
emphasized that this right may be invoked by the directors and
officers of the PHILCOMSAT, only when the incriminating question is
being asked because they are not in a criminal case in that senate
inquiry.
 That is provided in the Rules of the Senate Committees, Section 19.
At least in this case, because normally they publish this every time
there is a new Senate. So, during this time, Section 19.
Sec. 19. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. A witness can invoke his right
against self-incrimination only when a question which tends to elicit an
answer that will incriminate him is propounded to him. However, he may
offer to answer any question in an executive session.
No person can refuse to testify or be placed under oath or affirmation or
answer questions before an incriminatory question is asked. His invocation
of such right does not by itself excuse him from his duty to give testimony.
In such a case, the Committee, by a majority vote of the members present
there being a quorum, shall determine whether the right has been properly
invoked. If the Committee decides otherwise, it shall resume its
44 | P a g e
investigation and the question or questions previously refused to be
answered shall be repeated to the witness. If the latter continues to refuse
to answer the question, the Committee may punish him for contempt for
contumacious conduct.
 Not totally disobey the subpoena. And this recognizes the fact that
the Constitutional right is deemed preserved, provided, however,
that the witness do not disobey the subpoena.
 He still have the right against self-incrimination, however, the
invocation of the right is only when the questions are already asked.
SJS VS. DDB 570 SCRA 410 (2008) — "drug-testing"
FACTS:
The random drug testing which was imposed against students, workers of
the public and the private sector, it was needed as a requirement for those
running for public office, and of course, those who are accused for an
offense.
HELD:
 The Court, in discussing this case in the matter of self-incrimination,
held that the random drug testing is unconstitutional against the
accused.
 It violates their rights against self-incrimination because these
accused are already charged with criminal offenses, unlike the
situation covered by the students and workers of the public and the
private sector, the Court found no valid justification for the
mandatory drug testing for persons accused of crimes. Their situation
is entirely different.
 The operative concept why the drug testings are done is because they
are random and suspicionless.
 The requirement of suspicionless is already absent when you are
talking about accused individuals.
 A drug test conducted on those already charged with an offense can
never be random or suspicionless.
 What is the effect?
o To impose mandatory drug testing on them is a blatant
attempt to harness a medical test as a tool for criminal
prosecution.
o So, the Court equated their urine to testimonial
compulsion because it is equivalent to a violation of their
right against self-incrimination.
We will discuss in cases later that the right against self-incrimination may
be invoked in instances that an object evidence is involved and is related
to a criminal charge.
PEOPLE VS. GAMIN 621 SCRA 159 (2010)
LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
FACTS:
 There is this accused charged with killing of the former Chief of the
Metropolitan Command Intelligence and Security Group of the
Philippine Constabular, now the Philippine National Police (PNP),
Colonel Rolando N. Abadilla (“Abadilla”), who was ambushed in broad
daylight while driving his car along Katipunan Avenue, Quezon City.
 He was invited to the police station to be investigated by the police.
 Before taking down his statement, he was advised by the
investigating officer of his Miranda rights, that any statement he will
make may be used against him.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 Later on, he was given a chance to get a lawyer. A lawyer was
provided for him, but this assistance given by a lawyer was only given
to him a day after he was taken into custody.
 While he was making his admissions with the purported assistance of
this lawyer, he nevertheless made admission as to the commission of
the offense.
 His extrajudicial confessions were recorded and were subsequently
used against this person.
Issue: Are these admissions admissible as evidence, since he was assisted
by counsel?
Ruling: INADMISSIBLE.
 Recall the concept of custodial investigation, that when one is in
custody and is being interrogated, he/she must be assisted by a
competent and independent counsel. And if the rights of the person
in custodial investigation are violated, the exclusionary rule is
applied.
 The same holds true for right against self-incrimination. If these are
violated, the incriminating statements will be excluded as evidence.
 What about here in this case? He was already in custodial
investigation and he was purportedly assisted by counsel. What’s
wrong with that?
o The police officers claim that upon arresting this person,
he was informed of his constitutional rights. However, he
was presented to the lawyer only one day after he was
placed into custody. He stayed overnight there before he
was presented to the lawyer.
 The Court did not discount the possibility that this person had already
been tortured, subjected to intimidation or violence in the hands of
the police investigators, as he claims. The constitutional requirement,
obviously, has not been observed.
o Settled is the rule that the moment a police officer tries to
elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information
from a suspect, the latter should, at that juncture, be
assisted by counsel, unless he waives this right in writing
and in the presence of counsel. (From Full Text)
o The Court considered the fact that he was only assisted by
counsel the following day. He may have been intimidated
already and his statements may have been vitiated.
o This case highlights the importance of counsel to prevent
the use of duress and other forms of undue influence.
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN
This case discussed Immunity Statutes, which will be discussed later on
which is still related to self-incrimination. We have “Use Immunity” and
“Transactional Immunity”. If you become a State witness, you will be
immune. The purpose of being a State witness, you have to implicate
yourself and other people, so you will be, basically, incriminating yourself
but because you are granted immunity, those statements may not be used
against you.
We have cases involving immunity. One of which is the case of People vs.
Sandiganbayan.
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 699 SCRA 713 (2013)
FACTS:
 It was a scheme in this DOF One-Stop Shop where they committed
the offense of falsification. They were a group. This person was
arrested. A case was filed against them before the Sandiganbayan.
45 | P a g e
 This person filed a motion reminding the court that he was granted
already an immunity by the Office of the Ombudsman because he
was to be treated as a State witness.
 Acting favourably on the motion that the Ombudsman executed an
immunity agreement. So the motion was filed before the Office of the
Ombudsman and it was granted. He became immune but the case
was already pending before the Sandiganbayan.
 Since the case was pending already, the Ombudsman filed a motion
to discharge him as one of the accused because he will be used as a
state witness.
 The court, however, denied the motion of the Ombudsman. The court
did not agree to remove this person as one of the accused.
 It prompted the accused and the office to go to the Supreme Court to
challenge this order of the Sandiganbayan denying the motion to
exclude this person as an accused after already been granted with the
immunity.
 True enough, the Court said that the Ombudsman has the power
provided by law - RA 6770, the Immunity Statute granting the power
to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person whose
testimony or whose possession and production of documents or
other evidence may be necessary to determine the truth in any
hearing, inquiry or proceeding. Ombudsman has the power to grant
immunity.
 Also, the Department of Justice, someone there also has the same
power to grant immunity to witnesses.
 What do these immunity statutes balance?
o They balance between the state’s interests, which is to
get to the bottom of the offense and of course to continue
with the prosecution, and on the other hand, the
individual’s right against self-incrimination.
o To secure his testimony without exposing him to the risk
of prosecution, the law recognizes that the witness can be
given immunity from prosecution.
 However, while the power is already given to the Ombudsman, if the
case is already pending before the court, it will subject to the
discretion of the court.
o Your remedy is to ask the court to respect and to take note
of this immunity granted, but it does not mean that it will
be granted always because the case is already pending
before the court, it has the discretion whether or not to
grant the same.
 As what happened in this case, the Ombudsman already filed with the
Sandiganbayan a criminal action against the accused and therefore
this court acquired jurisdiction with this case and it remained within
its power to determine whether or not he may be discharged as a
State witness.
 Had the immunity been granted prior to the filing of the case, there
could have been no problem because he cannot be charged in the
first place if he was already granted immunity because he will be
excluded as an accused then the case will be filed; but what happened
here is that he was already included as an accused.
 This power to grant immunity is given, as a rule, to the prosecutors
because they are the ones who know what testimony are needed,
whose testimony are vital or not, who shall be granted.
 It’s not an inherent judicial function but what happened here was
that the case was already presented. It was already before the court.
That is why it became subject to its discretion.
 There’s no showing that the exercise thereof was attended with grave
abuse discretion.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 Courts should generally, as a rule, defer to the judgment of the
prosecution and only deny a motion to discharge an accused so he
can be a witness only in clear cases of failure to meet the
requirements for him to become a state witness.
So this is the general rule, the courts should generally defer the judgment
of the prosecution to make a person a state witness. But it does not mean
that he is absolutely bound by the findings of the prosecutor especially if
the case is already pending before it.
DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE 730 SCRA 655 (2014)
The exclusion of the result of a drug test.
FACTS:
 The NBI received a complaint from Corazon Absin and Charito
Escobido claiming that Ariel Escobido was picked up by police officers
for allegedly selling drugs.
 An errand boy gave a number to the complainants. They called the
number and they were instructed to go to Gorordo Police Office.
 In the said police office, they met "James", who demanded from them
₱100,000, later lowered to ₱40,000, in exchange for the release of
Ariel.
 After the meeting, the complainants proceeded to the NBI-CEVRO to
file a complaint and narrate the circumstances of the meeting to the
authorities.
 While at the NBI-CEVRO, Charito even received calls supposedly from
"James" instructing her to bring the money as soon as possible.
 James is a police officer who extorts supposed drug involved
individuals.
 The special investigators at the NBI-CEVRO verified the text messages
received by the complainants. A team was immediately formed to
implement an entrapment operation, which took place inside a
Jollibee branch at the corner of Gen. Maxilom and Gorordo Avenues,
Cebu City.
 The officers were able to nab Jaime dela Cruz by using a pre-marked
500 bill dusted with fluorescent powder, which was made part of the
amount demanded by "James" and handed by Corazon.
 Petitioner was later brought to the forensic laboratory of the NBI-
CEVRO where forensic examination was done by forensic chemist
Rommel Paglinawan. Petitioner was required to submit his urine for
drug testing.
 It later yielded a positive result for presence of dangerous drugs as
indicated in the confirmatory test result labeled as Toxicology
(Dangerous Drugs) Report.
 This prompted the prosecution to charge him for violation of the
Comprehensive Dangerous drugs Act. The urine sample was used
against him.
 Dela Cruz contended that he refused to the drug examination and
requested to call his lawyer but it was denied by the NBI. What he
wanted is that he should be assisted by his lawyer.
 He was compelled to do something which would incriminate him. So
he should be assisted by counsel, and considering that the drug
testing was done without assistance of a counsel, it should be
excluded as evidence.
ISSUE: Is the result of the drug test admissible as evidence?
HELD: NO.
 The drug test in Section 15 does not cover persons apprehended or
arrested for any unlawful act, but only for unlawful acts listed under
Article II of R.A. 9165.
 In other words, the drug testing in this case had no legal basis.
46 | P a g e
 Here, he was entrapped and that is because there is a complaint
against him for extortion.
 It was far out to subject him for drug test when the complaint is about
extortion. Therefore there was no legal basis because it was not a
drug-related case.
 He was arrested for extortion. It was only after he tested positive for
the use of drugs that a case for the use of illegal drugs was filed.
 In other words, the presentation of the drug test here expanded the
wording of the law. It made the rule applicable to all persons arrested
or apprehended for any crime not listed under the law and it’s
tantamount to a mandatory drug testing of persons which is not the
purpose of the rule.
 Is this drug test covered by the allowed non-testimonial compulsion?
o The rule is that the right to self-incrimination can only be
invoked if there is a testimonial compulsion. Therefore,
since this is urine and the drug result test have nothing to
do with his testimony. He did not say anything that is
compelled. Can this object evidence be included because
it is not covered by the exclusion not being testimonial?
 The drug test is not covered by allowable non-
testimonial compulsion.
 Meaning?
o In the instant case, it failed to see how a urine sample
could be material to the charge of extortion.
o The court discussed that way because it noted that the
prohibition against testimonial compulsion and they
know that a rule against self-incrimination only excludes
testimonial compulsions.
o Therefore, if evidence used against you is not testimonial,
it will not be excluded.
o It is also aware of the cases relating to the that doctrine
but the cases where the non-testimonial compulsion,
meaning, object evidence or other evidence, or other
evidence that are not testimonial have been allowed
reveal; however, that the pieces of evidence obtained
were all material to the principal cause of the arrest.
 So, the general rule is that the Constitutional right of an accused
against self-incrimination proscribes the use of physical or moral
compulsion to extort communications.
 Thus, purely mechanical acts, writing or urine or to get a sample from
you, biological sample, these will not violate your right against self-
incrimination because the essence of the right is protection against
testimonial compulsion.
 However, in this case, the court said that, it failed to see how a urine
sample could be material to the charge of extortion.
 So, the urine was unrelated totally from the extortion which was the
basis why he was entrapped in the first place.
 Therefore, the lower court erred when they held that the extraction
of petitioner’s urine for purposes of drug testing was merely a
mechanical act.
 So, meaning the urine here is inadmissible in evidence despite being
not a testimony.
 Now, there is a case cited by the State, Gutang v People that
consistent to the general rule what the constitution prohibits
are extortion of communication.
o Therefore, if it is not communication, it will be allowed
even if there is an incriminating piece of evidence.
o That could happen if the evidence is admitted and this
submission of urine, etc. was a mere mechanical act
in Gutang v People. So, admissible as evidence.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 Is Gutang v People applicable in this case?
o The best way to counter an invocation of jurisprudence is
to point out the factual differences of the case to your
case and jurisprudence cited.
o So, that is why they pointed out those that are not similar
with Gutang with the instant case.
o In Gutang, he was arrested:
 First, Gutang was arrested in relation to a drug
case;
 Second, he volunteered to give his urine; and
 Third, there were other pieces of evidence that
point to his culpability for the crimes charged.
 In the present case, petitioner was arrested for extortion; he resisted
having his urine sample taken; and finally, his urine sample was the
only available evidence that was used as basis for his conviction for
the use of illegal drugs.
o So, they are not the same.
 Was the drug test here a violation of this right to self-incrimination?
o Yes, the drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to
privacy and right against self-incrimination.
 What is the effect? What rule applies when there is a violation against
your right of self-incrimination?
o The exclusionary rule. So, the drug test was excluded in
this case.
PEOPLE VS. FIELDAD 737 SCRA 455 (2014)
FACTS:
 Paraffin test. So, there was this shooting of a person so it was
subjected to a paraffin test and this was used as evidence against the
accused.
 Now, she contends that the paraffin casting was performed without
the assistance of counsel; therefore, contrary to the right of the
accused.
 The evidence was used against her; therefore, violated her right
against self-incrimination.
ISSUE: Does this taking of the paraffin test violate the right of the accused
against the right to self-incrimination?
RULING: NO.
 The taking of the paraffin, cast or test, does not violate the right.
 His right against self-incrimination is not violated by the taking of the
paraffin test of his hands.
 This constitutional right extends only to testimonial compulsion and
not when the body of the accused is proposed to be examined as in
this case.
 So, this case talks about the general rule. Your hands are only tested,
if there is some substance that proves that you did something related
to the offense.
 They are not using anything, but in the previous case we discussed
earlier, that the urine was excluded even if it is not a testimony
because it violated the accused’s right against self-incrimination.
 Because it is illegal and the sample is related to the crime charged.
So, these are the trains of thought that we have to consider because there
are certain cases decided this way and there are certain cases decided this
way.
What is important is that we know which ruling is applicable consistent
with the facts that are given during the exam.
47 | P a g e
DE CASTRO V. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 171672, FEBRUARY 2. 2015
We have discussed this case about estafa.
FACTS:
 This bank teller used accounts of account owners allowing her to
extract money.
 So, because of this she was caught that she was doing this and
investigation was done against her during administrative during
internal audit.
 There, she admitted to having committed the offense and these
admissions were used against her.
 She claims that it should be inadmissible because she was not
assisted by a counsel.
 The court discussed here that her argument was purportedly violated
her right against her right against self-incrimination.
 Because she invoked that, the Court had to discuss.
RULING:
 The right against self-incrimination as a rule is applicable during trial.
 Was there trial here?
o No, wherein statements against her were being elicited
from her during an internal audit investigation.
 Are her custodial investigation rights also applicable?
o No, because she was not subject to custodial investigation
when the statements were taken from her.
o These cherished rights are peculiarly rights in the context
of an official proceeding for the investigation and
prosecution for crime.
o The right against self-incrimination, when applied to a
criminal trial, is contained in the injunction – No person
shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
o In other words, he may not be required to take the witness
stand which did not happen in this case.
o He can sit mute throughout the proceedings. In this case
there was no violation of the right against self-
incrimination and custodial investigation rights because
the instances were these rights were stopped are not
present.
 In what proceedings are these right available?
o We already said that it is available in criminal,
administrative, civil and even senate inquiries, but the
level of applicability will vary in criminal cases.
2. In what proceedings available
When can you invoke this privilege against self-incrimination?
1) You can, of course, invoke this right in criminal cases.
o In fact, in criminal cases, the privilege is very broad
because you can be excluded from being a witness. You
can avoid taking the witness stand.
o So if you will testify against yourself or you will be
presented by the prosecution to testify against yourself,
you can say that you have the right to self-incrimination
and you will not testify. In a criminal case, that will be
allowed.
2) The right is also available in civil cases, but the difference is that in
civil cases, you cannot avoid taking the witness stand but you can
invoke your right when the incriminating questions are given to you.
So that is the difference.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019

In criminal cases, you can totally altogether avoid being a witness against
yourself but in civil cases, you will have to take the witness stand but you
can invoke the right when the questions are incriminating already.
In civil cases, you have the option to refuse to answer an incriminating
question. You have to take the witness stand and invoke the right when the
questions are asked.
3) In administrative cases, you can also invoke this right against self-
incrimination.
o The general rule is that you follow the civil case rule, which
is you cannot altogether avoid taking the witness stand.
You can only invoke the right when the questions are
propounded.
But there are exceptional cases... (Read Pascual vs. Board of Medical
Examiners below.)
4) Finally, in legislative investigations, you can invoke this right.
o Just because the Senate has the plenary power to have inquiries
in aid of legislation, one limitation of that is to respect the rights
of those who attend the hearings.
o One of your rights there, is your right against self-incrimination.
o But the same rule in civil cases applies in legislative inquiries.
You cannot disobey the subpoena but you can negate
answering the questions when they are propounded to you by
invoking the right against self-incrimination.
Take note of the distinctions.
Now, this right against self-incrimination applies only to compulsory
testimonial self-incrimination. In other words, if there is an object
evidence that was taken against you, you cannot say that your right to self-
incrimination was violated.
What can be excluded?
 This right to self-incrimination, if it's violated, calls for the application
of the exclusionary rule.
 What can be excluded, however, are your incriminating statements
and also those objects that were taken because of your incriminating
statements.
o But other than that -- other objects, evidence, or
documentary evidence presented that are not related to
your self-incriminating testimony, those will not be
excluded.
o It is only when the questions being propounded to him
that is incriminating that he can invoke the right.
 The Court agreed with the respondent of the administrative case.
(This is what Sir said, but upon discussion, the Court agreed with the
petitioner.) We'll discuss the reason why.
 But this is the only exceptional rule. As a general rule, in
administrative cases, apply the civil case rule which is to take the
witness stand and invoke the right if the questions are incriminating
except in Pascual vs Board of Medical Examiners.
2ND Discussion
 Here, Pascual was charged administratively before the Board of
Medical Examiners.
 So, administrative case to strip him off of his license as a doctor
because of immorality.
 In the proceedings, he was subpoenaed; he was compelled to testify
in the proceeding.
 He did not follow the subpoena and insisted on this noncompliance
because he did not want to testify against himself.
 The Board, on the other hand, replied that this is not a criminal case,
why are you avoiding the witness, are you guilty?
 So, it reached the SC and it believed Pascual, where there is an
imposition of penalty or forfeiture, the right against self-
incrimination may be invoked in this case, the exceptional case.
What was the penalty to be imposed on him?
 He will lose his license to be a doctor.
 Therefore, it is tantamount to penalty already of a criminal character.
 There is already an imposition of a penalty.
 Such a principle is at equally applicable to a proceeding that could
possibly results in the loss of the privilege to practice medical
profession.
 The right against self-incrimination has several aspects. It can be
invoked at the time the questions are propounded and the other
aspect is that you can refuse to take the witness stand altogether.
 The second aspect was applied to Pascual in this case, because of the
gravity of the penalty that will be imposed in him.
 So, that is one of the two exceptions.
 This case cited Cabal v Kapunan, which is a proceeding involving the
recovery of ill-gotten wealth, where the SC also applied the doctrine
against self-incrimination even in that proceeding that is not criminal
in character allowing the witness not to take the witness stand.
 So, these are the two exceptional cases, (1) Pascual v Board of
Medical Examiners and (2) Cabal v. Kapunan.

CASES –

PASCUAL VS. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS, 28 SCRA 344 (1969)

Which was based on Cabal vs Kapunan. In Pascual vs Board,

FACTS:
 There was an administrative case against a physician, for immorality.
 He was asked to be a witness against himself and he did not take the
witness stand.
 His defense was that he was going to be penalized, why would he
present himself.
 The position of those prosecuting him was that it was not a criminal
case.
o That he cannot altogether forego taking the witness stand.
48 | P a g e
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
March 23, 2019
The Right Against Self-Incrimination
 The right to invoke in several types of proceedings – criminal, civil and
administrative and even in senate inquiries but the extent of the right
varies for each type of case.
 If criminal, you can invoke the right and not take the witness stand.
As for the other cases, as a rule, you can only invoke the right when
incriminating questions are asked. Therefore, you cannot avoid going
to the witness stand for civil, administrative or senate inquiry except
for Cabal vs. Kapunan and Pascual vs. Board of Medical Examiners.
We have cases that blur the line when these rights are invocable,
specifically the case of Galman vs. Pamaran, because of the bizarre,
outlandish or not-so-common circumstances that happened here.
GALMAN VS. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 274 (1985)
FACTS:
 This was an investigation conducted for the killing of Ninoy Aquino.
 So, to investigate the matter, PD 1886 created this Agrava Board,
which is an adhoc fact-finding board. This is a fact-finding body which
aimed to discover who were the perpetrators of the offense
 Now, there were many people called to testify for this Board.
Thinking that these people would be immuned from suit and that
their statements would not be used against them, they showed up,
among others, General Ver, Major Olimas, etc.
 These military men, they testified before the court because if they do
not go to the court after being summoned, they would be held liable
for contempt under this law. So, they went there and testified on
their participation, if any, in the killing of these people, Ninoy and
Galman.
 After the investigation of the Agrava Board, they created this report
which they submitted to then Tanod Bayan (now, the Ombudsman).
The Tanod Bayan conducted a preliminary examination based on the
report and they found out that who were liable were also those who
testified.
 Why? Because the people who testified admitted under pain of
contempt, they could not, therefore, invoke the right against self-
incrimination because there is a provision in the law that if they do
not speak, they could be held liable for contempt.
 So, they were forced. Because of those forced statements, they were
indicted for the murder of these people.
 They filed a motion to exclude their testimonies before the court on
the ground that these statements violated their right to self-
incrimination which they said is guaranteed under the same law,
Section 5 thereof.
 There is a provision that they are immune, whatever they said there
will not be used against them because it would derogate their right
to self-incrimination.
 The position of the State is that they made their statements
voluntarily before the Board. The most important argument of the
State is that they failed to invoke their right against self-incrimination.
 Why did they fail to do so?
o Because they cannot invoke it, otherwise, they will be held
in contempt.
o And so because they failed to invoke that right which is
waivable. Thus, their statements are admissible.
ISSUE: Whether or not their testimonies are admissible as evidence before
the court
RULING: NO.
49 | P a g e
 The Court said NO. It noted the peculiar nature of this Agrava Board
which summoned persons who testified including people who are not
merely plain witnesses but also those suspected as authors and co-
participants in the tragic killing.
 In other words, the people who were invited, some of them were
actually suspects already.
 When suspects are summoned, called to testify, produce evidence,
the situation is – one, where the person to testify and produce
evidence is undergoing an investigation for the commission of an
offense without clearly being in a fact-finding investigation.
 What is peculiar in this case is that this PD 1886, this law that created
this Board and granted several immunities to those who would testify,
actually, instead of granting, denied the witnesses the right to remain
silent. Because if they remained silent and they would not say
anything, they can be held liable under contempt under Section 4 of
this law, under pain of contempt if they fail or refuse to testify.
 Take note, in this case, the Court said that the right to remain silent,
which is as we all know, a right during custodial investigation, is
actually guaranteed whether the accused are in custodial
investigation or not. That’s contrary to what we’ve learned before
because citing the provisions.
 In fact, the SC said that there is no categorical statement in the
provision that requires the person to be in custody. But as we already
know, in cases after the 1987 Constitution, the Constitutional right
in custodial investigation would only apply during custodial
investigation.
 The Court emphasized the purpose of the right to remain silent which
is similar to the right against self-incrimination – for you not to
incriminate yourself when you make statements, forced statements,
that would be used against you; the evil of extorting from the person
undergoing interrogation, the statements that would be used
against him.
 What we have emphasized earlier is that people called to be
witnesses were already under investigation for the killing and they
were not merely invited for a fact-finding investigation.
 What about the argument of the State that they failed to invoke this
right?
o Moreover, on the argument of the State that they failed
to invoke the right; so far as their right to silence is
concerned, they waived it because they spoke, they
testified. The Court said that the waiver of that right, in
the first place, must be done voluntarily.
o Here, they did not do so because they could not preserve
that right under pain of penalty. Therefore, their waiver,
if any, was not made voluntarily because it was under
pain of contempt.
 What about the right on self-incrimination?
o On the right of self-incrimination, according to SC, even if
they were not able to invoke it, it was also still applicable
here.
o Take note that this right against self-incrimination is not
limited to criminal cases. It’s not the character of the suit
involved but the nature of the proceeding that controls.
o Example: In civil cases, administrative and senate
inquiries, this can be invoked, and it extends to all
proceedings sanctioned by law and to all cases in which
punishment is sought to be visited on the witness. And
with more reason that the right to self-incrimination is
applicable in this case because those investigated were
already suspects.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 What about the fact that they failed to invoke their right to self-
incrimination?
o Section 5 of this law grants the witnesses use immunity.
Use immunity is an immunity granted to a witness so
that his statements during the proceedings would not be
used against him. That’s the only immunity, only to the
extent of the use of the statements. If there are other
pieces of evidences that can be used against the person,
he cannot be immune.
 So this law grants the people who testify before the Board “Use
immunity” but Section 5 which grants the same immunity requires
them to invoke the right to self-incrimination to activate such
immunity.
 However, if you use Section 4 of the same law, the witnesses cannot
not testify or not say anything because they may be liable for
contempt.
 So, how would you reconcile?
o The court said that these provisions taken together
actually deprive the witnesses their right to against self-
incrimination because they are forced to be witnesses
against themselves, otherwise they will be held liable,
penalized by the Agrava Board.
o Therefore, there was no need for them to invoke this
right against self-incrimination for this immunity to
attach if they are truly to be treated as witnesses.
o So here, even without the invocation of the right against
self-incrimination the immunity in the Section 5 attached
because they could not invoke it in the first place.
Now we compare this case with People vs. Ayson, where the court made a
distinction between custodial investigation rights, which includes the right
to remain silent and the right against self-incrimination.
In what instances can you invoke these rights?
Compare PEOPLE VS. AYSON, 175 SCRA 216 (1989)
Facts:
 This person who was selling plane tickets in the PAL was charged with
estafa, and before he was charged, there was an investigation
conducted by the PAL where it was he himself who admitted to the
irregular use of the money.
 He made a statement – to whom it may concern etc. He admitted his
participation in the commission of the offense.
 Because of that statement he was charged with estafa. Now, that
piece of evidence was assailed to be inadmissible by the person here,
because according to him his right to remain silent and his right
against self-incrimination: these rights were violated while in that
investigation.
ISSUE: Is the statement admissible or inadmissible?
HELD: The court said the statement is admissible
 The court distinguished the two rights involved here. The (1) right
against self-incrimination, which is the right of the person not to be
compelled to be a witness against himself and (2) the right of a
person during custodial investigation, which includes the right to
remain silent.
 What is the right to against self-incrimination?
o Every person who gives evidence in every civil, criminal or
administrative proceeding, the right not to be compelled
to be a witness against oneself.
50 | P a g e
o On the other hand, the right to custodial investigation
includes: the right to counsel, the right to remain silent,
etc.
 And the court emphasized they are not the same because the
situation or time wherein you can invoke these rights differ.
o When you talk about custodial investigation rights when
can you invoke them?
 Only during custodial investigation.
o What about the right against self-incrimination?
 You can invoke it in any proceeding, actually,
administrative, criminal, and civil.
 So, the accused in court, is undergoing a preliminary investigation or
before a public prosecutor.
 During preliminary investigation, you cannot invoke your custodial
investigation rights because you are no longer under custodial
investigation.
 But during those proceedings, you can actually invoke your right
against self-incrimination because there is already a proceeding
against you, so you can invoke but not your custodial investigation
rights.
 So here, what rights would have been invocable?
o Well, since there is already a proceeding, there was
already an internal investigation with the PAL, so it would
have been proper for him not to invoke custodial
investigation rights but rather, the right against self-
incrimination.
 The court summarized here the rights before the case is filed in court,
but after having been taken into custody, you are already under
custodial investigation. You can already invoke custodial investigation
rights.
 After the case is filed, you can invoke your rights against self-
incrimination. While testifying, you can also invoke your right against
self-incrimination.
 Applying those doctrines in this case, the accused is, under any sense,
under custodial investigation; therefore he could invoke his custodial
investigation rights when his statements were taken from him.
Legislative Inquiry — IN RE SABIO, 504 SCRA 704 (2006)
In legislative inquiries, as we learned before in INRE: Sabio, you can invoke
your right against self-incrimination not to disobey a subpoena, but rather
obey the subpoena, and invoke the right when the questions are asked.
3. "Use Immunity" vs. "Transactional Immunity"
Let us go to concept of immunity statutes. As we said before; there is a
need to discuss these immunity statutes under the right against self-
incrimination, because if these statutes are used, they grant you immunity
for the statements that are incriminating you.
What are the two types of immunity statutes?
1. Use Immunity: it exempts the use of the testimony against you.
2. Transactional Immunity: this is also known as blanket
immunity. You will not be prosecuted for the offense which
relates to your testimonies at all.
The distinction is as follows:
Use immunity:
 Prohibits the use of the witnesses compelled testimony and its fruits
in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the
witness.
 The witness would still be indicted for the commission of an offense,
but the statements he will give cannot be used against him.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 So the use again is immunized. The statements cannot be used
against him.
o Example: an item was located, it cannot be used.
On the other hand, when we talk of transactional immunity:
 Why transactional?
o Because the witness actually transacts with the State,
negotiates – do not prosecute me at all.
 It grants immunity to the witness of the prosecution for an offense to
which his compelled testimony relates.
 There is therefore, absolute immunity to go to the prosecution and
use of the statements given by the witnesses.
 It operates as a complete pardon for a person to use the information
was given. This is because there are certain witnesses whose
statements are so important in a case that they can only be
compelled to testify if they are given such transactional immunity,
otherwise, they will not testify if Use only.
There is an article in the internet co-written by a senior partner in the
ACCRA Law, Francis Ed Lim, where he distinguished with examples
blanket/transactional from use immunity. The discussion originated
from a rant related to Napoles while that case was still very a hot topic.
Use or derivative use testimony
 Prohibits the use of the testimony of the witness or any evidence
derived from him against a witness.
 Example:
o This witness is given “use immunity” for testifying a
robbery. He stated that he robbed, that he took the
stolen money and used it. So there is now a charge for
robbery.
 Can the prosecution get this person? Can the prosecution use the
testimony of this person for the robbery when he is already
granted “use immunity”?
o Insofar as these statements that relate to robbery is
concerned, it cannot be used.
o But, what about the instance that not only that he
robbed but he also used the money which is also a
separate criminal offense? In that offense, he can be
penalized.
 The prosecution cannot use his immunized testimony against him.
They must rely on independent evidence.
 What if you want to charge him for robbery?
o You cannot use his statements that was immunized by
the “use immunity” that was granted to him. But you
can get another witness that would testify against him,
a co-conspirator, a co-robber.
o Their statements will not be excluded because they are
not granted immunity.
o In other words, you can still be prosecuted provided
that you use another piece of external evidence, from
testimony elsewhere, against this person and
therefore he is not immune from suit at all for that
offense.
Transactional immunity or Blanket Immunity
 Grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense
which his compelled testimony relates.
 It is broader in scope because it completely protects the witness
from future prosecution from crimes related to his immunity.
51 | P a g e
And in the article he discusses the case of Galman vs Pamaran where
PD 1886 grants the witnesses “Use Immunity” only.
There are laws that grant either “Use Immunity” or “Transactional
Immunity”.
a. Transactional Immunity
These provisions in the law that grant total exemption from prosecution
for any statement that you use that can be used in criminal prosecution
against you.
ARTICLE XIII • SECTION 18. The Commission on Human Rights
shall have the following powers and functions: xxx
(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose
testimony or whose possession of documents or other
evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in
any investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
Rep. Act No. 1379 • An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of the State Any
Property Found to Have Been Unlawfully Acquired by Any Public Officer or
Employee and Providing for the Proceedings Therefor • sec. 9 (Section 8
was placed in the syllabus, but sir G discussed Section 9.)
R.A. 1379 • Section 9. Immunity. The Solicitor General may
grant immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who
testifies to the unlawful manner in which the respondent has
acquired any of the property in question in cases where such
testimony is necessary to prove violations of this Act.
Rep. Act No. 6832 • An Act Creating a Commission to Conduct a Thorough
Fact-Finding Investigation of the Failed Coup D’état of December 1989,
Recommend Measures to Prevent the Occurrence of Similar Attempts at a
Violent Seizure of Power, and for Other Purposes • sec. 8 (Davide
Commission)
R.A. 6832 • Section 8. Immunity from Criminal
Prosecution. – The Commission is authorized to grant
immunity from criminal prosecution to any person who
provides information or testifies in any investigation
conducted by it where, upon its evaluation, such information
or testimony is necessary and vital to the investigation. The
immunity thereby granted shall continue to protect the
witness who repeats such testimony before the appropriate
court when required to do so by the latter. Should he refuse
to repeat such testimony, the immunity granted him shall
cease.
RA 6981 • Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act
b. Use and Fruit Immunity
CASE –
GALMAN VS. PAMARAN, 138 SCRA 274 (185)
(Exemplified PD 1886)
 Sec 5. His testimony or any evidence produced by him shall not be
used against him in connection with any transaction, matter or thing
concerning which he is compelled. So the immunity is limited to the
testimony.
 It requires you, for this immunity to attach, to invoke your right
against self-incrimination.
 But, Sec 4 provides that a person guilty of refusing to be sworn or to
answer as a witness or to subscribe to an affidavit or deposition when
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
lawfully required to do so may be summarily adjudged in direct
contempt by the Board.
 So if you were invited as a witness, can you say “I invoke my right
against self-incrimination” for the immunity to attach?
o NO. Because if you invoke your right against self-
incrimination you will be held liable by the court in
contempt.
o So, the witness is now is in a dilemma. Should I talk or not?
I will make statements that will be used against me
because I will not be able invoke my right against self-
incrimination which is the requirement in the first place
before immunity will attach.
o On the other hand, if I will not talk, I will be held liable in
direct contempt.
 The Court said that Sec 5 grants “use immunity” to the witness even
without invoking his right against self-incrimination because he could
not, under these circumstances, invoke the same. It would be useless
to require him to invoke it because he could not invoke it in the first
place.
 Under the oppressive compulsion of P.D. 1886, immunity must in fact
be offered to the witness before he can be required to answer, there
is no need for him to invoke his right against self-incrimination.
P.D. No. 1886
Note — Executive Order No. 1 —"The Truth Commission"
 This was declared unconstitutional by the SC; also granted use
immunity.
4. Exclusionary rule • Art. III, sec. 12 (3)
ARTICLE III • SECTION 12. xxx
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this
or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against
him.
 What happens if there is a violation of your right against self-
incrimination?
o Any confession or admission obtained shall inadmissible in
evidence.
5. Effect of denial of privileges by court
 What happens if that testimony is the sole basis for your conviction
then it was excluded from evidence?
o Naturally, there will be no evidence against you, so, the
case will be dismissed.
CHAVEZ VS. COURT OF APPEALS, 24 SCRA 663 (1968)
FACTS:
 Chavez was a defendant in a criminal case. He was called by the
prosecution to be the first witness for it.
 He said that “No, I invoke my right against self-incrimination.” Why
would I testify against myself?
 But the judge here was zealous, stating that "is the right of the
prosecution to ask anybody to act as witness on the witness
stand including the accused,"
 The Judge himself ruled that he must testify for the prosecution.
 And that the defense counsel "could not object to have the accused
called on the witness stand." So the witness had no choice and
testified. Later on he was convicted.
52 | P a g e
ISSUE: Was it proper for the court to have done that? What is the effect if
the statements are excluded?
RULING:
 The Court emphasized the importance of the right against self-
incrimination. It is fundamental to our scheme of justice.
 Proscription against self-incrimination was established on broad
grounds of public policy and humanity; of policy because it would
place the witness against the strongest temptation to commit perjury,
and of humanity because it would be to extort a confession of truth
by a kind of duress every species and degree of which the law abhors.
 Therefore, the court cannot not extract from a defendant's own lips
and against his will an admission of his guilt. Nor may a court as much
as resort to compulsory disclosure, directly or indirectly, of facts
usable against him as a confession of the crime or the tendency of
which is to prove the commission of a crime.
 So the defense lawyer must also be careful if it is the Judge who
interrogates the witness. That is allowed. Judges are supposed to be
active in the trial. But, if the questions of the Judge would lead to
violation of his right, they have to raise that objection.
 The Court found out that the Judge himself was the one violated this
right against the witness.
 The Court also distinguished the right of a witness and an accused vis-
à-vis the right against self-incrimination.
o If you are the witness, you must go to the witness stand
and raise the right when the questions are asked.
o If you are the accused, you can deny all together, not take
the witness stand.
 Was there a waiver here?
o No. He invoked his right and objected to the creation of
the statements.
 What is the effect?
o His right against self-incrimination was violated so apply
the exclusionary rule.
o The testimony is excluded if the testimony is the sole basis
for the conviction, the conviction must be reversed.
o That is why, it is very important and should be heavily
taken note of.
X. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
There are many important cases here, especially the recent case of Cagang
vs. Sandiganbayan
The right to speedy trial is a criminal law concept. You can invoke this
during trial in a criminal setting.
The right to speedy disposition of cases is in Section 16 of Article III of the
1987 Constitution:
ARTICLE III • SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a
speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies.
 So at any stage of any judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative
proceedings, you can invoke this right to speedy disposition of cases.
 So, if you are a professional under the PRC and nag-manyakis ka, then
a case is filed against you. Then it has taken 10 years already without
the case being resolved, and then you can invoke this right already.
You cannot invoke the right against speedy trial because you are not
tried in the first place as it is an administrative case.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
Provisions in the Constitution which emphasize the expedition of the
resolution of cases:
ARTICLE VIII • SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after
the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or
resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission
for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme
Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and
three months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision
or resolution upon the filing of the last pending, brief, or
memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court
itself.
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a
certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the
presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof
attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon
the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or
resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period,
the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may
have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or
resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for
determination, without further delay.
 In Article VIII on the Judiciary, there is a provision which provides that
the Supreme Court must resolve within 24 months from the date of
submission to the Supreme Court.
What does that mean?
 For example, the case was filed in 1990, and then the case dragged
until 2020 because there were many incidents that transpired, so
where will we reckon the 24 months?
It is reckoned at the time the case is submitted for decision. Which means
that it is not the time of filing of the case but rather, after the case is
submitted to for the Supreme Court for decision.
 For SC cases, within 24 months on the date of submission;
 12 months for all lower collegiate courts (CA, Sandiganbayan); and
 3 months for other lower courts which is reckoned on the date of
submission for resolution.
Effects if the Judge fails to resolve the case within such period:
 He may be administratively penalized if he did asked for extension
from the Supreme Court; etc.
ARTICLE VII • SECTION 18. The President shall be the
Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines
and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such
armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
invasion or rebellion. In case of invasion or rebellion, when
the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a
report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress,
voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its
Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
53 | P a g e
proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President,
the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such
proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by
the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and
public safety requires it.
The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours
following such proclamation or suspension, convene in
accordance with its rules without any need of a call.
The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding
filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the
proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege
of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its
decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts
or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians
where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically
suspend the privilege of the writ.
The suspension of the privilege of the writ shall apply only to
persons judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent
in or directly connected with the invasion.
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ, any person
thus arrested or detained shall be judicially charged within
three days, otherwise he shall be released.
 This provision talks about the Commander-in-Chief powers of the
President such that if there is a petition or any paper filed before the
Supreme Court to ascertain the factual basis of the suspension of the
privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus or the declaration of Martial
Law, the Supreme Court must decide that issue not from the time
that it is submitted for decision but 30 days from the date of its filing.
 So this is the exception to the rule 24 months upon submission for
decision.
ARTICLE IX • A • SECTION 7. Each Commission shall decide by
a majority vote of all its Members any case or matter brought
before it within sixty days from the date of its submission for
decision or resolution. A case or matter is deemed submitted
for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading,
brief, or memorandum required by the rules of the
Commission or by the Commission itself. Unless otherwise
provided by this Constitution or by law, any decision, order,
or ruling of each Commission may be brought to the Supreme
Court on certiorari by the aggrieved party within thirty days
from receipt of a copy thereof.
 Also Independent Constitutional Commissions has time limits. They
should decide any case or matters brought to them within 60 days
from the date of its submission for decision.
Going back to the distinction between the right to speedy trial and right to
speedy disposition of cases, it is emphasized in the case of COCOFED vs.
REPUBLIC:
 The right to speedy disposition of cases and the right to speedy
trial are distinct from each other.
 The right to speedy trial is only available to an accused and is
peculiar to criminal law concept. On the other hand, the right
to speedy disposition of a case applies to any form of case
provided in judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
The case of COCOFED vs. REPUBLIC involves a civil case, so according to the
Supreme Court, the proper right to invoke here is the right to speedy
disposition of case and not the right to speedy trial.
Why is this right to speedy disposition of cases important?
 Similar to the right of speedy trial, justice delayed is justice denied.
Delay is a two-edged sword which is harmful not only to the witness
or to the accused but also to the State.
CASES –
DACUDAO VS. GONZALES 688 SCRA 109 (2013)
FACTS:
 This involved the syndicated estafa cases against the Legacy Group.
Because of this, there were so many victims, thus prompting the
Secretary of Justice to order all the cases consolidated and that they
all be resolved in Manila.
 This was contested by the victims because the investigation has
already started. They claimed that if this case will be forwarded to
Manila, it will take a long time, so they invoked their right to speedy
disposition of a case.
ISSUE: Are they correct?
RULING: NO.
 Take note that similar to the right to speedy trial, the right to speedy
disposition of cases requires the examination of factors involving the
delay.
 What are these factors?
1. The length of the delay;
2. The reason for delay;
3. The invocation of the right;
4. The prejudice caused
 So when is there violation of the right to speedy trial and the right to
speedy disposition of cases?
o If the delay is VCO. Vexatious, Capricious, Oppressive. So
not just the invocation that there is delay but rather, the
delay must be characterized by those three (VCO).
 Applying such rule in this case, was there vexatious, capricious,
oppressive delay?
o The Court said that NO.
o In fact, the consolidation of the cases and the resolution
thereof, by one special panel, will expedite the proceeding
instead of one prosecutor per one case.
 In any case, they were not able to prove that there was vexatious,
capricious, and oppressive delay caused by the consolidation.
BRAZA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 691 SCRA 471 (2013)
FACTS:
 There was a letter-complaint filed against the accused on January
2007. Two months later, there was a fact-finding report
recommending that a charge be filed.
 What is the difference between a normal case from such fact-finding
case?
o If you file a complaint before the City Prosecutor, the
prosecutor will conduct a PI.
o But if you course it to the Office of the Ombudsman, it can
turn into an instant case that may be subjected to fact-
finding investigation if there is lack of evidence. This fact-
finding may take a long time.
 Anyway, the Ombudsman recommended for filing. So, the complaint
was made. Proper complaint plus the facts and evidence and it was
54 | P a g e
filed before the ombudsman for the preliminary investigation in
March 2007.
 On January 24, 2008, after the investigation, there was already a
resolution on any probable cause against the accused here. They
claimed that there was already inordinate delay.
o What happened here was, the complaint was filed in 2007
and the resolution was only on 2008.
ISSUE: Was there inordinate delay?
RULING:
 Inordinate means unreasonable or unexplained.
 The court said that NO.
 The court discussed here the right to speedy disposition.
o There occurs a violation of the right to a speedy
disposition of a case only when the proceedings are
attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays,
or when unjustified postponements of the trial are sought
and secured, or when, without cause or justifiable motive,
a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the
party having his case tried.
 In this case, the court said that there was no violation of such right.
The ombudsman was able to explain the reason why it took them
more or less a year before they have found out the probable cause
against the accused. Why?
o Because the complaint involved several transaction and
varying modes of participation of 24 respondents and it is
a complicated case.
o Give the prosecution some slack. Because in corruption
cases, it was not just a simple theft or rape or murder. The
respondents, the public officers, actually concoct a very
creative or complex scheme when it comes to transactions.
 The court said that because of the complexity – the number of
persons involved in the case – the delay was properly explained.
o You cannot expect this person to resolve this within a day.
Therefore, the delay was not unreasonable.
 What is the effect if there is a violation of the right to speedy trial?
o It amounts to an acquittal of the accused.
o It does not mean however that he is exempt from civil
liabilities.
 He will be acquitted because there is a
violation of the fundamental right. The same
holds true for the violation of the right to
speedy disposition of one’s case.
That is the benefit for the accused and a detriment for the State. Also, if
the cause for the delay is not any of the parties but the court or the judge,
there is an effect.
IN RE: JUDGE CARBONELL 700 SCRA 806 (2013)
FACTS:
 Here, he was not able to decide the cases within the time frame.
Within 3 months from the time it was submitted for a resolution.
 What was his reasons?
o Poor health, work load, Christmas season, etc.
ISSUE: Are those reasons enough?
RULING:
 The court said that those were not enough. Those were not valid
reasons.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 If those were the reasons, he can ask the Supreme Court for an
extension of time to give time for the merits of the cases.
o He did not do so in this case that’s why he was held
administratively liable.
 So, what do these lessons teach us?
o We should not be too hasty in going to litigation. We have
to exhaust all means and not go directly to the courts.
 Imagine, the courts resolve cases daily. And
they also receive new cases daily.
o What is the effect of this?
 Justice delayed is justice denied. Then, there is
hasty resolution of cases, the quality of the
decision will be poor, among other things.
o So, we should be sensitive before filing cases. We should
try to talk to the parties and reconcile or avail of all dispute
resolution method before going to litigation.
 Litigation should be the last resort.
COSCUELLA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 701 SCRA 188 (2013)
FACTS:
 A corruption case again. If it is a corruption case, it is prosecuted by
the Ombudsman.
 There is this complaint. And Coscolluela is the respondent in this case.
He was the Governor of Negros Oriental.
 There was a complaint filed against him filed in 2001 for anomaly in
the procurement.
o There was an anomalous purchase of medical and
agricultural equipment and those entities did not undergo
public bidding.
 This complaint, however, which is received in 2001 was subjected to
a fact-finding investigation.
 In April 2002, less than a year later, there was a final evaluation of the
courts.
 Now, this report was given for the examination. It was under a PI to
an investigator in 2003. And this investigator found probable cause
to charge the accused.
o So, 2001 there was a complaint. 2002, there was a report.
And in 2003, the case was filed after the fact-finding
investigation and the probable cause.
 However, there was a massive time gap here because it was only in
2009 that the Ombudsman approved of the resolution of the
investigator.
o So, from 2003, there was already a probable cause. It was
only in 2009 that such was approved.
 So, this prompted the accused to go to the court to challenge the
filing of the information before the Sandiganbayan because it violates
his right to a speedy disposition of his case.
o Why not right to a speedy trial?
 Because his trial hasn’t started yet.
ISSUE: Is he correct?
RULING: YES.
(Sometimes, we appreciate the case better if we know the context
(chismis), why these facts happened)
 The context here, or the underlying premise why it took so long was
because the Ombudsman during this time was Merceditas. And she
trusted one of her subordinates, the Over-all Deputy Ombudsman.
o She would do her job, she would go to seminars. Now, this
trusted person would do the job for her, in her absence.
55 | P a g e
o Because she trusted that person so much, however, there
was something wrong with such person. He was corrupt,
etc.
 When he came back to work, he saw that there were cases
piling up that this trusted person did not work on
 And that is why the case was approved late because of that
activity.
 How did the OMB explain this activity in this case?
o The Court noted that the PI took a protracted amount of
time to complete.
o In 2002, there was already a report and in 2003 the
investigator has already got a finding
 Why is it in protracted time?
o Because the PI is not completed until approved by the
OMB which was approved only in 2009, so it took them a
long time.
 What happened during that time?
o The OMB failed to explain their reason.
o They reasoned out that there were political events
happened during that time (impeachment of the OMB,
Manila Grandstand incident, etc.)
o The Court said that these are not acceptable.
o The Office of the OMB is in fact mandated under its law to
expedite its proceedings so you cannot escape the
consequences of its inaction.
 Now we discussed before the four factors, the third of which is the
invocation of the right.
o It is the issue here.
 Is it not that if the right is not invoked, it is already waived? Is it not
that the invocation of the right should be timely because if you do not
invoke it, you are already acceding or accepting the delay?
o The Court said in this case that NO because you cannot
fault them for failing to assert this right.
 Why?
o They could not be expected to assert it because they
thought their case was already dismissed.
o It was in 2003 that the PI was submitted, and it was only
approved in 2009.
o In the meantime, they already thought that it was already
dismissed, and it was already denied.
o So, they did not know the case continued. They could not
therefore invoke their right because how would they
know that they have this right in the first place if they did
not know their case continued.
o So, they could not have urged the speedy resolution of the
case because they were unaware that the investigation
against them was still ongoing.
o They were only informed of the 2003 resolution after the
lapse of 6 long years.
o That was only when it was approved that they discovered
that their case was still ongoing so they could not invoke
their right because they did not know that there is a
pending case against them.
o So, the respondent cannot be blamed if they have not
invoked their right especially if the person did not know
that there is a pending case against him.
o So that was the ruling.
o There is inordinate delay and there is no explanation for
the delay.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o So the non-invocation of the right is not required here
because they were not aware, they could not have
invoked it.
 What’s the effect?
o They were acquitted by the SB. The case was dismissed.
o And after this, several cases consistent with the inordinate
delay rule against the OMBUDSMAN.
o There were so many hundreds of cases filed before the SB
that was dismissed because of the inordinate delay rule.
o And because of this, the OMB panicked and that is why we
will discuss the case of Cagang.
But before we go there, let’s go to the case that was reversed in Cagang
which is People V SB.
PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 712 SCRA 359 (2013)
 The issue here in People vs. SB – let’s make it simple – was that the
case was subject to a fact-finding investigation.
 So for example, you, as private citizens and then you know someone
in your locality who is corrupt whatever, etc., you can actually file a
complaint, email or whatever and file it in the OMB for it to be
investigated.
 But you cannot expect that your email will ripen into a case because
you have no evidence.
 So, your email will be subject to a fact-finding investigation also
known as a case build-up.
o Just like when you’re a lawyer, then your client will go to
you asking to file a case. You now have to make a case
build-up so that you something to present in the court.
o That is similar to a fact finding of evidence in the office so
you will have a case to present.
 So this complaint was subject to a fact-finding investigation.
 It took a while, 2 years, when this fact-finding investigation concluded
and there was this recommendation to file a case against respondent.
 When the case was filed for PI, there was probable cause and was
filed in the SB. When it reached SB, the accused said his right to
speedy disposition was violated because it took a while for the case
to be resolved during fact finding.
 In PEOPLE v SB, the argument of the OMB was that you should not
include in the counting of the period the fact-finding investigation.
Why?
o Because at that stage, it was still a case buildup.
o Actually in a fact-finding investigation, the respondent
does not know that there is a case because it is still a case
buildup.
o There is still gathering of evidence, so in other words,
what would the respondent feel about the prejudice when
he knows that there is no case pending against him?
 So that’s the argument of the OMB. It is still fact finding. Exclude that
from the computation of the period.
 And the SC held in this case that the hair-splitting distinction is not
meritorious because the provision of the Constitution is very clear
that any quasi-judicial, judicial, administrative proceedings which
includes the fact-finding investigation.
 So that is why the OMB is worried because of the many cases
pending.
 That is why, this prompted the OMB to file a case before the SC to
challenge the rulings of the SC in the evaluation of inordinate delay
vis-a-vis the proceedings in the Office of the OMB.
Before we go there, OCAd v. Bustamante
56 | P a g e
OCAd VS. BUSTAMANTE 720 SCRA 613 (2014)
Facts:
 Here, a judge was held liable for his failure to resolve the petition for
certiorari before the reglementary period.
 It took him a long time to resolve the petition for certiorari.
 The party filed from the MTC, petitioned for certiorari before the RTC.
 The judge in RTC took a while to resolve.
 Then it was finally resolved, the party filed for MR, until the case was
filed 4 years later, and it was still unresolved. His defence was that
number one, that the motion requires further hearings
 The Court said with more reason he should expedite the resolution.
You can just say this motion requires further hearings so dismissed
(that simple) but why would it take you so long, so this judge here
was held liable.
 What about the unavailability of the TSNs?
o The Court said that that’s not acceptable. The TSNs shall
not be reason to interrupt the deciding of cases because
that’s your job.
o And also, the judge himself was the one who presided the
hearing, so he doesn’t need the TSNs.
 What about the Christmas season?
o The Court said that that’s not enough reason. (Why is it
that the other judges can resolve despite the Christmas
season?)
BARCELONA VS. LIM 724 SCRA 433 (2014)
We discussed this case already
 Appeal that lasted in the civil service for 6 years.
 The Court here said that this person did not invoke his right in a timely
manner so deemed waived.
So we have instances that if it is not invoked, deemed waived and we also
have cases that there is no need to invoke and we’ll have a discussion on
that in Remulla.
SUSTENTO VS. LILAGA 785 SCRA 612 (2016)
 The same case against a judge who failed to decide a case within the
reglementary period. So, penalized also.
REMULLA V. SANDIGANBAYAN (APRIL 17, 2017)
FACTS:
 This is a decision against the Office of the Ombudsman.
 Remulla filed a criminal complaint against the respondent in August
2005.
 Later on, almost 9 years (August 2014), the Ombudsman found
probable cause (so 2005-2014, it is just within this period that the
probable cause was found).
 So an information was filed and of course the accused invoked
violation of his rights to speedy disposition and the Sandiganbayan
found that the right to a speedy disposition of his case was violated.
ISSUE: Was there a violation of rights in this case?
HELD: YES.
 The test used by Courts determines the four factors.
 Now, is it mandatory for respondent or the accused to invoke the
right?
o The Court in this case said that NO.
o There is no Constitutional or legal provision which states
that it is mandatory for the accused to follow up his case
before his right to a speedy disposition be recognized.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o Otherwise, if the interpretation would be otherwise, the
Court would be engaging in judicial legislation.
o (There is no requirement; so therefore, there is no need
to invoke this right, for this right to exist).
 But the prosecution argued that there are two sets of cases where
there are different rulings by the Court.
 We have Tilendo, Guerrero, Bernat, and Tello cases, where the Court
made a discussion that because of the failure of the party involved
(the accused) to invoke the right, the case was not dismissed.
 But there is also another set of cases, Coscolluela, Cervantes, People
v. Sandiganbayan, Inocentes v. People - where the Court held that it
was not the duty of the accused to invoke the right, because it is the
duty of the prosecution to expedite the case.
 Is there conflict between these two sets of cases?
o The Court said that there is no conflict.
o The reason why the first set of cases was not dismissed is
because there was a purported failure of invoking the
right.
o It is because the Court examined that it is not the only
factor involved. It was explained by the prosecution why
it was delayed. So there is no inordinate delay.
o The cases did not stand to delay just because the right was
not invoked but rather, the factors involving the delay
were all good to be reasonable.
o On the other hand, in the second set of cases where the
case was dismissed despite the non-invocation of the
right, the Court also served that it was not the sole reason
why the cases were dismissed.
o It was found out that there were other factors involved in
the dismissal of the cases. The delay was explained etc.
o So because that was not the only factor, the failure or non-
invocation of the right that caused whether or not the
case would be retained or whether or not, it would be
dismissed.
 So that is how the Court harmonized it.
 In this case, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to explain
why it took them 9 years to prove the resolution or finding probable
cause, and this already caused prejudice.
 Why is it important for us to note this delay?
o Because if you are the accused, if you put yourself in the
shoes of the accused or the respondent in the case, you
can be the subject to retrial incarceration.
o Meaning, you will be imprisoned even before trial. You
would be anxious as to your case, limit the possibility that
his defence will be impaired.
o And of course, the impairment of the defence if the delays
are prolonged, the witnesses would tend to die or forget
their defences to support you. That is what is being
avoided in this delay, the prejudice that would be
experienced by the witness.
o Of the most serious of the prejudice is the last, because
the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare his case
skews the fairness of the entire system.
(excerpt from FT):
xxx Prejudice should be assessed in the light of the interest of the
defendant that the speedy trial was designed to protect, namely: to
prevent oppressive pre-trial incarceration; to minimize anxiety and
concerns of the accused to trial; and to limit the possibility that his
defense will be impaired. Of these, the most serious is the last, because
57 | P a g e
the inability of a defendant adequately to prepare his case skews the
fairness of the entire system.
 On the other hand, what about the State?
o It is also detrimental to the State because it is the burden
of the government that there is the burden of proving its
case.
o So if it is lengthy, its own witnesses will be dead or etc.
That is why, we should not allow to prolong the
countenance of this delay.
 So here, the Ombudsman failed to explain the delay.
 They raised that the reason why the case was not approved
immediately was the disruptive incidence, political events like 2010
hostage taking at the Quirino Grandstand and the impeachment of
Ombudsman Gutierrez that led to her resignation in April 2011 and
etc.
 The Court said that these are not valid reasons. Why?
o Because it can be delegated to others.
 In the first place, why did it take them 9 years?
 What about the fact-finding investigation?
o They attempted to say that the fact-finding investigation
should be excluded from the counting of the delay.
 The Court in this case cited Coscolluela and said that it is included.
CAGANG V. SANDIGANBAYAN (JULY 31, 2018)
 An en banc case.
 Take note that just because a case is recent and it is contrary to the
ruling of the previous jurisprudence, it does not mean it would
overturn the previous case, especially if it is just a division case,
because a doctrine set by a Division or Court en banc can only be
overturned by the Court en banc.
 So, if you would note that a case was already overturned by a recent
Division case - that is not a very strong argument.
 So we have here an en banc case explicitly stating the reversal of
People vs. Sandiganbayan on fact finding.
FACTS:
 In February 10, 2003, the Ombudsman received an anonymous
formal complaint and therefore, subject to a fact finding investigation
which was resolved by the Ombudsman in 2005, so it took the
Ombudsman 2 years.
 Now, in August 2011 or 6 years from the recommendation to file the
information, it was only then that the Ombudsman found probable
cause.
 So, in 2005, it was recommended because there was a complaint,
there was already basis for the finding of the case before the
Ombudsman. After it was filed, and it was only then in 2011, after the
Preliminary Investigation, that it was found to have a probable cause.
 But, the accused here, Cagang, argued that the counting for an
inordinate delay should start from 2003, when the anonymous
complaint was filed. So, it took 7 years (2003-2011) which constitutes
inordinate delay, a violation of his right to speedy disposition in this
case.
ISSUE: Was there an inordinate delay in this case?
HELD: NO.
 The argument of Cagang was that the fact finding period should be
included in the counting of the inordinate delay. The Court said that
based on People vs. Sandiganbayan and the subsequent cases based
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
on that case, the Court said that that People vs. Sandiganbayan
should be re-examined and reversed.
 Why? What is the nature of a fact-finding investigation?
o When an anonymous complaint is filed before the
Ombudsman and it conducts an investigation, the
proceedings are not yet adversarial.
o If you complain about your corrupt mayor through an
anonymous complaint, the mayor would not know that a
case is filed against him because the Ombudsman will still
conduct an investigation and make a “case build-up”.
o Even if the accused is invited to attend these
investigations, this period of fact finding cannot be
counted since these are merely preparatory to the filing of
a complaint. So what would be the prejudice he would feel
if there was no case filed against him.
o The Office of the Ombudsman will not yet determine if
there is probable cause to charge the accused because this
is still in the fact-finding stage
o So it shouldn't be included because there will be
prejudice. This is akin or similar to a case build up. The
period for a case build up, however, cannot be used by the
Ombudsman to delay.
o The Ombudsman has the correlative responsibility to not
delay the proceedings because that would be detrimental
for its own cause.
 If it takes too long, what will be the effect?
o The effect is that the filing of the anonymous complaint
will not stop the running of the prescriptive period.
 For example, the mayor stole something or violated RA 3019 in year
2000 and that offense, prior to its amendment, prescribes in 15 years.
 Now, if you file an anonymous complaint based on an act that
happened in 2000, which anonymous complaint will not toll the
prescriptive period. It will continue to run until it will be extinguished,
until it becomes a formal complaint filed for preliminary investigation
 So that is also the risk of the State if it will take long in the fact finding
because the prescriptive period still runs which will eventually cause
the extinction of the offense.
 So that's why the State shouldn't take long, at the same time, the fact-
finding period should not also be included in the computation of
delay
 Here, the court abandoned – considering that fact finding
investigations are not yet adversarial against the accused – the period
of investigation will not be counted in the determination of whether
the right to speedy disposition of cases was violated.
 So People vs. Sandiganbayan is abandoned
 Suppose there is an invocation of delay in ordering delay or violation
of the rights, who has the duty to prove that?
o In this case, the Court made guidelines. It depends.
o If it was alleged that delay was within the stated time
periods [for example, speedy resolution of cases-- so it
encompasses any proceeding. For example in the Office of
the Ombudsman, it requires PI to last for 60 days and
then, there's an invocation after PI that the case was filed
with inordinate delay, but it acted within the 60-day
period.]
o If the alleged delay is within the stated time period--
meaning the period provided by law or by procedural
rules, the burden of proof is on the accused or the defence
or the respondent to show that there was a violation of a
right.
58 | P a g e
 Because it was within the time frame that the State was able to do its
duty and the defense will already claim inordinate delay, then you
have to prove that there is inordinate delay as the accused.
o First, you have to prove that the case went on much longer
than what was reasonably necessary for it to be resolved;
and
o Second, that efforts were exerted to protect the
Constitutional right
 Those are what you have to prove, as an accused, that it took too long
even if it was within the period. Also, you should invoke your right.
 So this is the burden if the delay is alleged to be within the stated
time periods which are the periods provided for by law or procedural
rules
 The defence must also prove that it exerted meaningful efforts to
protect the accused's constitutional rights. So there must also be a
timely invocation.
 However, the rule is different if the alleged delay is already beyond
the given time periods
o For example, our example earlier. What if it took more
than 60 days to resolve but there is still no result or action
or product or output
o If it is already beyond the time limit, the burden of proof
shifts to the prosecution to prove that they did not violate
the right. So it must prove that it followed established
procedure in prosecuting the case
o They must also prove that any delay incurred was justified,
such as the complexity of the cases involved, or the vast
amount of evidence that must be presented. Plus, it is also
required for the prosecution that the accused or
respondent was not prejudiced by the delay.
What happens if the prosecution fails to discharge this burden?
o Obviously, there is an inordinate delay (unexplained
delay) then, the case will be dismissed.
o If it is a criminal case, it will amount to an acquittal.
 So the court summarized the doctrine. The burden of proof in delay
depends on whether the delay is alleged to be within the period of
the law or provided by procedural rules or beyond.
o If it is within the period, the burden of proof is on the
defence that the right was violated, etc.
o If outside the period, prosecution will prove that the right
wasn't violated
 Here, the Court said that admittedly, 6 years is beyond the reasonable
period of filing a fact finding of 90 days
 So apparently in the Ombudsman, you should finish your fact finding.
There was a long period before the fact finding was resolved
 So who will bear the burden of proof? Is it the defense or the state?
o It is the State. The ombudsman must prove that there was
no violation of the right
 The Court noted that:
1. The respondent here was not able to invoke his right. So
that's already one factor.
2. The Court also noted that the transactions involved here
were complex and numerous.
 There were over 800 individuals investigated
and eventually 40 of them were determined to
have been involved in 81 different
transactions.
 So this should also be factored in the
consideration of the court of whether or not
there was a violation of the right because if it
was only 1 case of theft, the investigation
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
shouldn't run for 6 years but if it's a corruption
case involving hundreds of respondents and
hundreds of transactions, you should also think
about that the one who investigates is only a
person.
3. Plus, the factor that the court considered here is that if the
case will be dismissed, it will not only be the interest of
the individual that was accused is being determined, but
also the interest of the State as well to get to the bottom
of things
So the conclusion in this case is: The prosecution which had the burden to
prove that there was no violation of the right. It was able to prove in this
case that there was no violation. The Court found that there is no violation
of the right to speedy disposition.
So take note of the doctrines:
1. The right to speedy disposition is different from speedy trial:
o Speedy trial – during trial and only in criminal proceedings.
o Speedy disposition – in any proceeding whether quasi-
judicial, judicial or legislative
2. A case is deemed initiated upon the filing of a formal complaint.
o This is where you reckon the inordinate delay.
o From the filing of a formal complaint to conduct a PI.
o So the fact-finding stage is excluded from the
computation. The inordinate delay starts after the formal
complaint for PI
o That period taken for the fact finding prior to the filing of
the formal complaint shall not be included in the
determination of whether or not there has been
inordinate delay
o So PP v Sandiganbayan is reversed
3. The courts must first determine which party carries the burden of
proof.
o If the right is invoked within the given time period
contained in current SC resolutions, circulars, laws, etc.
then the defence or accused will prove that there has
been a violation of the right.
o What if the time is beyond the provided by the law, rules
and regulations?
 Then, the State shall prove that the right was
not violated.
4. The determination of delay is never mechanical.
o It is not merely based on the length of time, as we said
before. Courts must consider the entire context of the
case.
o But there are exceptions to this rule: (1) if proven and (2)
If there is a waiver of the right.
a. If proven
 Example: The accused alleged that the delay is
already 1 year, "uh one year only, delay?"
 But it was proved that it was a prosecution
motivated by malice called by political
persecution, the same case shall be dismissed.
 If it is malicious prosecution, which properly
alleged and substantially proved, the case will
be automatically be dismissed.
 So, not only any technical examination of the
length of time, but also the factors, the
context.
59 | P a g e
b. If there is a waiver of the right.
 So, let us say that it has been 50 years, but the
accused failed to invoke it timely to waive his
right, that waiver will be counted against the
defense.
5. The right to speedy disposition of cases or right to speedy trial must
be timely raised.
o The respondent or the accused must file the appropriate
motion upon the lapse of statutory procedural period. So
the SC made it clear unlike in the case of Remulla vs.
Sandiganbayan which attempted to reconcile, harmonize,
etc.
o Here, the SC made it clear that the right must be invoked
timely otherwise, you have deemed waived.
XI. SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
The Constitution, Bill of Rights proscribes making certain acts criminal.
A. What acts cannot be criminalized
1. Mere beliefs and aspirations
a. Art. III, sec. 18(1)
ARTICLE III • SECTION 18. (1) No person shall be detained
solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
Example:
A either favors DDS or Duterte, or Yellow Card there can't be a law, whether
that A is a communist, A does not burn any equipment "whatever" or A does
not act for a belief that can't be penalized because this involves the freedom
of your conscience.
 What are protected by this provision are political beliefs. The
principles, which are similar to Freedom of religion.
o A person cannot be imprisoned for believing in
communism, but if the same person acts as a communist
– you threaten people, you burn stuff, you will not be
protected.
2. Debts and civil obligations
ARTICLE III • SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for
debt or non-payment of a poll tax (or cedula).
 Meaning, A, has friends who are debt-shovels. A cannot be send them
to jail as they cannot be imprisoned for non-payment of the debt.
 It is not a criminal case. Unless, such debtor releases a check and the
same has been dishonored for no sufficient funds, the same shall be
subject for criminal action.
 But the sole ground of non-payment of debt is not criminally
penalized.
 You may go to the small claims court and fill-out a form and then
done. So, those acts - beliefs and aspirations and non-payment of
debt or poll tax.
2 CONCEPTS in Article 3 Sec. 20 –
1. Non-payment of debt
2. Non-payment of poll Tax
 Cedula is poll tax. This tax is paid as a condition precedent for the
exercise of suffrage. But that is proscribed by the Constitution. So the
interpretation in poll tax is actually the cedula. If you do not tear the
cedula, you cannot be imprisoned.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT
CASES –
LOZANO VS. MARTINEZ, 146 SCRA 323 (1986)
RE: BP 22 law Anti- Bouncing Checks questions by the accused.
 According to the accused, it is a violation of his right pursuant to
Article 3 Sec. 20 that no one shall be imprisoned for non-payment of
debt.
 The court said that, the act that is penalized by BP 22 is not the non-
payment of the debt, even if that is abhorrent. It is the act of making
or issuing a worthless check or check that has been dishonored
upon its presentation upon its payment.
 Why?
o The moment you issue a check and circulate that the same
is worthless.
o It is not the non-payment of the obligation, which the law
punishes. It is not the law that is intended or designed to
coerce a debtor to pay his debt, when in reality that can
be used.
o The cause of the law is to prohibit underpaid the penal
sanctions - the making of worthless checks and putting
them in circulation.
o It has deleterious effects in the public interest and
therefore the practice must be proscribed by law.
o So, BP 22 is not unconstitutional not violative of Article 3
Sec 20 of the Constitution.
AGBANLOG VS. PEOPLE, 220 SCRA 530 (1993)
RE: Malversation of funds
FACTS:
 The municipal treasurer illegally got the money and the same was
charged with malversation. She was convicted and penalized for 16
years of imprisonment.
 The accused claims that the penalty is oppressive and also violative
of the provision of non-imprisonment for non-payment of debt.
ISSUE: Whether or not the charge of malversation of funds is violative of
the constitution
HELD:
 The court said that it is not correct.
 The offense or felony of malversation penalizes not the non-payment
of your debt. It penalizes the betrayal of your public trust and not the
non-payment of the debt.
 Why?
o In malversation, you use the public funds for private gain
- that is what is being penalized by the law.
o Example is that you steal public money and the same was
used for the payment of tuition or used for lending to
others, so you have collection and interest therefrom.
PEOPLE VS. NITAFAN, 202 SCRA 726 (1992)
RE: PD 115 Trust Receipts Law
FACTS:
 PD 115 was challenged to be unconstitutional because – the same
argument – it violates the prohibition against imprisonment for non-
payment of a debt.
ISSUE: Is PD 115 unconstitutional?
HELD: NO.
60 | P a g e
 This law punishes the dishonesty and abuse of confidence in handling
of money or goods to the prejudice of another regardless whether
the latter is the owner or not.
 The purpose of the law is to preserve the contracts in international
domestic business transactions. What is penalized is the criminal act
of dishonesty and the abuse of confidence and not the non-payment
of the debt.
 The misuse of trust receipts should be deter to prevent an impossible
havoc in the trade and in banking community.
VERGARA VS. GEDOR1O, JR. 402 SCRA 520 (2003)
FACTS:
 The complainant was successful in asserting the relations in his rights
of the violation of Art. 3 Sec. 20.
 Why?
o We have illegal settlers or people, who claim to properly
possess this property and later on they were sought to be
excluded.
 They (INFORMAL SETTLERS) lost the case in the court. Thus, they were
ordered to either get out of the property or pay for the rent to the
owner.
 However, they did not vacate the property and they did not pay rent,
the court issued an order of confining them guilty of contempt, unless
they pay rentals.
 They alleged that this order of this court violates the non-
imprisonment for non-payment of the debt because if they are
charged with contempt of court, one of its effects is the possibility of
being sent to prison.
ISSUE: Are they correct?
HELD:
 The Court said that they are correct.
 The salutary rule is that the power to punish to contempt must be
exercised on the preservative, not vindictive principle, and on the
corrective and not retaliatory idea of punishment. Court must
exercise their contempt powers judiciously and sparingly, with
utmost self-restraint. (from FT)
 So, the rule is that:
o Except where the fundamental power of the court to
imprison for contempt has been restricted by statute, and
subject to constitutional prohibitions, where a contemnor
fails or refuses to obey an order of the court for the
payment of money, he may be imprisoned to compel
obedience to such order.
o However, it has been said that imprisonment for
contempt as a means of coercion for civil purpose cannot
be resorted to until all other means fail.
 So here, the Court said that by way of this contempt, or by trying to
imprison this person by not paying rent.
 Debt, as used in the Constitution, refers to civil debt or one not arising
from a criminal offense. It means any liability to pay arising out of a
contract, express or implied (including payment of rentals).
 So, the remedy issued by the court should have been different in
order to make them pay or exclude them.
3. Acts which when done were innocent (Ex Post Facto Laws)
Now, there are also laws that cannot be passed.
For example: Ex post facto laws. What are these?
First of all, it is prohibited in Art. III, Sec. 22:
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
ARTICLE III • SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted.
What is an ex post facto law?
 It is a criminal law with retroactive effect which is prejudicial to the
accused.
 It is one that would make a previous act criminal, although when it
was done or committed it was not yet criminal.
Requisites of an ex post facto law:
 It should be a criminal statute;
 It must be given retroactive effect; and
 It is prejudicial to the accused
What are the types of ex post facto laws?
1. A law which makes an innocent action done before the passage of the
law criminal;
 Ex: You are smoking, but during that time it was not yet
prohibited. Now there was this ordinance or penal law
passed that will make such act punishable including those
done before the passage of such law.
 That cannot be done, because it is an ex post facto law.
 Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege
2. A law which aggravates a crime which makes it greater than the time it
was committed;
 Ex. The crime done was theft. And a retroactive law makes
that qualified theft. It cannot be done.
3. A law exchanges a punishment and inflicts a greater punishment;
 Ex. The punishment during that time was only fine of 5
thousand pesos, but after the passage of the law it
becomes imprisonment of 20 years.
 A law which reenacts death penalty. Those who have
committed crimes punishable by death during the non-
exercise of such will not be punished with death if such is
again re-enacted by a law.
4. A law which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense in order to convict the defendant;
5. A law that assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in
effect, imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right – which when
done was lawful;
6. A law which deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful
protection to which he has become entitled – such as the protection
of a former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.
CASES –
KAY VILLEGAS KAMI, 35 SCRA 429 (1970)
FACTS:
 There is this law, RA 6132, which calls for a Constitutional Convention.
 But this law has a penal clause in Section 8.
“No political party, political group, political committee, civic,
religious, professional, or other organization or organized group
of whatever nature shall intervene in the nomination of any
such candidate or in the filing of his certificate of candidacy or
give aid or support, directly or indirectly, material or otherwise
(you will be held criminally liable).”
61 | P a g e
 This group, Kay Villegas Kami, challenged this as unconstitutional,
because it is deemed to be an ex post facto law since it has a
retroactive effect.
ISSUE: Is he correct? (Are they correct?)
HELD: NO.
 Take note of the enumerations here of what is an ex post facto law.
 An ex post facto law is one which:
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and
which was innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when
committed;
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
the law annexed to the crime when committed;
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction
upon less or different testimony than the law required at the
time of the commission of the offense;
(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect
imposes penalty or deprivation of a right for something which
when done was lawful; and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection
to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a
former conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty
 From the definition, the constitutional integration or prohibition
refers only to criminal laws which are given retroactive effect.
 This law doesn’t say that it is retroactively applicable. Hence, it’s not
an ex post facto law.
 Had it been retroactively applicable, it would be violative of the
Constitution.
 There is nothing in the law that remotely insinuates that Sections.
8(a) and 18, or any other provision thereof, shall apply to acts carried
out prior to its approval.
SALVADOR VS. MAPA 539 SCRA 37 (2007)
FACTS:
 The Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-finding Committee on Behest Loans
investigated several loans granted by GOCCs and financial
institutions, at the behest, command, or urging by previous
government officials.
 There was an issue here with regards to the loans that were issued by
the government, allowing the latter to decide on who’s going to
acquire a loan.
 So with that, after the investigation, there was a complaint filed
before the Ombudsman.
 The Ombudsman, however, dismissed the cases, because the
financial transactions which transpired between 1978 and 1981 when
there was yet no Presidential Order or Directive naming, classifying
or categorizing them as Behest or Non-Behest Loans.
 According to the Ombudsman, the creation of this fact-finding
committee to determine if it’s a behest loan or not, should not be
applied to the events prior to the making of this committee.
ISSUE: Are these issuances ex post facto laws?
HELD: NO.
 Why?
o Because in the first place, it was not a law. This ad hoc fact-
finding committee was created by an administrative
order.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 The ex post facto law prohibition proscribes are laws that will later
give retroactive effect and are prejudicial to the accused.
 Since it is merely created by an administrative order, it cannot fall
under what is being prohibited by the Constitution. Not only a law,
but a penal law. Here, there was no penal law involved.
PEOPLE VS. CASTA 565 SCRA 341 (2008)
 The prosecution charged the accused with murder, and he was
convicted. He was then penalized by reclusion perpetua plus
damages.
 The offense was committed in August 20th, 1989.
 The state argued: “Why reclusion perpetua? It should be death.”
 The Court said that the murder was committed before the effectivity
of RA 7659, which imposes the death penalty on certain heinous
crimes.
 So that cannot be done; that cannot be applied retroactively to the
accused, otherwise, it will become an ex post facto law.
 The previous penalty for murder prior to the amendment was
reclusion perpetua to death. Now, because of this amendment, it is
now only death. You cannot apply this, because he can resort to
imprisonment, reclusion perpetua.
 Had it been that the offense has been committed after the effectivity
of the law. Of course, you apply it but here, what came first was the
commission before the amendment. So, it should not be made
retroactively applicable.
NASI-VILLAR VS. PEOPLE 571 SCRA 202 (2008)
 The accused here was charged with illegal recruitment under RA 8042
for acts committed in January 1993 and she was convicted by the trial
court for that violation, RA 8042 illegal recruitment.
 She appealed the decision and the CA reversed the RTC on the ground
that during the time he committed the offense, RA 8042 was still
inexistent, but still the CA held her liable for illegal recruitment under
the Labor Code because it was already applicable during that time.
 She was not satisfied, so she appealed before the Supreme Court and
affirmed the ruling of the Court of Appeals.
 While the information charges this person with violation of RA 8042,
it is not the name of the information or denomination of the
information that controls.
o In the information that she saw, it stated - the Republic of the
Philippines and People vs. the Accused, you. (It has a case
number and then a case title that’s what denominates the case
of RA etc. and then information, the prosecutor, charges to the
accused for the following: “that on or before”…)
o What is controlling there is not the name of the offense but
rather the contents of that “on or before”.
 Now, the Supreme Court sees this and agrees RA 8042 is to be
charged but the elements would actually fall not only for the violation
of 8042 but also for the illegal recruitment under the Labor Code.
 So, despite the argument of the accused here that RA 8042 was
inexistent that time, still the Court stated in the information would
lead to an indictment or illegal recruitment under the Labor Code. So
what the Court of Appeals is correct.
 You cannot be liable for 8042 but you can be held liable under
illegal recruitment under The Labor Code because of the averments
in the information are controlling, not the denomination made of the
offense as stated in the trial which was approved in this case.
LIBCAP VS. BAQUIAL 727 SCRA 520 (2014)
Delete this case.
62 | P a g e
Bills of attainder — Legislative adjudications of guilt
 There are two prohibited: ex post facto law and bills of attainder
What are BILLS OF ATTAINDER?
 A Bill of Attainder is a law which inflicts punishment without a trial.
 No trial and then you are immediately given punishment. It’s not
allowed because it’s a violation of separation of powers. It is the Court
who determines if an accused is guilty of an offense, not the
Congress.
CASE —
PEOPLE VS. FERRER, 48 SCRA 382 (1972)
 Challenged to be a Bill of Attainder because according to them, those
who are charged with violation of the Anti-Subversion Act, this is the
law that was being challenged.
 They claimed that because of this law, the mere membership in the
Communist Party of the Philippines, will held them guilty already,
they will be imprisoned immediately.
 The Court said, that is not the import of the law. Because this law
requires still the filing of a case, the proving of the State that you are
a member of the Communist Party of the Philippines. Therefore, this
is not a bill of attainder, which is a legislative evaluation of guilt
instead of courts or judicial evaluation.
 The Bill of Attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
without trial. Here, the law requires proof before the court that you
are part of a communist party. So there is a trial, it is not the law itself
that imposes the penalty motu proprio or automatically.
 What does this prohibition against the bills of attainder serve?
o The constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to
implement the principle of separation of powers by
confining legislatures to rule-making and thereby
forestalling legislative usurpation of the judicial function.
o The law does not specify the Communist Party members
for the purpose of its punishment.
 Now, what does it do?
o It simply declares that this partisan, an unorganized
conspiracy to overthrow the government but it does not
mean if you are a member, you are automatically guilty of
such.
 This law is not a bill of attainder because the guilt of those accused
under the law is strictly and judicially established. The State has to
prove that the prosecution and the accused hased join the party
willfully by overt acts. So, it is not a bill of attainder.
 Not only that, this bill of attainder must not only be a law which
inflicts the legislative determination of guilt rather than judicial but
rather, it should have a retroactive element. For this to be considered
as a bill of attainder, for it to be unconstitutional - it should also have
retroactive effect which was not in the character of the Anti-
Subversion Law.
 This law is also not an ex post facto law because they challenged it to
be so and it is not.
REPUBLIC VS. RMDC 426 SCRA 517 (2004)
FACTS:
 There is a mining corporation here that has been issued with licenses
to explore and mine in mineral lands.
 Later on, the President issued a proclamation number of 84 for
confirming the cancellation of the licenses and they claim that this is
a bill of attainder.
 They were imposed with a penalty without even judicial trial that they
violated, they just cancelled the licenses.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
ISSUE: Is this PN 84 a bill of attainder?
HELD: NO.
 It is not a declaration of guilt neither does a cancellation of a license
a punishment within the purview of Constitutional proscription
against bill of attainder. This is not a law in the first place.
 Is it also an ex post facto law?
o NO, because in the first place, it is not a law.
BOCEA VS. TEVES 661 SCRA 589 (2011)
FACTS:
 Remember the case of the employees of the BIR and the BOC, that if
the targets are not reached, they will be removed from work.
 They claimed that this RA 9335 is a bill of attainder because it inflicts
punishment upon the particular group or certain class of people
without trial. And that he body that this law created will only
determine and decide if you will be removed.
ISSUE: Is RA 9335 a bill of attainder?
HELD: NO.
 The Court said that this law is not a bill of attainder
 A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts to the punishment
of individuals or a certain group of a party to the prosecution of the
trial.
 The law here does not possess the bill of attainder.
 Why?
o Because the grounds of termination are provided in the
law and that it also provides for due process. The
procedure was placed in the IRR consistent with the law
that the State has to follow before you are dismissed from
the service.
o There should not be an instant removal or infliction of
penalty without trial because there is nevertheless a
proper procedure that has to be followed before it.
63 | P a g e
March 25, 2019
B. What punishments cannot be imposed
We started our discussion on Substantive Rights under the Due Process
Clause. Among the substantive rights, we have in the Bill of Rights are
prohibitions against the imposition of certain forms or punishment.
1. Involuntary servitude
ARTICLE III • SECTION 18. xxx
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as
a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted.
As a general rule, you cannot be sentenced to the penalty that requires you
to serve someone involuntarily except if it is a penal sanction. What is
involuntary servitude is liberty to be compelled to work whether paid or
not.
Case —
SARMIENTO VS. TUICO 162 SCRA 676 (1988)
FACTS:
 There’s a strike which was held in May conducted by the labor group,
Bisig ng Asian Transmission Labor Union (BATU) against its employer,
Asian Transmission Corporation.
 And later on, this issue was taken cognizance by the Ministry of Labor
and Employment (MOLE).
o The strike involved an industry of national interest so it is
imperative that when the Minister of Labor takes over the
case, he can order the workers to go back to work to avoid
disrupting the public interest and to return to the status
quo.
 Because of this, the Minister direct to assume jurisdiction of the
dispute and enjoined the company to accept all returning workers.
o So there’s a directive return to work and the company is
supposed also to accept all the workers.
 Now, the union workers did not agree and disobeyed the directive of
the MOLE to return to work. Among others, they argued that this is
involuntary servitude.
 Is it correct?
o First of all, this ability or power of the MOLE to issue a
return-to-work order is a statutory power granted to it by
law.
o And this assumption or certification, the MOLE assumes
jurisdiction and has the effect of automatically enjoining
them to stop strike – all striking employees shall
immediately return to work and the employer shall
immediately resume operations and readmit all workers
under the same terms and conditions prevailing before
the strike.
o The more important reason why this is allowed is to
prevent impairment of the national interest in case the
operations of the company are disrupted by a refusal of
the strikers to return to work as directed.
o There are only instances that this can be done by Minister
of Labor under the Labor Code, among others, is if it
involves an industry of a national interest. So apparently,
that what was done.
ISSUE: Does the return-to-work order issued by the minister violate the
Constitutional clause against involuntary servitude?
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
RULING: NO.
 The return-to-work order not so much confers a right as it imposes
a duty. The returning of the employees to work is actually not a
matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation.
o Why?
 They are not really directed to go, otherwise
they will be imprisoned among other things.
They are supposed to return to their work, to
not disrupt this industry of national interest. If
they will not go to work, they will be fired. And
if they go to work, they will not be fired.
 That is the real reason such return can be
compelled so that this industry can continue
serving the public and promote its interest.
 So imperative is the order in fact that it is not
even considered violative of the right against
involuntary servitude.
 The worker can of course give up his work,
thus severing his ties with the company, if he
does not want to obey the order; but the
order must be obeyed if he wants to retain his
work even if his inclination is to strike.
 So this return-to-work order is not violative of
the constitutional provision because you are
not coerced so if you don’t want then you will
not be able to get your job.
2. Excessive fines
Another protection in the Constitution as so far the imposition of penalties
is concerned is the imposition of excessive fines and cruel punishments.
ARTICLE III • SECTION 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. xxx
So this provision did not obliterate death penalty because it just suspended
it. The Congress can enact it if there’s a compelling reason involving
heinous crimes. Now the prohibition here is the imposition of cruel and
inhumane punishments.
How is a penalty characterized as cruel and inhumane?
 Those which public sentiment has regarded as cruel or obsolete to
law, and those which are disproportionate to the offense which
would shock the moral sense.
Is death penalty a cruel, unusual or degrading inhumane punishment?
 So that’s answered in several instances. The second sentence talks
about death penalty. It, as a rule, cannot be imposed unless there is
a law for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.
CASES –
PEOPLE VS. DELA CRUZ, 92 Phil. 906 (1953)
FACTS:
 The accused here was charged with violation of EO331 in relation to
RA509. He sold six-ounce tin of "Carnation" milk for thirty centavos
when the prevailing rate for the Carnation milk is at twenty centavos.
So it was violative of EO 331 and RA 509.
 After he was indicted, he was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt,
and he was sentenced to imprisonment for five years, and to pay a
fine of five thousand pesos plus costs.
64 | P a g e
 So he argued that this penalty is disproportionate with only a 10-
centavo difference from the prescribed ceiling. He argued that this is
a cruel, degrading, and unusual penalty. (The law RA 509 provides
that you can be imprisoned for a period of not less two months or
more than twelve years.)
ISSUE: Does this penalty violate the constitutional proscription against
cruel, unusual, or degrading?
RULING: NO.
 The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is generally aimed
at the form or character of the punishment rather than its severity,
form, and character.
 What are the examples of penalties that are cruel?
o With imposed felony where you are imprisoned in a
wooden framework subject to abuse. For instance those
inflicted at the whipping post, or in the pillory, burning
at the stake, breaking on the wheel, disemboweling, and
the like. So those are cruel intention engraving.
 Is imprisonment cruel, inhuman, and degrading?
o As a rule it is not. There are authorities however, that the
severity of the penalty imposed may come under the
constitutional proscription but that is when the prison
term is so disproportionate to the offense committed as
to shock the moral sense of all reasonable men.
o But the court noted that very rare, very seldom that the
sentence, the imprisonment has been declared cruel and
unusual so beyond the account of its duration.
 Applying those concepts, is the penalty here cruel?
o The court said that many of the justices do not regard that
punishment as unusual and cruel because the policy
sought to be upheld by the law against public hearing and
the matter of good stance.
o Because if you multiply 10 centavos with 1000 a day, you
multiply it with 220 days a year, etc. It is actually against
public hearing no matter who stops affecting people’s
health the need of stopping speculation in such essentials
in safeguarding public welfare in times of scarcity of
similar stress that is why in a very heavy penalty.
 Do you have any remedy here?
o 10 centavos became 5 years imprisonment, the Court said
that the remedy is that courts can mitigate the penalty;
the Court here decreased the penalty to a fine of 2000
pesos and 6 months imprisonment.
PEOPLE VS. DACUYCUY, 173 SCRA 901 (1989)
FACTS:
 The accused was charged with violation of RA 4670, the Magna Carta
for teachers.
 There was a provision that imposes a penalty of imprisonment
against a person who violates the provision that "A person who shall
willfully interfere with, restrain, or coerce any teacher in the exercise
of his rights shall be punished upon conviction by imprisonment".
 He claims that before he was convicted, the provision was
unconstitutional because the term imprisonment here did not
provide for a range.
 By imprisonment in the discretion of the court, so according to him
courts can actually impose an imprisonment of infinity because there
is no standard. Therefore the provision violates the provision against
cruel and degrading penalty.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019

 The court noted that the provision has no prescribed period for the become so flagrantly oppressive and so wholly
imposable penalty of imprisonment. There is a fine also that can be disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shock the
imposed and it has a range, but the imprisonment has none; it is all moral senses.
subject to the discretion of the court. o (So if you were crucified in a cross that is cruel, degrading and
unusual but if you were imprisoned that is not cruel,
ISSUE: Is that violative of the constitutional provision? degrading and unusual.) So the same provision, excessive
fines shall not be imposed, or cruel, degrading or inhuman
RULING: NO. punishment inflicted.
 A penalty is cruel and unusual if it is barbarous, one unknown to the
law or so fully disproportionate to the nature of the offense such as There are cases on excessive fines but the concept is similar. If the fine is
to shock the moral sense of the community. And the court has excessive, that could be ground for reduction but in the cases we have
consistently overruled contentions that the punishment or confined discussed the court said that if it is within the limits prescribed by law that
or imprisonment authorized by law involved is cruel and unusual. is imposed by the court then that is normally not unconstitutional.
 So if it is within the range as provided by law that is as a rule not so
shocking and cruel as to be strapped down as unconstitutional. This 3. Cruel, degrading and inhuman punishments
prohibition is aimed at the form or character of the punishment
rather than its severity. ARTICLE III •
 Is this the way to render this provision unconstitutional?
o The court said that this is not the way. However, it did SECTION 12. xxx
declare the provision to be unconstitutional because it is
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any
an undue delegation of legislative power to judiciary.
other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against
There is no standard set by the law. The courts have the
him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
leeway to prescribe anything. other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
o The duration of the penalty of imprisonment being solely
left to the discretion of the court as if the latter were the SECTION 19. xxx
legislative department of the Government is undue
delegation of legislative power to the judiciary. (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
o It is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
where no points of reference have been provided by the substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
legislature. conditions shall be dealt with by law.
 So it is unconstitutional for being an undue delegation of legislative
Is the death penalty cruel, inhuman, and degrading? We have People v.
power. It provides an indeterminable period of imprisonment with
Echegaray
neither the minimum nor maximum duration having been set by the
legislative authority.
PEOPLE VS, ECHEGARAY 267 SCRA 682 (1997)
FACTS:
AGBANLOG VS. PEOPLE, 220 SCRA 530 (1993)
 This person raped his stepdaughter and he was charged with
FACTS:
statutory rape and sentenced to death. He claims that his penalty is
 He questions as oppressive and unconstitutional the penalty imposed
cruel, inhuman, and degrading therefore unconstitutional.
on him.
 He was charged with malversation and his total imprisonment was 11
ISSUE: Is his penalty cruel, inhuman, and degrading, and therefore
years and one day as minimum to 16 years, 5 months and 11 days of
unconstitutional?
reclusion temporal.
 He argues that in the RPC as enacted in 1932, the amounts during
RULING: The court said that NO.
that time is under equated, the maximum penalty for malversation
 The gauge of whether or not the crime warrants a death penalty or
during such is 21,000 and is considered very high already.
not is not really the attendance of death.
 So it should be commensurate consistent with the inflation, the
 It is not necessary that the victim would die for you to be imposed a
amount should be adjusted whatever was the rate of the money
death penalty but rather it is imposed in heinous crimes because the
before would be similar to now. Accordingly, the imprisonment term
perpetrators thereof have committed unforgivably execrable acts
should also be adjusted, it would be cruel, unusual, and degrading.
that have so deeply dehumanized a person or criminal acts with
severely destructive effects on the national efforts to lift the masses
ISSUE: Is he correct?
from abject poverty through organized governmental strategies
based on a disciplined and honest citizenry, and because they have so
RULING: NO.
caused irreparable and substantial injury to both their victim and the
 Assuming that the inflation has in fact has in effect made more severe
society and a repetition of their acts would pose actual threat to the
the penalty the remedy is not with the court but rather with
safety of individuals and the survival of government.
Congress. So you will ask Congress which in fact already passed
 Therefore they must be permanently prevented from doing so.
amendment to the RPC. There is that law that increased the amount
 Is rape a heinous crime?
consistent with the rates now.
o During this time, it was considered as heinous crime
 Can this be struck down to be cruel and unusual?
because it was penalized with death.
o NO, because the Court can intervene and strike down a
penalty as cruel, degrading or inhuman only when it has
65 | P a g e
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical
and moral integrity of every person. It causes grave
damage that can mark the victim for life. It is an
intrinsically evil act, an outrage upon decency and dignity
that hurts not only the victim but the society itself.
 So, it is not cruel, degrading, and inhuman because death penalty is
also not obsolete. It is still imposed but the manner by which it is
administered is not through breaking in the wheel etc. (silya electrica,
lethal injection).
PEOPLE VS. TONGKO 290 SCRA 595 (1998)
FACTS:
 Tongko was found guilty of estafa for swindling Php 100,000 violating
ART. 315 of the RPC, and was sentenced to suffer 27 years of
Reclusion Perpetua. He claims that his 27 years of imprisonment is
out of proportion with the crime he committed.
ISSUE: Is he correct?
RULING: NO.
 The prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is generally aimed
at the form or character of the punishment rather than its severity in
respect of duration or amount.
o It takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out of
proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the
Constitution. The punishment must be "flagrantly and
plainly oppressive," "wholly disproportionate to the
nature of the offense as to shock the moral sense of the
community."
 So why is the penalty for estafa, especially if committed with bouncing
checks, so high?
o It serves to stop the upsurge of this type of swindling as
this kind of estafa would erode the people's confidence in
the use of negotiable instruments as a medium of
commercial transaction and consequently result in the
retardation of trade and commerce and the undermining
of the banking system of the country.
ECHEGARAY VS. SECRETARY 297 SCRA 754 (1998)
FACTS:
 In Echegaray vs. Secretary, his conviction was already affirmed for the
rape of his 10-year-old stepdaughter and he was punished with the
supreme penalty of death. Later on the manner by which death would
be administered was amended; from electrocution to lethal injection.
 He averred that the IRR and the amendment are both
unconstitutional for being cruel, degrading and inhuman. His
argument was that there might be a possible mistake when
administering the drugs, especially if the one handling the
administration of the drug wasn’t an expert.
 The court said that this type of punishment; lethal injection, was not
cruel, degrading or inhuman.
o There’s a procedure to administering the drug; the
condemned is strapped to a hospital gurney, wheeled to
the execution room, a trained technician inserts a needle
into a vein and the inmates die due to the lethal drugs
administered.
ISSUE 1: Is this cruel, degrading or inhuman?
RULING: NO.
66 | P a g e
 Death penalty per se is not cruel, degrading or inhuman, again, what
is aimed is the form.
 What about the possible implications of the injection?
o That argument is speculative and unsubstantiated. He was
unable to present evidence that lethal injection requires
the aid of an expert in administering it to the condemned.
 What about the infliction of pain when administering the injection?
o That it is merely incidental in carrying out the
administration of the death penalty and is not under the
scope of cruel, degrading or inhuman.
Cruel is anything that is calculated to give pain and stress. It is given that all
types of given punishment inflict pain, but it does not mean it is cruel
enough to be unconstitutional. What is proscribed is cruelty that is
inherent in the method of punishment.
LIM VS. PEOPLE 390 SCRA 194 (2002)
 There was a law passed amending the estafa provision in the RPC that
is if the estafa committed by means of bouncing checks the penalty
is increased.
 Here, the accused was charged with such offense and he was
imprisoned for a long period of time. He claims that this is cruel,
degrading and inhuman as he only swindled 365,000 and because of
the amendment, he can be penalized with RP but in attacking the
length of the imprisonment, as the usual argument are founded on
that, it is not usually successful.
PEREZ VS. PEOPLE 544 SCRA 532 (2008)
FACTS:
 This case involves stealing government money by malversation. He
incurred a shortage of Php 72,000 and was charged with
malversation.
 He claims that he has already paid the amount so he should not be
penalized, nevertheless he was indicted and he was convicted and
penalized with 10 years imprisonment as minimum to 14 years and 8
months of imprisonment. He claims that this is cruel and unusual.
RULING: NO, it is not cruel and unsual.
 What is prohibited are the penalties that inflict torture or a lingering
death. So imprisonment is not something that is cruel because it’s not
in line with torture or lingering death.
 Is it correct to argue that by paying the amount you are already
exonerated from malversation?
o No because payment is only considered as a mitigating
circumstance. It only minimizes the penalty and is not
exculpatory.
CORPUZ S. PEOPLE 724 SCRA 1 (2014)
FACTS:
 This is the case that prompted the amendment of the Revised Penal
Code on estafa. In this case he was able to swindle a total of Php
98,000 and he was convicted of estafa under the RPC and was
sentenced to imprisonment, a maximum of 14 years and 8 months of
Reclusion Temporal.
 He challenges the incremental rule in the RPC, Art. 309 which
provides that:
“…if the value of the thing stolen is more than 12,000 pesos but
does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen
exceeds the latter amount the penalty shall be the maximum
period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for
each additional ten thousand pesos…”
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 So the punishment goes up every 10,000 in excess of 22,000, so he
has an excess of 7 years and he claims that this was violative of the
Constitutional Prescription.
RULING: NO.
 What was his argument?
o That the RPC was promulgated in 1932, the 22,000 then
when converted to today’s rate equals to millions now, so
why would you implement the same rate in 1932 to the
rate in 1991?
 The court said that
1. The length or duration of the imprisonment will not come
under the cruel and degrading proscription under the
Constitution, and;
2. Your remedy is not for the Supreme Court to change the
length of time, the duration, the rate, rather, you go to
Congress to appeal for the amendment thereof.
 And eventually that was what happened. The RPC was amended so
that it would be attuned to the prevailing rates.
 As to the penalty imposed, fines and imprisonment are normally not
within the prohibition of the Constitution.
ANNOTATION — DEATH PENALTY - 297 SCRA 822
4. Indefinite Imprisonment
CASE –
PEOPLE VS. DACUYCUY, 173 SCRA 90 (1989)
Indefinite Imprisonment is not allowed, as discussed in the case of People
vs. Dacuycuy where it was held that provision as unconstitutional for being
an undue delegation of its power.
C. The protection against double jeopardy
What is Double Jeopardy and where do you find your protection against
Double Jeopardy? Why is it so important for us to be protected against
Double Jeopardy?
ARTICLE III • SECTION 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.
The first and second sentences are two different kinds of Jeopardy:
(1) Jeopardy of Punishment for the same offense, and
(2) 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.
TWO KINDS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
1. Double jeopardy for the same offense.
Ex. Murder and Murder
2. Double jeopardy for the same act
Ex. A violation of an ordinance and a statute
 The right against DJ prohibits the prosecution to try any person for a
crime for which he was previously acquitted or convicted.
 Why? This is to stop perpetuation of criminal prosecution. The object
is to set the effects of the first prosecution forever at rest. Assuring
the accused shall thereafter not be subjected to danger and anxiety
of being charged for the second time for the same offense.
67 | P a g e
 What is Jeopardy?
o It is the danger that the accused is subjected to when on
trial for a criminal offense. It is subjected to the same
jeopardy.
1st KIND: DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE
REQUISITES:
1. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
When does the first jeopardy attach?
1. There is a valid complaint or information (sufficient in
substance, form filed Court);
2. The information is filed in a competent court (the court
which has jurisdiction over the offense); and
3. The accused was arraigned (Arraignment).
o If one of the requisites is not present, the first type of
double jeopardy will not attach.
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated.
 When is jeopardy deemed terminated?
1. Acquittal
o Importance of acquittal: The accused can
already claim exemption on continued
prosecution because of double jeopardy
o Example: there is a crime charged against you
and then you were acquitted by the MTC. Can
the State still appeal your case to the RTC, CA
or SC? Not anymore because you were already
acquitted otherwise it would violate the rule
against double jeopardy.
o GR: when an accused is acquitted there is
already termination of jeopardy.
o EX: When the acquittal was secured by
depriving the State of its due process such as
bribery to the judge or by grave abuse of
discretion, the acquittal becomes void. And
therefore, the case can still proceed and the
State can pursue its continuation. Moreover,
there can be no violation against double
jeopardy
2. Conviction
o Which becomes final and executory after 15
days from the promulgation of the judgment
OR if the accused already served his sentence.
o When the accused is convicted he can no
longer be prosecuted for the same offense.
3. Dismissal or termination of the case without the
express consent of the accused.
o The accused must not be the one to initiate the
dismissal of the case.
o GR: Jeopardy is terminated when the case is
dismissed without the express consent of the
accused.
o EX: when the basis of the dismissal of the case
is either:
a) Violation of speedy trial; or
b) Violation of speedy disposition
 This means that when the
dismissal is based on either of
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
the two then that equivalents
to an acquittal.
 Therefore, DJ attaches and
the prosecution can no longer
appeal the case to the higher
courts, otherwise, the rule
against DJ would be violated.
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in the first information,
or is an attempt to commit the same or a frustration thereof.
 When is an offense similar to the first?
1. When the two offenses are identical;
Example: Murder and murder
2. When the second is an attempt to commit the first or
a frustration of the first.
Example: When an accused is charged for frustrated
homicide and then he was acquitted. Later on, there
was another case field for attempted homicide. This is
violative of the rule against DJ because it is similar to
the first offense the accused was charged with and the
evidences used in the first charge will be the same
evidences to be used in the second charge
3. The first necessarily includes the second.
Example: When the accused is charged for murder
and then he was acquitted. Later on, another case was
filed for homicide. This is violative of the rule against
DJ because in the first crime which is murder, it
necessarily includes homicide, it’s just that there are
qualifying circumstances.
4. The first is necessarily included in the second.
Example: There was a case filed for theft and then he
was acquitted. Another case was filed for robbery.
Theft is necessarily included in the crime of robbery,
therefore, violative of the rule against DJ.
2nd KIND: DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME ACT
 Punished by an ordinance and a statute. (RPC and special laws)
 GR: an accused can only be charged of two crimes if the act
committed violates two different statutes.
 An accused cannot be charged with RA. 1234 and RA 5678 because
they are both special laws and the other is not an ordinance.
 However, when the elements are not the same, then an accused can
be charged for both.
o Example: an accused, a cashier, has stolen money through
malversation, therefore she is liable of malversation under
the RPC. Later on, she was charged under RA 3019 for
causing injury to the government. There is no DJ here
because they have different elements.
 And then later on you’re charged with RA 3019 for causing undue
injury to the government, is that DJ? No because they have different
elements and they are national statutes.
 It would have been different if the other charge was for a violation of
an ordinance and he was also charged for a national statute, he can
invoke the second type of DJ.
68 | P a g e
1. Two situations contemplated
What are the two situations contemplated in the provision? We have
People vs Relova.
PEOPLE VS. RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292 (1987)
FACTS:
 The accused here was charged for violating an Ordinance 1 series of
1974. The case was dismissed against him because the charge had
already prescribed.
 Later on, he was charged with theft, in violation of Art 308 in relation
to Art 309 of the RPC. He claims that the second charge against him
violates the rule against double jeopardy.
RULING: The courts said that he is correct. What are the two situations
contemplated by the provision?
HELD:
 The first sentence of Article IV (22) sets forth the general rule: the
constitutional protection against double jeopardy is not available
where the second prosecution is for an offense that is different from
the offense charged in the first or prior prosecution, although both
the first and second offenses may be based upon the same act or set
of acts.
 The second sentence of Article IV (22) embodies an exception to the
general proposition: the constitutional protection, against double
jeopardy is available although the prior offense charged under an
ordinance be different from the offense charged subsequently under
a national statute such as the Revised Penal Code, provided that both
offenses spring from the same act or set of acts.
 So here, he stole something which is violative of an ordinance and the
RPC. Based on that same act he was charged with these two offenses,
one was under an ordinance and the other was under a national law
that cannot be because he is already protected by the second type of
DJ.
 The second sentence talks about the violation of an ordinance and a
national law where DJ may attach. It requires the identity of the acts.
 In the first DJ, you would ask, are these offenses similar? But in the
second, you cannot ask if they are similar because you can see that
one is an ordinance while the other is a national statute. The question
you ask for the second DJ is do they arise from the same set of acts?
If they did, it may possibly fall under the second type of DJ.
From FT: Another difference is the point of inquiry, under the first type of
DJ, the important inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charge: the
constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available only where
an Identity is shown to exist between the earlier and the subsequent
offenses charged. In contrast, in the second type of DJ, the critical inquiry
is to the identity of the acts which the accused is said to have committed
and which are alleged to have given rise to the two offenses: the
constitutional protection against double jeopardy is available so long as the
acts which constitute or have given rise to the first offense under a
municipal ordinance are the same acts which constitute or have given rise
to the offense charged under a statute.
 In this case, there is no question that he is punished by an ordinance
and punished by a provision under the RPC. It is different
 But the Court went on to examine what gave rise to these offenses,
so they looked at the identity of the act and here they found that they
are identical, they are based on that single act.
 Take note also that when the second criminal prosecution is
terminated on the ground of DJ, you will not be criminally punished.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
But insofar as civil liability is concerned, if any, it will not be
extinguished by DJ except if it is based on the offense.
PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT, 154 SCRA 195 (1987)
FACTS:
 This accused was alleged to have violated RA 3060 and also a violation
of Art 201(3) of the RPC in two separate indictments.
 RA 3060 punishes the exhibition of motion pictures not duly passed
by the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures. While Art 201 of the RPC
punishes the public showing of indecent or immoral plays, acts or
shows.
 He claims that the prosecution of these two offenses is violative of
his right against DJ because they arose from the same act which is the
playing of that indecent play or act.
ISSUE: Is he correct? Is there DJ?
RULING: NO.
 None of the requisites are present in this case.
o First, we cannot apply the second type of DJ because we
are not talking of an ordinance here but of two national
statutes, RA 3060 and the RPC. So we go to the first type
of DJ, let’s go to the requisites.
o It is a settled rule that to raise the defense of double
jeopardy, three requisites must be present:
1. a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the
second;
2. the first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated; and
3. the second jeopardy must be for the same
offense, or the second offense includes or is
necessarily included in the offense charged in
the first information, or is an attempt to
commit the same or a frustration thereof
o None of the elements are present because he was charged
with two different national laws with two different
elements. The acts punished by the two laws are different.
From FT: The two (2) information which the accused was charged, do not
make out only one offense, contrary to private respondent's allegations. In
other words, the offense defined in section 7 of Rep. Act No. 3060
punishing the exhibition of motion pictures not duly passed by the Board
of Censors for Motion Pictures does not include or is not included in the
offense defined in Article 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code punishing the
exhibition of indecent and immoral motion pictures.
 The two (2) offenses do not constitute jeopardy to each other. A
scrutiny of the two (2) laws involved would show that the two (2)
offenses are different and distinct from each other.
o The nature of both offenses also shows their essential
difference.
o The crime punished in Rep. Act No. 3060 is a malum
prohibitum in which criminal intent need not be proved
because it is presumed, while the offense punished in
Article 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code is malum in se, in
which criminal intent is an indispensable ingredient.
2. Rules of Court Provisions
There are provisions in the Rules of Court that involve DJ.
69 | P a g e
RULE 117 • MOTION TO QUASH
Section 7. Former conviction or acquittal; double jeopardy. —
When an accused has been convicted or acquitted, or the
case against him dismissed or otherwise terminated without
his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction,
upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and
after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the conviction
or acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall
be a bar to another prosecution for the offense charged, or
for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or
for any offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the former complaint or
information.
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to
another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes
the offense charged in the former complaint or information
under any of the following instances:
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts
arising from the same act or omission constituting the former
charge;
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or
were discovered only after a plea was entered in the former
complaint or information; or
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without
the consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party
except as provided in section 1 (f) of Rule 116.
In any of the foregoing cases, where the accused satisfies or
serves in whole or in part the judgment, he shall be credited
with the same in the event of conviction for the graver
offense. (7a)
 So take note of this, these are the elements of DJ under the
Rules of Court.
However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to another
prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged
in the former complaint or information under any of the following
instances: (So, there is no DJ)
1. The graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising
from the same act or omission constituting the former charge;
For example, the charge was serious physical injuries and upon
arraignment, the victim died. And then you are charged for that,
can you invoke DJ? As a rule, no.
As a rule, the graver offense developed due to supervening facts
and that would not violate the right against DJ.
2. The facts constituting the graver charge became known or were
discovered only after a plea was entered in the former
complaint or information; or
3. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the
consent of the prosecutor.
To illuminate us from the discussion, let's go to the cases:
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019

CASES – PEOPLE VS. CITY COURT, 121 SCRA 637 (1983)

MELO VS. PEOPLE, 85 Phil. 776 (1950)
FACTS:
 Melo was charged on December 27, 1949 with frustrated homicide,
the victim did not die yet.
 On December 29, 1949, two days thereafter, at 8:00am he pleaded
not guilty for the offense charged. However, on the evening of the
same day the victim died. So he died after arraignment.
 So thereafter, an amended information was filed against the accused
here from frustrated homicide to consummated homicide.
 The accused claimed that this violates his right against DJ because he
was already charged with an offense and was already arraigned,
therefore, the first jeopardy was already attached. The subsequent
information charged against him is based on the same act, but now
for consummated homicide. Since the charge was for the same
offense, it violates his right against DJ.
ISSUE: WON the amended information after his arraignment violated
Melo's right against DJ
FACTS:
 The incident occurred in October 17, 1971. The following day, an
information was filed against the accused for serious physical injuries
thru reckless imprudence. On the same day, the victim died.
 Now on October 20, 1971 he was arraigned for the first charged
which was for the serious physical injuries thru reckless imprudence,
he pleaded guilty.
 In other words, when he was arraigned the second charged (for
homicide) was already existing since the victim already died prior to
the arraignment. Upon arraignment, the accused pleaded guilty
therefore the first charge was already terminated.
 Later on, there was another information filed against this person for
homicide thru reckless imprudence. The accused claimed that there
is already DJ. He was already convicted for serious physical injuries
thru reckless imprudence and this second offense is similar to the
first.
ISSUE: WON there was a violation of the right of the accused against DJ

RULING: NO. RULING: YES.

 The amended information here was proper because a new fact  There was no new fact that supervened after the arraignment. The
supervened, first of all the first jeopardy was not terminated. Further, fact of death already existed, the prosecution should have amended
the proper offense was not charged in the former and latter therefore the information prior to the arraignment. There was no new fact that
did not place the accused on the second jeopardy for the same or supervene here after the arraignment, therefore double jeopardy
identical offense. attaches.
 Double jeopardy means that a person is charged with an offense and o It would have been different if the supervening fact
the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other occurred after the arraignment, since DJ in this case would
manner without the consent of the accused. not attach.
 So because of the identity of the offenses and the first jeopardy was
What does the phrase "same offense" mean? already terminated and the second charge was filed subsequently
Construed to mean not only the second offense charged is exactly the same after the fact of death existed, the first jeopardy had already
but also that the two offenses are identical. attached and therefore, the second jeopardy (charge) cannot
continue, otherwise it would violate the constitutional restriction.
When are they considered identical?
 When the two offenses can use the same pieces of evidence to
support a conviction for the other. It should be sufficient to warrant
a conviction for the other offense.
 Therefore, there is identity between two offenses not only when the
second offense is exactly the same, but when the second offense is
an attempt or a frustration of the first or when it necessary includes
or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the first
information.

In this case, the rule of identity does not apply because the second offense,
the consummated homicide, did not exist at the time of the first
prosecution, or the simple reason that in such case there is no possibility
for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an offense
that was then inexistent.

It was in this case that the jurisprudence evolved. Previous cases, where
the accused was charged with physical injuries and thereafter the person
(victim) dies, the accused was subsequently charged for homicide - Ruling:
No DJ.

A new fact supervened which happened in this case and the second
offense did not exist. So you cannot really say that the accused was
charged twice for the same offense. They would have not known the
second offense existed until it happened.

70 | P a g e
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
March 27, 2019
PEOPLE VS. YORAC, 42 SCRA 230 (1971)
FACTS:
 A 1971 case wherein the accused was prosecuted for frustrated
murder, because he assaulted, attacked, and hit the victim.
 This was his second prosecution already since he was previously
prosecuted for the same act where he was charged with slight
physical injuries.
 On the first indictment, the accused pleaded guilty, and he served his
penalty.
 Later on, the victim died from the wounds inflicted by the alleged acts
of the accused.
 Accused then claimed that his second indictment was already
violative of his right against double jeopardy.
ISSUE 1: Was there double jeopardy?
RULING: YES.
 Yes, because there was no supervening fact that negated that
defense of DJ.
 Why did the prosecution charge the accused again for frustrated
murder?
o The victim died, and the prosecution was able to obtain a
medical certification, which was more thoroughly done on
the victim.
o It was then discovered that the victim sustained graver
injuries.
o Using that, according to the prosecution, there is a
supervening fact, and the accused was charged for
frustrated murder.
 However, the Court did not consider this as a supervening fact, and
DJ had already set in.
ISSUE 2: Is dismissal of the second charge for violation of the accused’s
rights to DJ proper here?
RULING: YES.
 Yes, because there is already double jeopardy.
 With an accused who already pleaded to the offence of frustrated
homicide, the offended party, who died in the evening of the same
day, could not rely on a plea of DJ, if as a result of his death, the
Information was amended to charge him of homicide. (Melo vs
People)
o In Melo vs People, the case was allowed to continue,
because a new fact intervened.
o In stating the Melo doctrine differently, the Court
explained that if after the first prosecution, a new fact
intervenes, on which a defendant may be held liable by
altering the character of the crime and giving rise to a new
distinct offence, the defendant is charged for the second
offence. The accused cannot be said to be in double
jeopardy, precisely because the second offence did not
exist while he was charged for the first offence.
o The creation of the second offence arose only out of a
supervening fact.
o In this case, DJ will not apply, because there is the
indispensable requirement of a supervening fact.
 There is then the indispensable requirement of the existence of a new
fact, which supervenes, for which a defendant becomes responsible.
If there is no new supervening fact, DJ would attach.
 In this case, there was no supervening fact, thus, DJ attached.
71 | P a g e
o The basis for the accused’s indictment for slight physical
injuries was a medical certificate for the wounds that the
victim suffered. In that indictment, the accused pleaded
guilty and served sentence.
o On January 18, 1957, there was a new medical certificate
that the victim was able to present, showing that the
injuries were graver. But this already happened after the
accused was convicted.
o Thus, there was no supervening fact prior to the accused’s
arraignment and conviction.
 The fact of the victim’s fracture, which was greater, already existed
had the examination conducted on the first time been more
extensive.
o In other words, the fact did not change that the victim had
a greater fracture.
o What only changed was the manner of the examination of
the victim.
o Thus, the fact did not supervene.
 Therefore, the accused’s conviction for the first offence already
prevented a second indictment for the accused, because of his right
against double jeopardy.
IVLER VS. MODESTO-SAN PEDRO G.R. No. 172716 (2010)
FACTS:
 A 2010 case, this is a good example of how DJ was appreciated by the
Court because of the knowledge of the lawyer on the concept of DJ.
 Here, Ivler was accused for having collided with a vehicle, and he was
charged for two separate offences.
 The first offence was reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical
injuries, and the second was reckless imprudence resulting in
homicide and damage to property.
o In the second Info, one of the victims died. In the first Info,
the other victims were only injured.
 Ivler pleaded guilty to the first Information, he was convicted, and he
was punished by public censure.
 Ivler then moved for the dismissal of the second Info, which charged
him with reckless imprudence resulting in homicide and damage to
property. Ivler argued that his conviction in the first Info already
barred another prosecution for the same reckless imprudence.
 The trial court refused the dismissal of the second Info, because the
charges in the two Infos were different.
ISSUE: Was Ivler’s invocation of his right against double jeopardy proper?
RULING: YES.
 Yes, because reckless imprudence is a single crime.
 Its consequences are material only to determine the penalty.
 What is punished in reckless imprudence is not the damage to
property, the death, or the injury, but rather the reckless imprudence
committed by the accused.
o Thus, if that reckless imprudence resulted to several
consequences, what is penalized is the single act of
reckless imprudence, under Article 365.
 Reckless imprudence is a quasi-offence. The accused did not intend
to commit it, but it is penalized.
 Quasi-offences penalize the mental attitude or condition behind the
act—the dangerous recklessness, the lack of care or foresight, unlike
willful offences which punish the intentional criminal act.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 This explains why the technically correct way to charge or allege
quasi-offences is to state the commission, that results in damage:
“Reckless Imprudence resulting to…”
 Reckless imprudence resulting to various consequences cannot be
separated into distinct offences. What is penalized is the single act of
reckless imprudence.
 The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a single
quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to commit other
crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense bars
subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-offense, regardless of its
various resulting acts, because of DJ.
 Thus, the second Info was dismissed, because it violated Ivler’s right
against DJ, having been convicted already in the first Info.
OTHER CASES:
YSIDORO VS. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO 665 SCRA 89 (2012)
FACTS:
 Ysidoro, the Municipal Mayor of Leyte, was charged before the
Sandiganbayan for violation of the Anti-Graft law.
 He was acquitted because the elements were not proved.
 The State, through the People, appealed.
ISSUE: Can an acquittal of an accused be appealed?
RULING: NO.
 No, it cannot be appealed as a general rule.
 There are three remedies available to a party to appeal a decision of
a trial court in a criminal case.
1. If accused was not acquitted—ordinary appeal
2. Petition for review under Rule 45
3. Special civil action under Rule 65
 In this case, what happened here was an acquittal. And as we’ve said
earlier, and even way before, an acquittal cannot be appealed.
 Why can’t an acquittal be appealed?
o Because of the rule against Double Jeopardy, it bars
multiple criminal trials.
 Further prosecution by an appeal from a judgment of acquittal is
barred because the government has already been afforded a
complete opportunity to prove the criminal defendant’s culpability.
 The reason is not only because of the defendant’s established
innocence during the trial, where he had been placed in peril on
conviction, but also of the untoward and prejudicial consequences of
a second trial initiated by a government who has, at its disposal, all
the powers and resources of the state.
IN SHORT: He will be prejudiced if he will be tried anew.
 Why?
o Unfairness and prejudice would necessarily result, as the
government would then be allowed another opportunity
to persuade a second trier of the defendant’s guilt while
strengthening any weaknesses that had attended the first
trial, all in a process where the government’s power and
resources are once again employed against the
defendant’s individual means.
72 | P a g e
AGAIN: There is a bar against the State prohibiting it to appeal a decision
of acquittal.
EXCEPTIONS
There are two exceptional grounds where that case may be raised to a
higher court, not by way of an appeal but by a Rule 65 Petition if the
grounds are any of the following:
1. If there is an allegation of Grave Abuse of Discretion; or
2. If the prosecution was denied of Due Process.
 In any of these cases, the judgment would be void. The rule on DJ
would not apply to these cases because in a Rule 65 petition, it only
asks the question as to whether or not there has been a validly
rendered decision. It does not as the question of whether or not the
decision is correct. It determines whether the judgment is per se void
on jurisdictional grounds.
 Here, the People/State filed a Rule 65 Petition but the allegations in
the petition were all assignments of factual errors of judgment of the
trial court. They did not raise or allege on the basis of GAOD or denial
of Due Process. The caption of the petition being a Rule 65 Petition
was correct, but the body of the petition was actually an appeal of an
acquittal.
 Because of that, it cannot prosper. In any case, even if this petition
was validly allowed, there was no proof that that acquittal was
attended with GAOD (or denial of due process).
BAUTISTA VS. CUNETA-PANGILINAN 684 SCRA 521 (2012)
 On February 19, 2002, the Office of the City Prosecutor of
Mandaluyong City filed two (2) informations, both dated February 4,
2002, with the RTC, Branch 212, Mandaluyong City, against Pete G.
Ampoloquio, Jr. (Ampoloquio), and petitioners Bautista and
Alcantara, for the crime of libel, committed by publishing defamatory
articles against respondent Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan in the tabloid
Bandera.
 The prosecution presented evidence. They rested their case. And
now, the accused filed a motion for leave of court to file the attached
demurrer to evidence. This is done when one wants to convince the
court that the prosecution was not able to prove your guilt beyond
reasonable doubt.
 Here, it is claimed that the elements are not present and because of
that, it would be useless to continue with the trial. It’s like saying that
right then and there, the case must be dismissed already.
 The trial court granted the demurrer to evidence and dismissed the
case. And so Sharon Cuneta-Pangilinan filed a petition for certiorari
before the CA to set aside the decision of the trial court.
 The accused wanted to sustain the order of dismissal by the trial court
because the dismissal of the case by way of a demurrer to evidence
was already equivalent to an acquittal. And because they had already
been acquitted, as a rule, it cannot be appealed as it is final and
executory. This would already be violative of their rights against DJ.
 What does the grant of a demurrer to evidence, as a general rule,
amount to?
o The ruling of the court granting a demurrer to evidence is
already an adjudication on the merits of the case, which is
tantamount to an acquittal. Therefore, it can no longer be
appealed.
TIP:
This is what you can do, when you are already defending an accused. After
the prosecution has already presented its evidence, you are not actually
required to file a motion for leave of court to file a demurrer to evidence.
But that is usually what is done so that the case can be terminated right
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
then and there. (Unless you’d want the case to continue so you’ll have
more appearance fees.)
 It is usually done to test if the prosecution really proved the elements
of the crime, etc. And if that is granted by the court, as a general rule,
that is already an adjudication based on the merits, which, if granted,
is already tantamount to an acquittal.
 And if the client is already acquitted, the case can no longer be
appealed by the State. Otherwise, it violates his right against DJ.
Section 23, Rule 119,
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Demurrer to evidence. — After the prosecution rests its case, the court
may dismiss the action on the ground of insufficiency of evidence (1) on
its own initiative after giving the prosecution the opportunity to be
heard or (2) upon demurrer to evidence filed by the accused with or
without leave of court.
If the court denies the demurrer to evidence filed with leave of court,
the accused may adduce evidence in his defense. When the demurrer
to evidence is filed without leave of court, the accused waives the right
to present evidence and submits the case for judgment on the basis of
the evidence for the prosecution. (15a)
The motion for leave of court to file demurrer to evidence shall
specifically state its grounds and shall be filed within a non-extendible
period of five (5) days after the prosecution rests its case. The
prosecution may oppose the motion within a non-extendible period of
five (5) days from its receipt.
If leave of court is granted, the accused shall file the demurrer to
evidence within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice.
The prosecution may oppose the demurrer to evidence within a similar
period from its receipt.
The order denying the motion for leave of court to file demurrer to
evidence or the demurrer itself shall not be reviewable by appeal or by
certiorari before judgment. (n)
RECALL:
One of the requirements for DJ to attach is that there must be a
termination of the 1st jeopardy. This termination may be done by acquittal,
conviction, or dismissal of the case.
 But this dismissal must be without the consent of the accused.
However, in filing a demurrer to evidence, it is you who moves for the
demurrer, and therefore this is one wherein you consent. Is it not
therefore violative of the requirement?
 How do you reconcile this?
o The Court said that this is an exception to that general
rule.
 Why? Why is a dismissal by way of a demurrer to evidence an
exception to the requirement that the dismissal must be without the
consent of the accused?
o Because if that is granted, it is already equivalent to an
ACQUITTAL. We go back to the first way of terminating
jeopardy, which is an acquittal.
o That is the effect.
 Here, the demurrer to evidence was granted.
o The prosecution has insufficient evidence.
 Acquitted.
73 | P a g e
 Again, is it not that the dismissal of a case by way of a demurrer to
evidence a dismissal with the consent of the accused?
o Yes, but that is an exception to the rule. That constitutes
as an exception to the rule that a dismissal of a criminal
case may, with the express consent of the accused bars a
plea for double jeopardy because if it is granted it
amounts to an acquittal.
BRAZA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN 691 SCRA 471 (2013)
FACTS:
 The Philippines was assigned the hosting rights for the 12th
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Leaders Summit
scheduled in December 2006. Because of this there were
improvements made.
 What was the case filed against the accused here before the
Sandiganbayan?
o Violation of Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 3019 or the Anti-Graft
Law.
 He was arraigned, what was his plea?
o Not guilty. But there was a precondition. He was arraigned
as a precondition in authorizing his travel abroad.
 He was able to travel abroad.
 The Sandiganbayan modified the charge from 3(g) to 3(e). Because of
this, there was amended information made by the State. The Office
of the Ombudsman filed it before the Sandiganbayan.
 Braza argues that this is already tantamount to double jeopardy
because he was already arraigned, then they changed the charge
from 3(g) to 3(e). Because there was a change, the second charge of
3(e) violates his right against double jeopardy. They are based on the
same law, RA 3019 and that he was already twice charged.
ISSUE: Was he correct? Was he subject to double jeopardy here?
HELD: NO.
 A careful perusal of the record in the case at bench would reveal that
the arraignment of Braza under the first information was conditional
in nature as it was a mere accommodation in his favor to enable him
to travel abroad without the Sandiganbayan losing its ability to
conduct trial in absentia in case he would abscond.
 The order of the Sandiganbayan stated that: The conditions for
Braza's arraignment as well as his travel abroad, that is, that if the
Information would be amended, he shall waive his constitutional
right to be protected against double jeopardy.
 Here, there was a waiver of the right. Is the right against double
jeopardy a waivable right?
o Yes. You can waive your right against double jeopardy
because that right is personal to you. So it is for your
benefit.
 The relinquishment of his right to invoke double jeopardy had been
convincingly laid out. Such waiver was clear, categorical and
intelligent.
 Having waived his right, he is now estopped from assailing the
conditional nature of his arraignment and the subsequent charge
against him for violation of sec. 3(e) instead of 3(g) of RA 3019.
 In any case, he cannot rely on the principle of double jeopardy
because what kind of double jeopardy was present here?
o The first kind of double jeopardy.
 So he would ask if based on one act, if there are
two similar offenses to the charge against this
person.
 Are there two similar offenses in this case?
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019

o No, because the first was a charge against 3(g) and the
second was for 3(e). The Court said that these offenses are
not the same.
 Why are they not the same?
o They have different elements.
 3(g) has something to do with contracts
 3(e) has something to do with undue injury.
o Because they do not have the same elements, they cannot
be said to be identical or similar offenses.
o Therefore, you cannot say that you are twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
DISINI VS. SOJ 716 SCRA 237 AND 723 SCRA 109 (2014)
FACTS:
 A provision is challenged for being violative of double jeopardy. This
is Sec. 7 of the Cybercrime Law which states:
Sec. 7. Liability under Other Laws. — A prosecution under
this Act shall be without prejudice to any liability for violation
of any provision of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, or
special laws.
 So if you commit an offense here using a computer and then there is
a similar charge that can be filed under the Revised Penal Code, they
can proceed simultaneously.
 This provision was challenged because this gives rise to a possible
double indictment for the same offense.
 It’s just that there is change in the way by which you commit it
because you do it in a computer.
ISSUE: Is there a violation of the constitutional prohibition against double
jeopardy?
HELD:
 The Court said that this is not unconstitutional.
 It does not violate double jeopardy except for if the charge is libel and
child pornography.
o Because in these two offenses the nature of the offense is
still the same. What changed is just the way by which you
make it.
o Just like in libel, you can write libelous words in the paper
and also online. Therefore, those cannot be
simultaneously charged against you because they arose
from the same intent.
 Here, the Court said that if you are charged with libel under the
Revised Penal Code and at the same time under the Cybercrime Law,
they cannot be charged simultaneously.
 Online libel is different. If the published material on print is said to be
libelous, is again posted online or vice versa, that identical material
cannot be the subject of two separate libels.
o The two offenses, one a violation of Article 353 of the
Revised Penal Code and the other a violation of Section
4(c)(4) of R.A. 10175 involve essentially the same
elements and are in fact one and the same offense.
 So if you will be charged with this, it could be either under the Revised
Penal Code or the Cybercrime Law but not simultaneously.
 The arguments of the OSG to defend the constitutionality of this
provision is that a single set of acts may be prosecuted by different
laws because they would constitute separate offenses since different
laws penalizes it. The double jeopardy of the first type.
 The Court said, that is not correct in so far as online libel is concerned.
In fact, it admits the subject of this online libel is not a new crime.
o That is already punished under the Revised Penal Code so
you cannot be simultaneously charged with libel on both
laws.
 The same is true with Child Pornography because the acts are the
same.
o The only difference is that you do it on a computer.
o Charging the offender both under the Anti-Child
Pornography Act and under Cybercrime Law is
tantamount to violation of the constitutional prohibition
against double jeopardy.
PEOPLE V. TORRES, G.R. NO. 189850, SEPTEMBER 22, 2014
FACTS:
 An Amended lnformation was filed before the charging siblings
Reynaldo Torres (Reynaldo), Jay Torres (Jay), Ronnie Torres (Ronnie)
and appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide committed against Jaime M. Espino (Espino).
 The RTC ruled that the appellant can only be liable only for murder.
Murder, so, they were convicted, this accused, Torres, for murder.
 The charge was robbery and homicide but was convicted by the RTC
of murder.
 So, what did Torres do?
o They filed an appeal to the CA.
 What did the CA do?
o CA MODIFIED in that appellant is found GUILTY beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of ROBBERY with
HOMICIDE.
 Now, before the SC, what was his argument?
o The acquittal of the accused-appellant in the robbery
charge should be left undisturbed as being final and
executory which cannot be overturned without violating
the proscription against double jeopardy.
 Was he acquitted from robbery in the RTC?
o It would appear that he was acquitted for robbery because
he was convicted only for murder. So, there was no
robbery.
 So, he was convicted for murder and now, he himself appealed this
conviction before the CA and the CA changed the decision of the RTC
found him liable not for murder but robbery with homicide.
 So, he claims that he was already acquitted from robbery in the RTC
when it convicted me of murder. So, it should not be considered by
the CA.
 Already acquitted, otherwise, so if you are acquitted then violates
your constitutional right against double jeopardy.
 Since he was already acquitted for robbery, the CA should have
focused on the homicide or murder, etc.
 It should not have added the robbery again and convicted him for
robbery with homicide.
ISSUE: Is he correct?
HELD: NO.
 NO, in an appeal by an accused, he waives his right not to be subject
to double jeopardy.
 As we said earlier, DJ is a waivable right. if you do it in your
arraignment, fourth year, if you file, if you yourself, if you file an
appeal. (35:49)

74 | P a g e
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 What happened when an accused appeal?
o When an accused appeal from the sentence of the trial
court, he:
1. Waives the constitutional safeguard against double
jeopardy; and
2. Throws the whole case open to the review of the
appellate court, which is then called upon to render
such judgment as law and justice dictate, whether
favorable or unfavorable to the appellant.
 So, if you appeal the decision, you are subjecting that case to another
review by this court.
 Aside from waiving your right your right against DJ, because you are
the one telling the court to please review may case. So, your case will
be opened again subject to the judgement of this court whatever they
may find.
 That’s what happened here.
 His right is waived and found by the appellate court, that there was
robbery. So, robbery with homicide.
 That is why it is not advisable for the accused to appeal his own
acquittal because of the possibility of the decision of being reversed.
 Because, you are already convicted and yet you are not satisfied you
wanted to be convicted or whatever, something that has civil liability,
you raise it before the appellate court that will be subjected to
another level of examination by that court.
 You appeal, your waiver against DJ and you subject the case open to
the resolution of that appellate court.
 So, here, because he appealed this case, he does not have the right
against DJ before the appellate court.
 Therefore, when the CA found him guilty from murder to robbery
with homicide, it was only proper.
RIMANDO V. SPS. ALDABA, G.R. NO. 203583, OCTOBER 13, 2014
FACTS:
 Here, the accused, Rimando, was charged with estafa.
 In the meantime, his victim also filed a case against him for violation
of BP 22.
 Now, he was acquitted in the BP 22 cases and that the RTC said that
case, BP 22, said that the act or omission from which liability may
arise does not exist at all.
 So, acquitted in that case.
 Now, in RTC, she was also acquitted for estafa but found him civilly
liable to the victim.
 So, he was acquitted for the crime was with civil liability.
 She appealed to the CA, she wants the civil liability removed
contending that her acquittal from the BP 22 case exoneration of civil
liability also in that case also had the effect of exonerating her in the
RTC for the estafa and the civil liability.
 The MTC said there was no offense that would prejudice civil liability.
That should also bind the trial court in the estafa case.
 Why civil liability was still ruled when in fact the other court ruled that
there was no civil liability?
ISSUE: Did her acquittal and subsequent exoneration in the BP 22 case have
an effect in the estafa case?
HELD:
 The court said NO. Why?
 Because these two offenses are separate and distinct from each
other.
75 | P a g e
 In fact, when you are a prosecuted for either simultaneously or after
conviction that can happen because they do not constitute the same
offense.
 A single criminal act may give rise to a multiplicity of offenses and
where there is variance or differences between the elements of an
offense of one law and another law as in the case at bar there will be
no double jeopardy because what the rule on double jeopardy
prohibits refers to identity of elements in the two (2) offenses.
 So, estafa and BP 22 they are not identical.
 They can proceed independently from each other.
Therefore, the ruling in a BP 22 case concerning the criminal and civil
liability of the accused cannot be given any bearing whatsoever if it is
raised for estafa for the same act.
JAMACA VS. PEOPLE 763 SCRA 651 (2015)
FACTS:
 Atty. Emilie Bangot filed a complaint for Grave Threats against PO2
Jamaca with the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military.
He likewise filed a similar complaint before the Office of the City
Prosecutor of Cagayan de Oro City.
o He filed 2 complaints, one before the Ombudsman, which
prosecutes against public officers and another before the
City Prosecutor, a criminal case based on the same grave
threats done against him.
 The Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for the Military dismissed the
complaint on the ground that the accusation against petitioner was
unfounded, based solely on the statement of one, Rustom Roxas, that
there were no threatening words uttered by petitioner. And
ultimately, before the Supreme Court this was affirmed that the
dismissal by the Ombudsman was proper.
 So, he pursued his case before the City Prosecutor. And in that venue,
the case prospered and led to the filing of Information against the
petitioner. It ripened into a case and the city prosecutor found a
probable cause which was not found by the Ombudsman and a case
was filed against Jamaca. Upon arraignment he pleaded not guilty
and he was ultimately convicted.
 What was his argument before the Supreme Court?
o He challenged that his indictment pursuant to the findings
of the Office of the City Prosecutor, and his eventual
conviction for the crime of grave threats, has placed him
in double jeopardy.
 This continuation of the case in this setting is
purportedly violative of his right against
double jeopardy.
ISSUE: Was there double jeopardy in this case?
RULING:
 NO. It should be borne in mind that for a claim of double jeopardy to
prosper, petitioner has to prove that a first jeopardy has attached
prior to the second.
When does the first jeopardy attach?
As stated in Braza v. Sandiganbayan, “[t]he first jeopardy attaches only:
a) after a valid indictment;
b) before a competent court;
c) after arraignment;
d) when a valid plea has been entered; and
e) when the accused was acquitted or convicted, or the case was
dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.”
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 In this case, the complaint before the Office of the Deputy
Ombudsman for the Military was dismissed as early as the
preliminary investigation stage, thus, there was as yet, no indictment
to speak of.
o First requirement of double jeopardy - the attachment of
first jeopardy and that it is after a vaild indictment - the
Court said that it was not present here because he was not
even indicted in the case by the Ombudsman in that case
that was filed before the Ombudsman.
o It was dismissed as early as Preliminary Investigations and
thus, there was no indictment to speak of.
 No complaint or Information has been brought before a competent
court. Hence, none of the elements/requirements has transpired for
the first jeopardy to have attached.
 Is a dismissal of a case in a preliminary investigation equivalent to an
acquittal? If you are dismissed because there is no probable cause and
if you're acquitted you will not be filed the same case again for double
jeopardy?
o NO. It is settled that the dismissal of a case during its
preliminary investigation does not constitute double
jeopardy since a preliminary investigation is not part of
the trial and is not the occasion for the full and exhaustive
display of the parties’ evidence but only such as may
engender a well-grounded belief that an offense has been
committed and accused is probably guilty thereof.
 In preliminary investigation, it is not even a
trial. It is a preparatory to a trial, so double
jeopardy will not attach in that stage because
none of the elements of the double jeopardy
arises.
 Right against double jeopardy protects you from the danger of
conviction, which means that the case is already in court. There is
already a valid information before the court who has acquired
jurisdiction and you have been arraigned. That is the requirement. In
preliminary investigation, those did not happen yet.
o Prior to preliminary investigation there is no probable
cause, there will be no information to file and to speak of.
 In other words, your case will not run if it is
already dismissed as early as in the preliminary
investigation stage. There is no trial yet which
would subject you to double jeopardy after the
trial is terminated.
 So, dismissal of a case in the preliminary investigation stage is not
tantamount to an acquittal. Therefore, dismissal of a case in
preliminary investigation does not place an accused in double
jeopardy.
CHIOK VS. PEOPLE 776 SCRA 120 (2015)
FACTS:
 Charged with estafa and was convicted by the trial court. On appeal,
the CA reversed the decision of the trial court for the failure of the
prosecution to prove his guilt. He was acquitted.
 The OSG did not move for reconsideration but the victim as well as
Chiok was acquitted but he has a civil liability.
 So they both moved for reconsideration in so far as the civil liability
is concerned.
 The CA denied both of their motion for reconsideration, specially the
MR of the victim here because, according to the CA, the acquittal was
already immediate and final and therefore a reexamining of this case
on MR would already violate the right of the accused against double
jeopardy.
76 | P a g e
ISSUE: Is that correct?
HELD: YES.
 YES, the appeal from the judgment of acquittal will place Chiok in
double jeopardy.
 A judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the appellate
court, is final, unappealable, and immediately executory upon its
promulgation. This is referred to as the "finality-of-acquittal" rule.
 Why is this the rule? Why is it that when you are acquitted, it is final,
executory and unappealable?
o The humanity of the laws and in a jealous watchfulness
over the rights of the citizen, when brought in unequal
contest with the State with all its resources and powers
and therefore it should not be allowed to make repeated
attempts to convict you specially if you have been
acquitted.
o The Court emphasized here the right of repose, the right
to rest and tranquility. An acquitted defendant in entitled
to the right of repose as a direct consequence of the
finality of his acquittal.
o This is a protection to ensure that the innocent will not be
found guilty in the subsequent proceeding.
o The ultimate goal of this rule is to prevent the government
to oppress this person by the perpetual prosecution of this
person.
EXCEPTIONS
 However, there are exceptions to that rule that even if you are
acquitted, as a rule, it could not be appealed because it is already
double jeopardy. There are exceptions, among others, the violation
of the right of the State to due process. In other words, there was a
sham trial or mistrial. Or if there is a grave abuse of discretion
committed by the court when it rendered the acquittal.
o So that's how you challenge an acquittal. You cannot
appeal on that so you go to a Rule 65 petition alleging that
there was grave abuse of discretion or violation of the
right of the prosecution to due process. Those are the
grounds.
 Here, are the exceptions present?
o NO. He's not able to prove that grave abuse of discretion
or that it was denied process.
 Now, there is a nuance in this case that you need to take note of and
that is the accused jump bail which has the effect on him not being
able to avail of his post-conviction remedies.
o Here, according to the MR of the complainant, the appeal
of the accused regarding the civil liability should not have
been entertained by the trial court. So, in the RTC he was
convicted then he jump bail.
o So basically, he is a fugitive, but he was able to file an
appeal before the CA. And according to the victim, the CA
should not have entertained it in the first place because
he is not allowed to avail of that remedy having jumped
bail. He has deemed to have waived it.
Court Ruling:
 The Court said that in that situation, the appellate court actually has
the discretion whether or not to take the appeal or not. It is
discretionary in the appellate Court. Its authority to dismiss an appeal
is discretionary.
 When an accused jumps bail during the pendency of his appeal, the
appellate court may exercise its discretion whether or not to proceed
with the appeal or dismiss it outright.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o So that's what the CA did, using its discretion they
proceeded with the case which ultimately led to an
acquittal.
MORILLO VS. PEOPLE 777 SCRA 207 (2015)
FACTS:
 B.P. 22 case filed before the MeTC and the accused was convicted by
the trial court which was affirmed by the RTC.
 Before the CA, however, the CA reversed the lower courts' ruling and
dismissed the case.
 What was the basis of the appellate court's dismissal of the case? He
was not acquitted, the case was dismissed without prejudice to the
refiling of the case because the venue was improper where the case
was filed.
o In criminal cases, venue is jurisdictional. So, in other
words, if the court which heard your case and the offense
was not committed within its jurisdiction, therefore, it did
not have jurisdiction over that case.
 Therefore, whatever it rules in that case, it still
did not have jurisdiction.
 This was seen by the CA and dismissed the case
for lack of jurisdiction because the venue was
improper, etc.
o So the case was dismissed but the CA ordered the refiling
of the case in the proper venue.
 The accused argues that the case was already dismissed and the
refiling of the case amounts violation of his right against double
jeopardy.
ISSUE: Is he correct?
HELD: NO.
 NO. Because a dismissal of a case is not always similar to acquittal. So
the Court distinguished here.
i. Acquittal is always based on the merits, that is, the
defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not
show that defendant’s guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt;
but dismissal does not decide the case on the merits or
that the defendant is not guilty.
ii. Dismissal terminates the proceeding, either because the
court is not a court of competent jurisdiction, or the
evidence does not show that the offense was committed
within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, or the
complaint or information is not valid or sufficient in form
and substance.
 When you are acquitted, it means the Court examined all the pieces
of evidence, the prosecution and if it is not based on demurer so it is
based on the merits. Dismissal, on the other hand, is not based on the
merits except if it is based on demurer.
 If it is a demurer, its dismissal is tantamount to an acquittal.
 As a rule, if the case is dismissed, it is not based on the merits and
therefore it does not amount to double jeopardy.
 Exceptions to the rule that the case is dismissed which is tantamount
to an acquittal and therefore attaches the double jeopardy is if the
dismissal was done by a way of a demurrer to evidence or the
dismissal is due to the violation of your right to speedy trial and
speedy disposition.
 Here, the CA dismissed the case because it found that the trial court
who tried the case did not have jurisdiction. So it is a dismissal on that
ground and it was not an acquittal.
77 | P a g e
o It did not say that the elements were not present and that
he did not commit an offense but rather the venue was
wrong where the case was filed.
o That's how the CA dismissed it, it was not based on the
merits and therefore it was not equivalent to an acquittal.
March 28, 2019
SALDARIEGA V. PANGANIBAN, APRIL 15, 2015
FACTS:
 The accused, Saldariega, was charged for violation of several sections
of RA 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act. Now, there
was a hearing set for that day but witnesses for the prosecution were
not able to be present. So, there was no evidence during the hearing,
and no one testified. Therefore, the judge issued an order,
provisionally dismissing the cases, with the express consent of the
accused.
 A month later, the State, through the police, filed a motion to reopen
the cases because the witnesses were now ready to testify. The
motion to reopen the provisionally dismissed cases was granted.
 The accused here argues that the reopening of the cases would be
tantamount to a violation to the right against double jeopardy.
ISSUE: Whether or not the reopening of the cases is tantamount to a
violation to the right against double jeopardy
RULING:
 No, the provisional dismissal of the case does not operate as an
acquittal. The dismissal was made with the express consent of the
accused. It’s not also an acquittal because it’s not a ruling on the
merits but a dismissal of a case with the consent of the accused.
There was no valid termination of the first jeopardy.
 The proscription against double jeopardy presupposes that the
accused has been previously charged. The case against him is
terminated either by his acquittal, conviction or dismissal without his
consent. None of those instances that double jeopardy is terminated
was present here.
 There are instances, however, where a dismissal of a case, even with
the consent of the accused, bars a subsequent prosecution because
double jeopardy already attaches. These instances are the following:
a) A dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence when the
accused moves for it. It is an acquittal based on the
merits.
b) A dismissal by way of a motion of the accused that his
right to speedy trial and speedy disposition.
 Here, none of those exceptions were present.
o First, there was no demurrer.
o Second, there was no inordinate delay that warranted the
dismissal. The delay, if any, was reasonable and not
inordinate. There was no termination of the first
jeopardy.
o Therefore, the continuation of the cases dismissed would
not violate his right against double jeopardy.
PEOPLE V. ARGUTA, G.R. NO. 213216 APRIL 20, 2015
 There were two criminal information filed against the Cahipe for two
counts of rape and Arguta for one. There was the first information
where both of them were charged for rape and the second only
against Cahipe.
 Later, based on those two information, both of them were found
guilty in the first information for simple rape; the second was
dismissed because it was not proved. They appealed the decision to
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
the CA and the CA affirmed their conviction but modified it to
qualified rape from simple rape.
 They challenged the decision of the appellate court. Why was it
changed from simple rape to qualified rape? As we already know, an
appeal goes into the open, the entire case is for review, and the
reviewing tribunal can correct errors though unassigned in the
appeal judgment, or even reverse the trial court’s decision based on
grounds other than those that the parties raised as errors.
 The appeal confers upon the appellate court full jurisdiction over
the case and renders that court competent to examine records,
revise the judgment appealed from, increase the penalty, and cite
the proper provision of the penal law.
 Here, they cannot complain. In fact, the Court affirmed the conviction
of the accused for qualified rape instead of simple rape because they
appealed it to the appellate court. When the appellate court found
that the ruling was erroneous, it increased the charge. So, that is the
risk. You are penalized by the trial court and you want it reversed,
there is also the risk that your penalty is increased because you
throw your case into the open when you appeal.
 As we also learned, when you appeal, you waive your right against
double jeopardy because you subject yourself again to the
jurisdiction of the appellate court. You are the one who prayed to
change the decision. You cannot claim that there is double jeopardy
if the decision is unfavorable to you.
ASSISTIO V. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 200465, APRIL 20, 2015
FACTS:
 The accused, Assistio, was charged in violation of the Cooperative
Code of the Philippines.
 After the presentation of the evidence of the prosecution, what is the
usual thing done by the accused?
o He’ll file for a motion to a demurrer to the evidence. That’s
what was done here.
 What was the ground for demurrer?
o She did not state that there was no evidence, etc. but
rather, that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over
the case. Because of this, when the RTC read the demurrer,
it agreed with the accused and it dismissed it for lack of
jurisdiction and not because there was no evidence.
 The People of the Philippines appealed the order of dismissal of the
case in the CA. So, the grant of the demurrer to evidence was
appealed.
 The accused contended that the grant of demurrer to evidence is
already an acquittal; therefore, subjecting her to this appeal is
already violative of her right against double jeopardy.
 The CA rendered a decision, reversing and setting aside the RTC’s
orders and held to continue the trial. So, she, aggrieved, went to the
SC, challenging this violates her right against double jeopardy. The
right to demurrer to evidence was already granted.
ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation to her right against double
jeopardy
RULING: NO.
 No. because this is a demurrer. A demurrer to evidence is an
objection of one of the parties in an action to the effect that the
evidence which the adverse party, the State, produced, during the
time it was filed, is insufficient to make a case or sustain an issue.
 The general rule is that when a demurrer to evidence is granted, it
is equivalent to an acquittal. It is, thus, final and unappealable.
Otherwise, it would be violative of the right against double jeopardy.
78 | P a g e
But a dismissal of the case, even by way of a demurrer, does not
always amount to an acquittal.
 In this case, the dismissal was not an acquittal even if it was done by
way of a demurrer to evidence. It was granted because the decision
dismissing the case was not based on merits. The court did not look
into the whether or not there was evidence but rather if it had
jurisdiction. That’s the basis of the trial court. It granted the
demurrer and dismissed the case, not for insufficiency of evidence,
but for lack of jurisdiction.
 So, if the demurrer is not based on the evidence, it is not equivalent
to an acquittal because the court did not examine the case based on
the merits; therefore, the dismissal can be validly appealed without
violating the right of the accused against double jeopardy.
 The Court distinguished here the difference between an acquittal and
a demurrer. An acquittal is always based on the merits, the
defendant is acquitted because the evidence does not show that his
guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 On the other hand, a dismissal is not decided based on the merits of
the case. The case is decided or granted because the court does not
have competent jurisdiction or it was a wrong venue, etc. i.e. based
on the technicality.
 Considering that the dismissal here was not based on the merits,
there is no acquittal, no double jeopardy. Moreover, the dismissal of
the case here was done with the consent of the accused.
 But we learned before that even if you file for a demurrer, even if you
consented to it, because you’re the one filing for it and it was granted,
that is an exception to the dismissal without the consent. It amounts
to an acquittal.
 Here, there is no acquittal because it was not decided based on the
merits of the case but on the court’s lack of jurisdiction, so, no double
jeopardy.
PEOPLE V. MATIBAG, G.R. NO. 206381, MARCH 25, 2015
Skipped.
ASSISTIO V. PEOPLE, G.R. NO. 200465, APRIL 20, 2015
Skipped.
PEOPLE V. CHI CHAN LIU, G.R. NO. 189272, JANUARY 21, 2015
 Because of an information, the police officers went to the place
occupied by Chinese personnel, and when they searched the boat,
they were able to find shabu. This prompted the police officers to
apprehend them and after they were detained, two cases were filed
against them for violation of Section 14 of RA 7659 or importation of
prohibited drugs.
 The trial court found them guilty for the importation of drugs, so they
appealed this case. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling, the RTC
(importation); the CA affirmed; SC reversed the ruling and found that
they were only liable for possession.
 In discussing their case: remember that their charge is importation
but the decision was modified into mere possession. In discussing the
case, the court had to cite an old case where it was held by the
Supreme Court that importation necessarily includes possession.
 How can you import if you do not possess?
o So if you cannot be guilty of importation, there is a
possibility that you can be held guilty for possession of
illegal drugs.
o That case is in People vs. Elcanish wherein there were two
informations: for possession and importation, where the
court said that the accused cannot be prosecuted of this
other charge because this possession is included in the
importation.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o So the court said that there is double jeopardy actually if
you prosecute them for these two charges because
possession is included in importation. Citing that case, the
court justified the ruling that even if they are not liable for
importation, they may be held liable for possession.
GLORIA MACAPAGAL-ARROYO V. PEOPLE (APRIL 18, 2017)
 Arroyo was charged with plunder and she was acquitted because of
the failure to prove the corpus delicti.
 She was charged with plunder before the Sandiganbayan and so after
prosecution presented the evidence, Arroyo (accused) filed a
demurrer to evidence. The Sandiganbayan did not grant the demurer.
 To challenge the denial of the petition for the demurer of evidence
which is an interlocutory order, Arroyo went to the Supreme Court.
And then Supreme Court granted the petition, and she was acquitted.
Granting it, the Court said that the Sandiganbayan committed a grave
abuse of discretion in denying her demurrer to evidence.
 The Supreme Court granted the demurrer to evidence which amounts
to an acquittal. The Office of the Ombudsman moved for the
reconsideration of the order submitting that the court giving due
course to the certiorari assailing the demurer.
 They filed an MR for the decision of the SC. And for that MR, what did
GMA say or allege against it?
o The decision has effectively barred the consideration
because doing so would amount to prosecution or
revival to a charge against her despite the acquittal.
o The grant of the demurer by the SC itself is already an
acquittal; therefore an acquittal is already final and
executory.
o Now that the state moves for reconsideration of that
acquittal, that would subject them again to double
jeopardy.
 Is there a double jeopardy in this case? Why?
o Yes. The Acquittal was effected through demurer of
evidence. The court quoted here the case of People vs.
Sandiganbayan which states that the dismissal of the case
on the merits is tantamount to the acquittal of the
accused. Such dismissal of the criminal case by the grant
demurer of evidence may not be appealed for to do so
would place the accused in double jeopardy.
 Take note that the requisite in Rule 65 petition of the SC that you
should have exhausted all the remedies which includes the filing of
an MR if you are already acquitted.
 The State, before it can go to Rule 65 petition, has to prove that it has
availed all remedies for reconsideration. However, the court said
here that you cannot move for reconsideration because he is already
acquitted.
o Why is it that even in MR, you cannot file an MR for your
acquittal?
 Because what happens when you are acquitted?
Every acquittal is final immediately upon
promulgation. The acquittal is already final and
executory, to subject that to review would
violate the person’s rights against double
jeopardy.
 So that was what happened to that case, GMA was acquitted for some
magical reason and the MR sustained because it is in due course that
the State should do. However, the court stopped Ombudsman – you
can no longer file for an MR because it is already violative of the right
against double jeopardy.
79 | P a g e
PEOPLE V. ALEJANDRO (JANUARY 11, 2018)
 The accused appellant was charged with two counts of rape. He raped
a 12 year old minor, twice. And so the prosecution presented the
evidence and the minor testified.
 The accused manifested to the open court that he would no longer
present an evidence for the defense and submitted the case for
decision.
 He did not even defend himself. The RTC acquitted the accused on
July 26, 2011. But the RTC recalled the decision in the same day. Why?
o There was acquittal but discovering that there is
something wrong, the RTC reversed the order of dismissal.
 Why? What was the cause? Because RTC
noted that AAA did not testifie in court, but in
truth and in fact AAA testified and the order
containing the statement of AAA was
mistakenly captioned and attached on
another criminal case where Alejandro was
also the accused and as a result of that
mistake Alejandro was acquitted.
 He was acquitted because of the faulty records. Upon typing the
order of the court, a wrong case number was typed. Apparently this
rapist also had several cases in the other courts. The caption of rape
case number was wrongly typed, so the record that the minor victim
testified was placed in another case.
o As the court checked, it discovered that the minor testified,
and then it reversed the acquittal and proceeded with the
trial.
o It said that if that piece of evidence, which was
inadvertently placed in another case, is considered it
would have resulted in the conviction of the accused.
o What did the court do to the accused after it reversed the
acquittal?
 The accused was convicted. Take note that this
case, the reason why the judge reversed the
acquittal because the prosecution manifested
that “Your honor, based on our records the
evidence was an inadvertently misplaced and it
should have been part of the records.” By way
of manifestation, the court was informed of
that misact and using that piece of evidence
the accused was convicted.
 The accused challenged the conviction and alleged that the
conviction amounts to double jeopardy. The accused was already
acquitted but the court reversed its decision and convicted the
accused.
ISSUE: Was there double jeopardy?
RULING: YES.
 Yes. Here, all the elements were present. There was a valid
information for two counts of rape over which the RTC had
jurisdiction and to which the accused-appellant entered a plea of not
guilty. After the trial, a judgment of acquittal was thereafter rendered
and promulgated.
 The first jeopardy was terminated by way of acquittal which is final
and executory.
 Is it not the judgment of acquittal here was based on a mistaken
notion? The basis for the acquittal is wrong. Is it not a ground to
reverse the acquittal?
o No, because it does not change the fact that a judgment
of acquittal had already been promulgated. Indeed, a
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
judgment of acquittal, whether ordered by the trial or the
appellate court, is final, unappealable, and immediately
executory upon its promulgation.
 The rule on double jeopardy, however, is not without exceptions,
which are:
1. Where there has been deprivation of due process and
where there is a finding of a mistrial, or
2. Where there has been a grave abuse of discretion under
exceptional circumstances.
 Here, the accused was already acquitted and there are only 2 ground
which you can reversed an acquittal. The Court found that these
exceptions do not exist in this case. Here, there was no deprivation of
due process or mistrial because the records show that the
prosecution was actually able to present their case and their
witnesses.
 How was this acquittal pointed out to the court?
o It was only through mere manifestation of the prosecutor.
In that manifestation, the prosecution did not even
alleged that there was grave abuse of discretion or that
there was denial of due process.
 A mere manifestation will not suffice in assailing a judgment of
acquittal.
 A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules should have been
filed. A judgment of acquittal may only be assailed in a petition
for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules. If the petition, regardless of
its nomenclature, merely calls for an ordinary review of the findings
of the court a quo, the constitutional right of the accused against
double jeopardy would be violated.
 So the acquittal was proper. Since the acquittal was proper, the State
could not question that, otherwise, it would violate the right against
double jeopardy.
 Take note that the rapist here was charged with 2 counts of rape and
he was also charged with rape in another court of another victim.
Then there was an inadvertence in placing the caption/title in the
case. That evidence that the victim testified was placed in another
court by whoever made that mistake. So when the courts examined
the records, there is nothing in the records that the witness testified,
apparently, because the order was sent to another court. And
because of that, the accused was acquitted for 2 counts of rape. So
the prosecution manifested that the order containing the evidence
where the victim testified was in another case which should have
been part of the records in this case. Because of that, the court
reversed itself and convicted the accused.
 The Court sustained the acquittal due to the encroachment on the
right against double jeopardy because of the technicality.
D. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
ARTICLE III • SECTION 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or
rebellion when the public safety requires it.
 This related to the provision on the Executive Department where the
Chief Executive can suspend the privilege provided that there is
invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
 A writ of habeas corpus
o It is an order issued by a court directed to the person
detaining another and commanding him to produce the
body of the prisoner at a designated time and place and
to explain the cause of detention.
80 | P a g e
 If someone is illegally detaining you, your relatives or any required
interested party can file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to
challenge your continued detention.
 But there are limited instances where this can be allowed. This is a
special proceeding in Rule 102. There are 4 cases under the rules that
you can file a petition for writ of habeas corpus:
1. If you are detained without charges;
2. Where the prisoner has served his sentence but is not
released;
3. In custody of children;
4. If a patient is detained in a hospital for failure to pay the
bill.
 Other instances:
1. When a person is unlawfully denied of his constitutional
freedom;
2. He is denied of due process and is detained;
3. When the restrains are involuntary and unnecessary;
4. When deprivation of freedom which is originally valid
becomes later on invalid or arbitrary;
5. There is a favorable DNA evidence against a convicted
felon or convict.
Under the provision, a privilege can be suspended only if there is rebellion,
invasion and that public safety requires it.
What does it do to your right to file bail?
 As a rule the right to bail is not suspended even if the privilege of the
writ (habeas corpus) is suspended. You can still file for bail.
When can you avail of the Writ?
1. So you can avail of the writ of habeas corpus when you are detained
without a charge as we said earlier which happens when you are
detained for a commission of a crime and you are not charged within
a prescribed period.
o The detention becomes illegal after that number of hours
if you are still not charged before the courts. So after that,
you may already file for petition of writ of habeas corpus.
2. When sentence has been served.
3. When you are detained and you are enslaved for payment of debt.
Because as we already know, no one can be imprisoned for non-
payment of debt. So if you are imprisoned by your creditor, your
family can file a petition to free you.
What happens if the court issuing the writ directs that person to produce
you before the court and explain why you detained such person? What if
the person directed by the writ does not obey the directive of the court?
He will just say “I don’t care”
 The non-production of the person is sufficient ground to make
offenders liable in contempt of court. So you may be charged for
contempt of court.
What are the instances where you cannot be allowed or discharged
through a writ of habeas corpus?
1. If the person is in custody of an officer and is under a process by a
court or judge;
o In other words, his custody is not illegal. You are detained
because your case went through a trial, and you are
convicted. Therefore you are supposed to be
incarcerated.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
2. Or you have a case pending before the court and unable to file bail.
In other words, the detention is legal so you cannot ask for the writ
of habeas corpus for your release.
3. When the person is charged with or convicted of a crime; if he is
imprisoned under lawful judgment.
The Writ of Amparo as compared to the Writ of Habeas Corpus:
Writ of Amparo Writ of Habeas Corpus
Writ of Amparo is a writ of The writ of habeas corpus is only
protection. It is wider in scope limited to liberty
because it is a remedy against life,
liberty, and security.
Applies not only to actual Will only be issued if there is proof
violation of such rights but also to of actual deprivation of liberty.
threatened violations.
A writ of amparo may be As a rule may only be invoked
instituted against a public official against the State.
or employee or a private
individual or entity
Note however that the Writ of Amparo is applicable only to extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances.
1. Functions of the writ
CASES – The landmark case for the Writ of Amparo is the case of
VILLAVICENCIO VS. LUKBAN, 39 PHIL. 778 (1919)
FACTS:
 There were prostitutes in Manila and rounded up. They were all
contained in vessel. They did not know where they were going. They
were deported to the island of Mindanao.
 When they were released, their concerned relatives went to the
Supreme Court. By way of a petition for habeas corpus, they wanted
these people to go back to Manila
 There were several argument against this petition and among others:
a. They were not the proper parties because those who were
affected should be the ones to file the case;
b. They were not in actual custody because the women here
were free to roam around Mindanao. So there is no legal
custody or any detention to speak of warranting the
granting of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
So let’s go first to the authority of the Mayor and the Chief of Police.
ISSUE: Did they have any basis to effect that deportation?
RULING: NO.
 No. There is no law that allows them to do the deportation.
 How can you therefore deport? What should be the basis?
o It should be based on a law or a lawful order.
 Here, the Court said that there is no law empowering the Mayor or
the Chief of Police to deport prostitutes. In fact, it is violative of the
Revised Penal Code for any public officer not authorized by law to
deport these individuals. Even for lepers, a law is necessary; with
more reason to prostitutes.
 Anyways, the proper remedy here is the writ of habeas corpus. It is
the speedy and immediate remedy to relieve persons from unlawful
restraints and as best and only sufficient defence of personal
freedom.
ISSUE: Did the petitioners did not have standing in Court, did they (the
relatives) have standing in Court?
81 | P a g e
RULING: YES.
 They have standing in Court because it is impossible for the deported
women who are already in Mindanao to file the petition themselves.
Therefore, the petition may properly be submitted by these relatives
in behalf of the deported women.
ISSUE #2: (raised by the State) they were not in detention. They were able
to freely roam around whatever part of Mindanao. Therefore, the writ of
habeas corpus would not be served. They were under no restraint.
RULING:
 The court discussed that it is indispensable that prior to the issuance
of the writ, there must be a restraint of liberty.
o Your liberty should be restricted because the essential
object and purpose of the writ is to inquire into all manner
of involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary,
and to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is
illegal.
 Here, were they retrained involuntarily?
o Yes. Any restraint which will preclude freedom of action is
sufficient.
o The forcible taking of these women from Manila by
officials of that city, who handed them over to other
parties, who deposited them in a distant region, deprived
these women of freedom of locomotion just as effectively
as if they had been imprisoned.
 Even if you were not detained but this
circumstance, you are deprived of your
locomotion, you don’t even know where you
were is just as effectively as if they had been
imprisoned warranting the petition for writ of
habeas corpus.
IN RE GONZALES 526 SCRA 483 (2007)
FACTS:
 We have here mutineers of the Oakwood Mutiny.
 A case was filed against the accused before the court and they posted
bail. That bail application was granted by the court. The court ordered
the detaining person to release them but they were not released.
 The People of the Philippines (the State) contested that grant of bail
and it went to the CA.
 On the other hand, the accused said that we are still not released.
They file a petition for habeas corpus before the CA.
 Now, the state wanted to have that case – the petition for habeas
corpus – to be dismissed because their case was doubled. There is
already a pending petition involving their propriety on the grant of
the bail, on one hand, and this petition for a writ of habeas corpus
seeking their release which basically has the same effect.
ISSUE: Can this writ of habeas corpus be granted?
RULING:
 The court said that this writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted
because the mutineers committed forum shopping.
 In any case, the pendency of the release they’re asking for (the writ)
is similar to the effect of the pending case questioning the grant of
bail. Therefore, they should have not filed a petition for writ of
habeas corpus. The relief they were seeking therein is the same relief
they are asking for in the certiorari case involving their bail.
 Moreover, the main issue in both cases boils down to whether the
accused should be released on bail.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
VELUZ VS. VILLANUEVA 543 SCRA 63 (2008)
FACTS:
 Eufemia, a 94-year old widow, was living with Veluz, her nephew,
since 2000. He acted as her guardian.
 Later on, Luisa and Teresita took this old woman from the custody of
Veluz.
 Because of this, the lola was never returned. She apparently was very
rich. So if she dies, then the ones who were near her would inherit.
 So, Veluz went to court. Challenged the purported detention of the
old woman by way of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (HC)
before the CA.
 That despite his repeated demands, the old woman was never
returned to him.
 The CA denied the petition because he failed to present any
convincing proof that the old woman was unlawfully restrained by
the persons who took her.
o Who are those persons anyway?
 They were the legally adopted children of this
old woman.
 He also failed to establish his legal right to the custody of Eufemia as
he was not her legal guardian.
o Therefore, the writ will not be granted.
 So, he went to the SC to challenge the order by the CA.
ISSUE: What does the writ of habeas corpus cover?
RULING:
 The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal confinement
or detention by which any person is deprived of his liberty or by which
the rightful custody of a person is being withheld from the one
entitled thereto.
o So, apparently you can use this writ of HC to regain
custody over someone.
 Thus, it contemplates two instances: (1) deprivation of a person’s
liberty either through illegal confinement or through detention and
(2) withholding of the custody of any person from someone entitled
to such custody.
o This restraint must be proved to be illegal and involuntary.
 If you file for a petition for a writ of HC as the person claiming that
you should be the one to have custody and the detention is illegal,
you have to prove the following:
1. The court will inquire and you will have to prove that this
person is being restrained of his liberty on the first place.
 If he is not being restrained, what’s the point?
2. If proven that there is restraint, we will now go to the 2nd
inquiry: the cause of the detention.
 If the cause is illegal: the writ will be granted.
 If the cause if not illegal: the writ will not be
granted.
 Here, as the person petitioning or praying for the release of this
person, he has the burden of proof of evidence to prove that (1) there
is restraint and he had the proper custody, and (2) if there is restraint,
he must be able to prove that such restraint is illegal, which he did
not do in this case.
FLETCHER VS. DIRECTOR OF BUREAU 593 SCRA 265 (2009)
FACTS:
 This person was convicted for an offense and he was serving his
sentence. He was convicted to a prison sentence of 12 to 17 years.
But he claimed that his penalty was commuted to 9 to 12 years.
82 | P a g e
 Since he had already served 14 years, he filed a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus.
 This was opposed by the OSG on the ground that the petition filed by
this person was not signed nor verified by him or a person on his
behalf or by his purported counsel.
RULING:
 The court said that in petitions for the writ of HC, the formalities
required shall be construed liberally.
o The technicality or procedure and infirmities may be set
aside so that there would be a proper disposition of the
case.
 The petition for the writ is required to be verified but the defect in
form is not fatal. Therefore, the court will not unduly confine the writ
of HC in the prison walls of technicality.
 Nevertheless, the court said here that he was not entitled to the writ
because he was legally confined. He was also confined because he
had another case pending.
 The writ, should not be issued when the custody over the person is
by virtue of a judicial process or a valid judgment.
o In the first place, he was convicted so he should serve his
sentence. It was not proven that his sentence was
commuted. In any case, even if it was commuted, he can
ask for release by way of application of parole. But, he had
a pending criminal case and that id a ground for the denial
of his parole. So, in any angle, he cannot be released.
AMPATUAN VS. MACARAIG 622 SCRA 266 (2010)
FACTS:
 There was a policeman who was apprehended because he was
allegedly involved in the killing of COMELEC officials. So, he was
detained and was subjected to an inquiry.
 Later on, he was subjected to another investigation by the police
director general and he was given to the regional director to be under
restrictive custody.
 Now, the wife of this person went to court, filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus because they claimed that there is an unlawful
withholding or restraint in liberty of her husband.
ISSUE: Was there illegal restraint?
RULING: NO.
 There was no illegal restraint here because he was validly under
restrictive custody.
 Take note of the reckoning point of the legality of one’s detention:
o The court will first look at the period when the detention
should be reckoned if it’s illegal or not, is at the time of
the filing of the application for the writ.
 Because, it would be possible that upon filing
the restraint of his liberty was already valid.
 So, the writ should not be issued when the custody over the person
is by virtue of a judicial process or a valid judgment, or if it is not
illegal.
 In this case, his custody effected by way of an order by this police
director general. He was placed under protective custody which he is
able to do so under RA 6975 which grants him the power to do so.
o That constitutes for a valid argument for his continued
detention.
 Therefore, that restraint is not a form of illegal detention or restraint
of liberty. He was validly under restrictive custody which is a nominal
restraint beyond the ambit of habeas corpus petition.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
April 1, 2019
Writ of Habeas Corpus
 So let’s just go back to the writ. This is provided for under Rule 102 of
the Rules of Court.
 So we have to use that as reference because it explains the purpose,
the coverage, the procedure.
 Without the cases, at least the rules are there so you will be guided.
It’s basically an outline.
Going to the rule, what does it extend to, this writ of Habeas Corpus?
 It extends 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.
 Illegal confinement or depriving of the rightful custody from the
person who has the custody of this person that you can avail of the
remedy.
Who grants the writ?
 The Supreme Court
 So you may file it before the Supreme Court if warranted. It 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 a Court
of First Instance otherwise known as the RTC, or any judge thereof
for hearing and decision on the merits.
How does it happen?
 You file a petition; the writ of habeas corpus will be issued, directing
the person having custody of this person to produce you before the
court.
 Aside from producing the said person, the person who was directed
in the writ will also be required to file his return. This return is his
answer basically to the petition to justify why withholding this person
or why he is detaining the person.
 So he produces that person in Court, and he files his answer. And
when the answer is filed, there will be a hearing to determine if
indeed there is illegal detention. So it doesn’t mean that if the writ is
issued after the petition is filed, that’s it.
 The writ is issued to direct the person to produce you. He will also be
directed to file a return, his answer. And then, there will be a hearing
and then there, it will be determined finally if indeed there is illegal
custody or detention. So that is the procedure.
 If you are already produced by this person, if it is issued by the court,
it can be enforced anywhere in the Philippines. The SC can order that
the writ should be filed, and the person shall be produced in this RTC
and the person who produced will also file his return in that RTC and
the hearing will be conducted in that court.
Now, what do you do if you want to file this petition for habeas corpus
thinking that it falls under any of the grounds where it may be granted?
Who can file it?
 It shall be by petition. It’s a petition signed and verified either by the
party for whose relief it is intended, or by some person on his behalf.
 So in Lukban v. Villavicencio, not the actual persons who are
detained. The people in their behalf or the party for whose relief it is
intended. It can be filed by those people.
83 | P a g e
 It will allege also:
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,
c. The place where he is so imprisoned or restrained, if
known; and
d. A copy of the commitment or cause of detention of such
person.
 Now, it doesn’t mean that if you file a petition, the court will already
grant it.
When will it be not granted?
 In section 4, it will not be allowed.
 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.
o Meaning the detention is legal because it is directed by a
judge in a pending case, or by virtue of a judgment or
order of a court of record.
o So he is already convicted 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 because
what is protected is against illegal confinement. So if your
confinement is legal, the writ will not be issued.
 If the court authorized to grant the writ and it appears from the
petition that the writ ought to issue, (which is when you file the
petition, you will find at the court that the grounds are present), it
shall grant the same forthwith, and immediately thereupon the clerk
of the court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court.
So what is the import of the writ?
 In case of imprisonment or restraint by an officer, the writ shall be
directed to him, the person imprisoning, and shall command him to
have the body of the person restrained of his liberty before the court
or judge designated.
 So, produce this person, the court issuing the writ be directed to the
person imprisoning you to produce you before the court.
 If you are imprisoned by a person who is 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.
Now, how is the 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 and there, he will also file his return.
What are the contents of the 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 unequivocally:
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
What does he write in his return?
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 bought 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.
 So this is where he alleges his defenses why you keep the person in
confinement, etc.
 It does not mean that when you file the petition, it will be granted.
o Granted in the sense that the person will produce, but
directing the person to justify also why confinement is
warranted.
 So after that, the writ is returned. A return is filed by the person
directed before one judge, 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.
 If it appears in the hearing 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. Meaning legal the detention is legal.
 If he is lawfully imprisoned or restrained on a charge of having
committed an offense not so punishable by death, he may be
recommitted to imprisonment or admitted to bail in the discretion of
the court or judge. There would still be a hearing to determine if
ultimately the detention is legal or not.
 If there is noncompliance, what if it is decided by the court or if it is
found out the detention illegal and the order of the court to release
you was already filed?
o Earlier, it is only temporary to produce you to determine
if you are already committed and give that person
detaining you the opportunity to justify the detention.
What if the person does not return you?
 He may be punished by contempt.
That is the gist of what Rule 102 is on Habeas Corpus.
Let’s continue with the cases. We have discussed Villavicencio, the case
with the prostitutes and cases where the court did not say that the writ
was warranted because the detention was valid.
ADONIS VS. TESORO 697 SCRA 337 (2013)
FACTS:
 We have a person here convicted for the offense of libel for which he
was serving his sentence. And the second libel case was also pending
against him in another court.
 Now the Board of Warrants and Parole issued an order for the
discharge of, among others, Adonis. So he wanted to be released. He
moved for his provisional release, but he was not released because
he had a pending case warranting him to file a petition for writ of
habeas corpus.
84 | P a g e
ISSUE: WON the petition for writ of habeas corpus should granted in this
case
RULING: NO.
 The writ is not issued when a person is in custody because of a judicial
process or a valid judgment.
 Why was he detained?
o Because he has a pending case where he had to be
incarcerated.
o Since his detention was by his first conviction on his other
offense. But he also had a pending case in another court.
So his detention in the first place but his conviction was
valid.
 Can he be released?
o NO, because he also has a pending case in another court.
While it is true that a convict may be released from prison
on parole when he has served his minimum sentence, the
pendency of another criminal case is a ground for the
disqualification of such convict from being released on
parole.
 So he will not be released because under his petition for writ of
habeas corpus because his detention was valid.
MANGILA VS. PANGILINAN 701 SCRA 355 (2013)
FACTS:
 This is consistent with what we have been discussing: Restraint that
is lawful and pursuant to a court process cannot be inquired into
through habeas corpus.
 This person was charged with syndicated estafa.
 During this time, judges were still allowed to conduct PI and now, it
is only done by the prosecutors.
 Here, the judge of the MTC conducted the PI of this person and
ultimately, he found that there is probable cause and he also issued
a directive, warrant of arrest for this person.
 Now, he was apprehended, and he was imprisoned.
 So the accused claimed that this judge did not have the authority to
conduct the PI. Basically, he is now questioning the findings of the
judge pursuant to the probable cause, finding issuance of the warrant
of arrest, among other things.
 So he went to the CA by way of the petition for writ of habeas corpus
alleging those grounds.
ISSUE: Can that be done?
HELD: NO.
 Why?
o Because a habeas corpus is a civil proceeding in character
seeking the enforcement of civil rights.
o Resorting to the writ is not to inquire into the criminal act
of which the complaint is made, but rather into the right
of liberty, notwithstanding the act and the immediate
purpose to be served is relief from illegal restraint.
 So, you go to petition of writ of habeas corpus not to correct the
errors of the court that you think made an error. If there is a remedy
in an appeal, then you go for it. There is an MR, you go for it.
o Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error. You
are not supposed to assign errs, the judge erred in
convicting me, etc.
o You are going to allege that there is an illegal confinement
or restraint of your liberty or that someone was in lawful
custody is deprived thereof.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o Habeas corpus is not in the nature of a writ of error; nor
intended as substitute for the trial court’s function.
o It cannot take the place of appeal, certiorari or writ of
error. The writ cannot be used to investigate and consider
questions of error that might be raised relating to
procedure or on the merits.
o The writ is not ordinarily granted where the law provides
for other remedies in the regular course, and in the
absence of exceptional circumstances.
 Here, what were the grounds?
o The Court was alleged to have no authority to conduct PI
and issue the warrant. And this is not something that you
pray for or you allege in a writ of habeas corpus.
 The Court found out here that even hearing or finding of the petition
to be meritless, the Court still determined that the court which
conducted the PI was authorized to do so and to issue the warrant of
arrest.
 And considering that it had such an authority, the writ will not be
issued.
IN RE: SHANG KO VINGSON YU JANUARY 13 2014
FACTS:
 This involves a custody case of a minor.
 The mother here lost this kid. Because apparently, he abuses the
child, she let the child work, etc.
 So this child ran away and went to the police particularly, to this
Bacolod City Police Station, to Jovy Cabcaban, a police officer in that
station.
 And the mother found out that her child was missing (Where is my
child? Why am I not eating? Where is my food?)
 Apparently, the child was not going home anymore and does not give
her money anymore.
 So she went looking for her child and found out that the child was at
the police station.
 Now, the police officer, Cabcaban, refused to release Shang Ko, the
daughter, to her mother because the daughter was already in the
custody of a private organization called Calvary Kids.
 So this prompted the mother to file a petition for writ of habeas
corpus (because, again, you can avail of it if you allege that you have
the right of custody but this person having the custody has no right of
custody over that person) against Cabcaban and the unnamed of
officers of Cavalry Kids.
 The CA denied its petition for its failure to clearly allege who has
custody of Shang Ko.
 According to the CA, habeas corpus may not be used as a means of
obtaining evidence on the whereabouts of a person or as a means of
finding out who has specifically abducted or caused the
disappearance of such person.
ISSUE: So, was this writ here granted?
HELD:
 The Court did not resolve the issue but rather directed the Family
Court in this locality to determine the issue due to the factual issues
that have to be settled by such a court.
 Nevertheless, the Court discussed that the writ of habeas corpus is
available, not only in cases of illegal confinement or detention by
which any person is deprived of his liberty, but also in cases involving
the rightful custody over a minor.
85 | P a g e
o Ex.: So if you have a friend who did that (abusive parent),
file a petition for writ of habeas corpus to get the custody
of the child from that person. So you can do that.
 The general rule is that parents should have custody over their minor
children. But the State has the right to intervene where the parents,
rather than care for such children, treat them cruelly and abusively,
impairing their growth and well-being and leaving them emotional
scars that they carry throughout their lives, unless they are liberated
from such parents and are properly counselled.
 In any case, this involves a factual issue because there is an allegation
of the police that she is abusing the child. On the other hand, the
parent has claimed that she's not abusing so it has to be threshed out,
those factual issues before the appropriate Family Court.
IN RE: DATUKAN MALANG SALIBO GAPRIL 8 2015
FACTS:
 Datukan Malang Salibo was in Saudi Arabia for pilgrimage.
 Due to the happening of the Maguindanao Massacre, there was this
filing of the case of People vs. Datu Andal Ampatuan where a person
named Butukan S. Malang was suspected. And because of that case,
there was a warrant of arrest in the name of Butukan S. Malang
 Later on, Datukan Malang Salibo came back home and went to the
police station to clear his name.
o His name is Datukan Malang Salibo and the accused in the
case is Butukan S. Malang so there is a reasonable
assumption by the police officers that these two persons
are the same. So that is why, Datukan Malang Salibo was
apprehended.
 And then what did he do because he was already incarcerated?
o And so because of that, Datukan filed before the CA a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus wherein the CA
ordered the return to the RTC.
 So it is now the RTC that will hear the matter. So what is the finding
of the RTC?
o RTC held that Datukan is illegally restrained by the police
because he is not Batukan S. Malang. They are not one
and the same. And so, his release was ordered.
 Later on, the State appealed on the CA. And what did the CA do?
o However in this case, the Court of Appeals reversed the
decision of RTC, and it held that there was a
valid Information and Warrant of Arrest. So the petition
for habeas corpus was actually an improper remedy.
 Because of the pendency of the filing of the information, what
happened to the detention?
o It became legal. His detention by the police was legal
because of the valid information and warrant of arrest
 There was a pending case already according to the CA. Because of this
information, his detention is already not illegal. That's what the CA
found.
ISSUE: Was the CA correct in this case?
HELD: NO.
 The SC held that the CA was incorrect in this case.
 Why?
o The Court held that the writ of habeas corpus is a remedy
that is speedy and effectual to relieve persons from
unlawful restraint, and it is the best and only sufficient
defence for the personal freedom
o Furthermore, the SC held that the purpose of the writ of
habeas corpus was to inquire into all manners of
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
involuntary restraint as distinguished from voluntary, and
to relieve a person therefrom if such restraint is illegal.
 In this case, the SC held that the information and warrant of arrest
are valid, but not so for Datukan Malang Salibo but for Butukan S.
Malang because he (Datukan) was not in the Philippines during the
Maguindanao Massacre.
o The SC held that obviously, he did not participate during
the Maguindanao Massacre
 There was an invocation of the warrant of arrest; it is valid. But,
insofar as this person is concerned, he not the one as it was not his
name on the information and in the warrant of arrest
 The Court said, "why are you going to detain this person when in fact
he is not the one? He's not even an accused in this case"
 The Court did not resolve the issue on whether he should be
convicted or not or etc., but rather, the person here, the petitioner,
was able to prove that during the happening of the event, he was in
Saudi Arabia
 It is a settled rule that the writ of habeas corpus may no longer be
issued if the person allegedly deprived of liberty is restrained under a
lawful process or order of the court
 Is it proper? What happened here?
o We already have an information, a warrant of arrest
pursuant to this case against this accused
o Therefore, if there is a valid reason for the restraint,
among other criminal case pending against this person,
the case becomes the petition. The writ of habeas corpus
becomes moot and academic.
 Is that ruling applicable?
o In this case, the SC held that that ruling is not applicable
because in this case, there was no valid arrest.
Furthermore, he was not restrained under a lawful
process or order of the court. He was illegally deprived of
his liberty, and, therefore, correctly availed himself of a
Petition for Habeas Corpus.
o Because again, going back to the fact that the information
does not even state his name, it was this other person. So
meaning, in the first place, his detention had no basis
AGCAOILI V. FARINAS JULY 3 2018
FACTS:
 Involving the Ilocos 6, which it became moot and academic according
to the SC, but still, the Court resolved some of the issues here because
not all the cases will be automatically dismissed. There are
exceptions
 Anyway, there are issues resolved in the Ilocos 6 in this case that are
relevant in our discussion.
 Here, there was a House Resolution No. 882, introduced by the
respondent, Fariñas.
 There was an investigation conducted by the House of the
Representatives involving the provincial government of Ilocos Norte
 What did they do?
o They bought vehicles in 3 separate transactions and the
inquiry was due to Excise Taxes on locally manufactured
Virginia-type cigarettes.
o The use of the excise taxes is claimed to be illegal. They
used public funds to purchase vehicles but according to
the allegation in the inquiry that they launched that this
was contrary to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7171.
o So the officers of this provincial government were invited
to attend this legislative inquiry, among others, Imee
Marcos [was invited]
86 | P a g e
o They eventually went to the House for the inquiry.
 What did they do when they were asked questions by the
representatives?
o They were alleged to have answered the questions that
were regarded to be evasive.
o Their way of answering was evasive. They simply claimed
not to remember the specifics of the subject transactions.
 What did this committee do?
o The representatives cited them in contempt, and they
were detained
o They were imprisoned because they were not
cooperative, among other things
o This prompted these people who were detained to file a
petition for habeas corpus in the CA
o The CA issued a writ of habeas corpus. So now there is a
tension between the 2 branches of the government
o The HoR is asserting that it has the legal custody over
these people pursuant to the inquiry.
o On the other hand, the judiciary is asserting that you
should present these people before the court because it is
also asserting its power against these representatives
 Because of the clash of these powers, what did the House Committee
do?
o The House Committee issued a Show Cause Order against
the CA to explain why they are being directed to produce
these people, they are validly detained etc.
 Anyway, in the meantime while this case was pending, they went to
the SC, what happened to these people who were detained?
o They were released. The House Committee lifted the
contempt order, and the people were released
o So the case was rendered moot by that.
 Why should we continue with this case when the detained people are
already released?
o Nevertheless, the court took exemption from that rule
and still resolved some of the issues presented before it in
this case.
o The court explained the nature of the writ of habeas
corpus, the instances when it could not be issued, among
others, if these persons are no longer in detention.
o A petition for habeas corpus can be dismissed upon the
voluntary withdrawal of the person who filed it or if the
person already released from custody becomes moot and
academic-- and that is what happened here in this case.
o Nevertheless, the court decided the issues here. There
was an issue on the Doctrine of Concurrent Jurisdiction
because it was alleged here the remedy for going to the
SC was incorrect when the CA still had jurisdiction of the
petition for habeas corpus.
 It still did not resolve the matter with finality, then why would you go
to the SC?
o The counter allegation in pertinence to that was that the
case should continue in the CA.
 What was the basis that was cited by so the case may proceed in the
SC?
o The petitioners argued that the SC acquired jurisdiction in
its misrepresentation because of its power to promulgate
rules concerning the rules and procedure.
 What specific rule did they invoke?
o Rule 4 Sec. 3(c) of the Administrative Matter No. 10-04-
20-SC
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o Yes, that is one of the grounds. There has been a circular,
which has been issued, an AM by the SC that the latter
pursuant to its administrative functions can affect the
transfer of cases from the CA to the SC.
o It is not the jurisdiction that is transferred as the same is
vested to the courts by law. The SC can designate a
jurisdiction to a certain court, unless the issue presented
before the SC is for resolution.
ISSUE: Anyway, was that correct? Was that the proper basis for the court
to assume jurisdiction over this case, which is pending before the CA?
HELD: The court said that NO.
 Why?
o The provision talks about the transfer of cases because
there is an issue in the matter of – not jurisdiction – but of
venue. The venue was inappropriate; the court was
inappropriate based on the proper venue, not
jurisdiction.
 Another ground raised here was that the SC has the administrative
jurisdiction over all the courts.
 Is that proper to allege, to justify? NO.
 Why? What is the extent of the Administrative power?
o The Court said that Administrative supervision merely
involves overseeing the operations of agencies to ensure
that they are managed effectively and economically but
without interference with day-to-day activities
o Yes, that is what Administrative Supervision - operations
of the agencies - not to control this agency. So, the SC said
that they should have proceeded. It should have been
finished before the CA. It is consistent with the doctrine of
concurrent jurisdiction.
 What are the courts with concurrent jurisdiction in cases for petitions
for habeas corpus?
o The SC, CA, the RTC, they all enjoy concurrent jurisdiction
but once you already invoke jurisdiction of this court it will
exclude the rest; it will continue in that court and then it
is concluded.
2. The writ of habeas corpus as a post conviction
remedy
 Now, as we said before that the writ of habeas corpus can be availed
of as a post-conviction remedy.
 And there is this favorable finding or a favorable law that may apply
to you.
 You cannot effect the change of decision because the same you will
be served. Final decision has been promulgated; you are already
serving your sentence, but you can be released pursuant to a petition
of writ of habeas corpus.
 This is a post-conviction remedy.
CASES –
LAMEN VS. DIRECTOR, 241 SCRA 573 (1995)
FACTS:
 Willy Bagawe was convicted with RA 6425 or Marijuana, but this law
was later on amended and this person was convicted and already
serving his penalty.
 But because of the amendments of the law, based on the amount of
grams of marijuana he got, the time of his imprisonment sentence
has been lessened.
87 | P a g e
 This prompted the petitioners to go file before the court by way of a
petition for writ of habeas corpus.
 The petitioners were successful, and Willy was released by the SC.
 This law, which is penal, can be given retroactive effect if it is
favorable to the accused. Because of this, the penalty was reduced.
 The court said that, since the case here, the original case against him
already became final because the accused is already serving his
sentence, the courts can no longer alter or modify the penalty
imposed.
 Nevertheless, the writ of habeas corpus comes into his rescue
because he has undergone imprisonment for a period more than his
required years of imprisonment, which could have been properly
imposed to him, taking into account the favorable law.
 The SC held that pursuant to the applicability of the RPC that the law
is favourable; applicable.
 In so far as the decision of the conviction is concerned, it cannot be
changed anymore even if there is this amendatory law, but the writ
of habeas corpus can be a viable remedy to effect the release,
pursuant to the favorable law.
 We also said last time that the writ of habeas corpus can be filed
under the rule of DNA evidence AM 06-11-5 SC Sec.10 Post Conviction
DNA. For example:
o A is an alleged rapist. A raped X and then one of the pieces
of evidence used against A, since X got pregnant, and the
child Z has the facial characteristics of A and X, and thus A
was convicted and served the sentence for long period of
time.
o Later on, baby Z had undergone DNA testing and it was
proved that A was not the parent of Z, that can be used -
that is exculpatory evidence if the reason of conviction
was the reliance of the presumption that A is the father of
Z. That can be availed- Post DNA Testing.
 What is the remedy?
o The results are favorable to the convict: the prosecution
itself may file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the
court of origin if the result of the post DNA testing is
favorable to the convict.
o In that case, the court, after due hearing finds the petition
to be meritorious, it shall reverse or modify the judgment
of conviction and order the release of the convict, unless
the continued detention is justified for a lawful cause.
o The DNA evidence is really strong since the same may
cause the reversal or modification of the decision.
Now, going to the issue of Trillanes
 DJ - one of the issues raised in that case, let us just segue for a bit -
He was charged again for the same offenses filed against him before,
but he was released. Because he allegedly failed to file an application
for amnesty, among other things.
 But we can see, to resolve that matter that is presented before you,
what is the tenor in the decision for Trillanes when he was released?
o Was it acquittal? Or was it a dismissal of the case based
on that amnesty granted unto him?
 Because, if it was an acquittal, we can cite the cases that the decision
was final and executory etc. and not to subject to another
prosecution, otherwise it will result to DJ.
 But if it is a dismissal based on some other grounds etc., like the
amnesty, that could be not a ground to invoke DJ because he may
create an argument that it is a dismissal with the consent of the
accused.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
3. Suspension of the privilege Art. VIII, sec. 18
 Now, going back to the issue on the writ of habeas corpus: The
privilege of the writ may be suspended by the Chief Executive under
Article 7, Section 18:
ARTICLE VII • SECTION 18. xxx In case of invasion or rebellion,
when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not
exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof
under martial law. xxx
 Take note of the limitation (in the following
cases only)
o The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall apply only to persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent in, or directly connected
with, invasion.
 So if you have a case pending for a crime not
within the scope of the aforementioned
offenses, you can exercise this writ.
 What then would be the remedy of the state for you to be convicted?
o They will have to concoct charges that are related to
rebellion or invasion, so that during the suspension, you
will not be able to avail the writ.
CASE –
LANSANG VS. GARCIA, 42 SCRA 488 (1971)
 This was a case decided during the Martial Law.
 There was a meeting of the LP in Plaza Miranda. Two hand grenades
were thrown, and many people were killed.
 Because of that, the President announced the issuance of
Proclamation 889, dated August 21, 1971, suspending the privilege of
the writ of habeas corpus.
 And there were people who were arrested, because of the event that
happened in Plaza Miranda.
 Now they claim that they were arrested without a warrant. They filed
a petition to claim for Habeas Corpus, but the other party contended
that such privilege was suspended; you cannot file that.
 Now, one of the issues presented before the court is - can the court
ask for the determination of the factual bases relied upon by the
president to issue the suspension of the privilege of the writ?
o Yes, the court has the authority to inquire the existence of
the factual bases.
 Is the exercise of that power of the president absolute?
o No, because it is qualified by the provisions of the
Constitution.
o It is only by way of the exceptions the Constitution permits
that he will suspend such privilege
 This is also an old Constitution (1935).
o “On this point, the Constitution reads: "In case of invasion,
insurrection, or rebellion, or imminent danger thereof,
when the public safety requires it”
 There must be the following cases, stated under the Constitution
during their time, present.
 Now, insurrection is not anymore included in our present
Constitution.
 Are these present in this case?
o Yes
88 | P a g e
So we are done with the Writ of Habeas Corpus. Let us now go to the other
rights granted to us in the Bill of Rights.
E. Affirmative rights
1. Free access to the courts
ARTICLE III • SECTION 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.
Case — MARTINEZ VS. PEOPLE 332 SCRA 694 (2000)
 That person who wanted to appeal his case, and in that appeal, he
moved to litigate as a pauper.
 This was not granted by the CA, because during that time, the
applicable rule was the old Rules of Court (1964 rules). And in the
existing rules during that time, a petition to be allowed to litigate as
a pauper cannot be entertained by the appellate court.
 Relying on that rule, it didn’t reach the Supreme Court
 But while this case was pending before the court, the rules of court
were amended.
 There has been an issuance of the new rules by the Supreme Court
which erased such sentence.
 The effect was that it was no longer adopted by the Court, but the
issue there was that it cannot be retroactively applied to the person.
So the applicable rules for him should be the 1964 rules.
 The Court said that yes, it would be more in-keeping to the provisions
of the Constitution with regards to the rules on the right to free
access:
o “Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and
adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.”
 So he was allowed in that motion to litigate as a pauper, and the new
rules were applied retroactively to it.
2. Protection and enforcement of constitutional rights
There are provisions in the Protection and Enforcement of Constitutional
Rights. That’s in Article 3, Section 12; Article 8, Section 5; and Article 13,
Section 18:
ARTICLE III • SECTION 12. xxx
(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.
ARTICLE VIII • SECTION 5. The Supreme Court shall have the
following powers: xxx
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and
enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and
procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law,
the Integrated Bar, and legal assistance to the
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and
inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of
procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall
remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.
ARTICLE XIII • SECTION 18. The Commission on Human Rights
shall have the following powers and functions: xxx
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of
human rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as
Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive
measures and legal aid services to the underprivileged whose
human rights have been violated or need protection;
WRIT OF AMPARO - AM No. 07-9-12-SC of September 25, 2007 as
amended on October 16, 2007)
Now, let’s go to the Writ of Amparo, a protection which is covered by A.M.
No. 07-9-12-SC, promulgated on September 25, 2007. Let’s just discuss the
rule on the Writ of Amparo.
Section 1 provides:
SECTION 1. Petition. – The petition for a writ of amparo is a
remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of
a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.
 So, you can avail this if you can sense that there is a threat in your life
or something. But not all the time, because it must be related to the
paragraph that:
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.
 This is what limits the scope of the Writ of Amparo.
Who files the case?
Section 2 provides (it is strict, it should be followed in order):
SEC. 2. Who May File. – The petition may be filed by the
aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the
following order:
Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse,
children and parents of the aggrieved party;
Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the
preceding paragraph; or
Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution,
if there is no known member of the immediate family or
relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the
right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions.
Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized party on
behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others,
observing the order established herein.
 Take note that it should be strictly followed, because it can be a
ground for the dismissal of the petition.
Where do you file?
Section 3 provides:
SEC. 3. Where to File. – The petition may be filed on any day
and at any time with the Regional Trial Court of the place
where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its
elements occurred, or with the Sandiganbayan, the Court of
89 | P a g e
Appeals, the Supreme Court, or any justice of such courts. The
writ shall be enforceable anywhere in the Philippines.
 So, their jurisdiction is concurrent. But based on jurisprudence, if such
was filed immediately before the Supreme Court, they pass it to the
lower courts to respect the hierarchy. But we know that their
jurisdiction is concurrent. So you can file it anywhere.
 This is just the same with writ of habeas corpus, that the court, upon
receipt of the petition will study it and if the issuance of the writ is
warranted, will issue a writ of amparo. This person, who was issued
with writ of amparo, is not the person asking for relief but rather, the
person who is violating the rights, explaining why he is violating etc.
 A return also will be filed by the person. And when that return is filed,
the hearing to determine if the writ of amparo should be granted or
not. And there are many remedies that the Court can grant if found
that the issuance of the writ of amparo is warranted.
Section 5 provides:
SEC. 5. Contents of Petition. – The petition shall be signed
and verified and shall allege the following:
The personal circumstances of the petitioner;
The name and personal circumstances of the respondent
responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is
unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by
an assumed appellation;
The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation
is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in
supporting affidavits;
The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names,
personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating
authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of
the investigation, together with any report;
The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to
determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party
and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act
or omission; and
The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and
equitable reliefs.
Section 6 provides:
SEC. 6. Issuance of the Writ. – Upon the filing of the petition,
the court, justice or judge shall immediately order the
issuance of the writ if on its face it ought to issue. The clerk of
court shall issue the writ under the seal of the court; or in case
of urgent necessity, the justice or the judge may issue the writ
under his or her own hand, and may deputize any officer or
person to serve it.
The writ shall also set the date and time for summary hearing
of the petition which shall not be later than seven (7) days
from the date of its issuance.
 This is not yet the ruling on the petition, this is with regards to the
issuance of the writ to direct that person. In the meantime, he can
also issue temporary orders to preserve you, to protect you.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 This is not yet the final decision. Person charged was yet to file his
answer. This writ issued by the court to be served upon the
respondent by a judicial officer or a person deputized by the court.
 And so when he receives that writ, among others, to obey the
directive of the court within 5 working days after service of the writ,
the respondent shall file a verified written return. He will place his
allegations with supporting affidavits which shall among other things
contain the following:
a. The lawful defenses to show that the respondent did not
violate or threaten with violation the right to life, liberty
and security of the aggrieved party, through any act or
omission;
b. The steps or actions taken by the respondent to
determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party
and the person or persons responsible for the threat, act
or omission;
c. All relevant information in the possession of the
respondent pertaining to the threat, act or omission
against the aggrieved party; and
d. If the respondent is a public official or employee, the
return shall further state the actions that have been or will
still be taken. (Section 9)
 The period to file a return cannot be extended except or highly
meritorious grounds.
 If the person directed to file that return fails to do so, the court will
hear the petition ex parte to his exclusion, so whatever is there will
be presented to the petitioner and then, there will be a summary
hearing. In the meantime while the petition is still pending, the court
may grant interim release which is very powerful.
 For example:
o Temporary Protection Order upon motion or motu
proprio may order the petitioner or the aggrieved party be
protected in a government agency or an accredited
person of a private institution capable of keeping security
and safety.
o They could also issue an inspection order to order any
person in possession or control against the designated
land or other property to permit entry for the purpose of
inspecting or measuring, surveying.
o Production order of those documents.
o Witness protection order.
o And these orders can be made permanent if the court sees
the warrant of issuance of the writ after the hearing.
 If the respondent refuses to make a return, he can be silenced from
that.
Who has the burden of proving the allegations?
a. The parties should establish their claims with substantial
evidence.
b. The respondent who is a private individual must have
proof of an ordinary diligence is required by applicable
laws must observe the performance of duties, etc.
(Section 17)
 So, he who alleges must prove with substantial evidence - the
quantum of evidence. It’s not very heavy evidence that can sustain a
conclusion made by the reasonable mind.
 The court after summary hearing will render judgment if the
allegations of the petitioner proved by substantial evidence. The
court should grant the privilege of the writ and proceedings as it may
be proper. Otherwise, it shall be denied.
90 | P a g e
So those are the salient provisions in the rule of writ of amparo. This is the
overview for us to appreciate what is the writ all about. The importance
that we can get here is that it is limited to cases of extralegal killings and
vis-a-vis appearances and that has been the consistent ruling of the Court
in the assigned cases.
Other laws in the syllabus:
 R.A. No. 9851 December 2009 — Act on Crimes Against International
Humanitarian Law Genocide and Other Crimes Against Humanity
 R.A. 10353 — Anti-Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance Act of
2012
Cases — TAPUZ VS. DEL ROSARIO 554 SCRA 768 (2008)
FACTS:
 The private respondents, spouses Gregorio Sanson and Ma. Lourdes
T. Sanson, filed with the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Buruanga-
Malay, Aklan a complaint dated April 24, 2006, for forcible entry and
damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction
 So the spouses here filed for forcible entry against this group of
people because they were claiming that they are trespassing in that
property.
 In this case, the ones who possessed the property won the case. This
decision was upheld by the RTC.
 Later on, the possessors already won the case, but they were not able
to enjoy their victory and they filed for an issuance for the writ of
amparo.
 They filed for the petition because they alleged that there were
armed men that were harassing them which they claimed to be
goons/assailants of the other party. So, they torched the houses, etc.,
acts of terrorism.
 So they went to Court to file this petition.
ISSUE: WON the writ of amparo be granted
HELD:
 The Court said that they cannot issue a writ of amparo.
 Because the writ of amparo is now conceived as a response to the
extraordinary rights of the number of killings and enforced
disappearances and the lack of available remedies to address the
violations of rights to life, liberty, and security as an extraordinary
remedy.
 So in this case, the extraordinary remedy, you cannot just avail it if it
is unmeritorious. The courts can deny it.
 So what is lacking in this issue?
o There were no allegations of extrajudicial killings and
enforced disappearances, which is the limitation in the
granting of the issuance of the writ.
 Anyway, plus the more important doctrine here is that it will not
protect, what kinds of concerns? Similar to the writ of habeas data
o If there are concerns involving property or commercial
concerns.
 You cannot use this as a defence because of the removal of illegal
settlers, for instance. So you are deprived of your liberty, rights from
the property, life, liberty or security because you are being evicted
from your property. Then, you go to the court and file for the issuance
of writ of amparo.
 You cannot do that because it cannot protect the concerns that is
purely commercial or property in character. It cannot also issue
amorphous and uncertain grounds such as in this case.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
April 3, 2019
We are already in Writ of Amparo. We learned last meeting what it is for,
what it is confined to, what the procedure is, and what the remedies or
reliefs are that can be granted by the Court once the petition is finally
granted. Now, we have the cases that would explain the purpose, extent,
limitation as well as the case which the Court applied the erroneous
procedure done by the trial court when a petition was filed before it.
CANLAS VS. NAPICO 554 SCRA 209 (2008)
A Writ of Amparo cannot be issued if it purely involves a property of
commercial concerns.
FACTS:
 In this case, there were illegal settlers and they were threatened that
their dwellings will be demolished so they went to Court by way of
this petition – to stop the threatened violation of their rights to life,
liberty, and security.
ISSUE: Can they do that?
RULING: NO.
 The writ of amparo is to protect the right to life, liberty, and security
but the second paragraph qualifies to the extent of protection. What
instances may it be availed of? The writ shall cover extralegal killings
and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
o Here, there was no extralegal killings nor enforced
disappearances.
 The threatened demolition of a dwelling by virtue of a final
judgment of the court, so there’s already a final judgment here,
evicting them from the premises, is not included among the
enumeration of rights as stated in the provisions for which the
remedy of a writ of amparo is made available.
 Their claim to their dwelling, assuming they still have any despite the
final and executory judgment adverse to them, does not constitute
right to life, liberty and security. There is, therefore, no legal basis for
the issuance of the writ of amparo.
SEC OF DEFENSE VS. MANALO 568 SCRA 1 (2008)
FACTS:
 There were alleged NPA members who were subjected to torture.
Later on, this person was released from that appalling experience but
he was threatened by the military not to divulge the experience when
he was tortured. Otherwise, they would harm him and his family
because they were able to still monitor him; they knew where he
lived etc.
 He was not deterred and so he complained of the torturing acts and
there was a purported investigation conducted on the violation of his
rights.
o So there was an investigation conducted by the military
which appeared to be merely perfunctory.
o So there was really no intensive scrutiny as to who were
involved, what the acts were done. So, he went to Court
by way of writ of amparo. He fears for his life and the life
of his family.
 The Supreme Court granted writ and directed the CA to hear the
matter. After directing the CA, it directed the AFP officials to file in
return and then the CA heard the matter and ultimately granted the
petition. So the military alleged to the SC among others that it should
not have been granted.
ISSUE: Should it be granted in this case?
91 | P a g e
RULING: YES.
 There was a proper grant of the petition. The assertion here is that
they anchored their petition on the threat to their right to life, liberty,
and security. The Court explained here the context to what right of
security is, which includes among others, freedom of fear. You
cannot feel secure if you are constantly in a cloud of fear.
 And so, in the context of Section 1 of the Amparo Rule, “freedom
from fear” is the right and any threat to the rights to life, liberty or
security is the actionable wrong. The right to security is actually the
freedom from threat.
 So, you can go to the Court if you feel that you are being threatened
– right to life and security – in connection with extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances which happened here because he was
abducted and tortured. There was a continuing threat on his life.
 There was a clear violation of his life to security as well as to his
family. They threatened that when he escapes, his family will be
included then and be killed. So the privilege of the writ of amparo was
granted in this case.
 There was a directive given to the military to divulge or release to the
Supreme Court the reports they did on the matter and also to enjoin
them from doing these threats to this petitioner.
REYES VS. CA 606 SCRA 580 (2009)
FACTS:
 Fr. Reyes, a running priest, was one of those charged in the Manila
Peninsula Hotel Siege. He was charged by the Court, but later on the
cases were dropped. But in the meantime, he had a pending Hold
Departure Order (HDO) not to get out of the country nor to travel
freely. That’s why he had to resort to a petition for writ of amparo.
ISSUE: Was it proper in this case?
RULING: NO.
 Again the petition for writ of amparo covers extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances. The Court here explained the extent – what
is the right being sought to be protected by Fr. Reyes. He could not
travel freely so what is curtailed here is his right to liberty because
of the Hold Departure Order.
o First of all, it must be shown that there is a violation of
such right. In this case, why can’t he travel freely?
 Because of the HDO issued by the appropriate
government agency.
o In any case, the Court emphasized that this remedy of writ
of amparo may be availed of if you feel that your right to
liberty is curtailed; provided, that it is connected to those
two instances – extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.
 Going to this case, the Court noted the following:
1. Restriction on petitioner’s right to travel was not unlawful.
2. Direct recourse to the Supreme Court by way of petition
of writ of amparo was the wrong remedy.
 The provision of Section 22 of the Rule on the
Writ of Amparo provides that “when a criminal
action has been commenced, no separate
petition for the writ shall be filed. The reliefs
under the writ shall be available by motion in
the criminal case.”
 So if there’s a case against the person you’re
blaming to be violating your rights or
threatening to abuse your rights, you cannot as
a rule file a separate petition.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 What do you do if you want to be protected?
The reliefs under the writ shall be available by
motion in the criminal case. So you go to the
Court while the case is pending and you move
for the remedies available to you in the rules of
the writ of amparo.
 Here, he should have filed with the RTC-Makati, the court where the
criminal case is pending against him, for a motion to lift his HDO and
cannot go to the Supreme Court directly to ask for the writ of amparo.
 And finally, the third reason was that he failed to show any clear
threat to his right to liberty actionable through a petition for a writ
of amparo.
SO VS. TACLA 633 SCRA 563 (2010)
FACTS:
 There is a parent where his child was crazy, and the child was charged
with qualified theft in a case pending before Judge Tacla.
 He alleged that while the case was pending against his daughter, she
was confined at a mental hospital, National Center for Mental Health,
but he fears for his daughter’s life.
 So he went to court by way of petition of writ of amparo to get his
daughter out of that place. He claimed that there were life
threatening circumstances surrounding her confinement.
o So his child was charged, the judge ordered that in the
meantime since your child is crazy she should be confined
in that mental hospital.
o Later on, he filed his petition so that she would be out of
that hospital because he fears that her life was in danger
there.
 In any case, the case for qualified theft was dismissed by the RTC and
so while the case was still developing the case for writ of amparo was
filed before the court. In the meantime, the case for qualified theft
was dismissed.
RULING:
 The court ruled that because of the dismissal of that case for qualified
theft, the petition is already moot and academic. Nevertheless, the
court said that the directives here of the judge who heard the
qualified theft case to confine his daughter was not illegal, there was
no violation, no extrajudicial killing, extralegal killing, or any court
disappearance in this case.
 The rules on the writ of habeas corpus and amparo are clear, the act
or omission of threatened act or omission which must be unlawful or
illegal.
 Why was she confined in that institution?
o Because it was ordered by the judge.
 Nevertheless, with the dismissal of the non-bailable case against his
daughter, she is no longer under peril to be confined in a jail facility
much less in the Mental Health institution. There was no point to
resolve the petition as she is already set free.
MANILA ELECTRIC VS. LIM 632 SCRA 195 (2010)
This talks about the writ of habeas data.
FACTS:
 This person, who was an employee of Meralco, received threats from
co-employees. That is why there was an investigation done on the
threats prompting the Meralco to transfer her to a far-flung area.
 So she complained that is the wrong way to go. She demanded from
Meralco the documents supporting the judgement or the
recommendation of her transfer to that far-flung ranch. But this was
not granted by Meralco that is why she filed a petition for a writ of
92 | P a g e
habeas data before the court because she wanted those documents
presented.
ISSUE: Was her remedy proper?
RULING: NO.
 Her relief does not fall within the province of a writ of habeas data.
o This writ of habeas data is a remedy available to a person
whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security violated
or threatened by an unlawful act or commission of whom
a public official or employee or of a private individual or
entity engaged in gathering, collecting, storing data or
information.
o This rule is designed to protect the privacy, honor,
information, freedom of information of an individual to
stop the violation of his right to privacy.
o This writ of habeas data however, unlike the writ of
amparo, is not confined to extralegal killings or enforced
disappearances.
o Nevertheless, even if it has a wider scope than that of the
writ of amparo, their similarity is that you cannot avail of
these reliefs if an issue is property or commercial in
character.
 In this case, was that the nature of her concern?
o Yes. Because it involves her employment. It is not related
to right to privacy but rather it was a property concern
which was her employment.
o Employment constitutes a property right under the
context of the due process clause which is sought to be
protected here; which is she just did not want to go to that
branch of Meralco.
LOZADA VS. ARROYO 670 SCRA 545 (2012)
FACTS:
 This concerned ZTE NBN deal wherein Lozada filed for a writ of
amparo because he was fearing for his safety.
o Who is Lozada? He was a consultant, unofficial consultant
in the ZTE NBN deal.
 The issue became widespread and there were many investigations
conducted to examine the anomalies.
 Lozada was invited to shed light on the matter. Instead of appearing
before the blue ribbon committee, he did not so he was cited for
contempt and was ordered arrested. He went outside of the country.
 Later on, he returned but when he returned to the Philippines what
did he claim?
o He claimed that he was illegally detained, that several men
held his arms and took his bag and from that his liberty was
restricted.
 This prompted his sister to go to court by way of a petition for writ of
amparo, claiming that Lozada, his liberty had been restrained as there
was a violation of such right; warranting the issuance of the
protection of this writ.
ISSUE: Was the writ of amparo proper?
RULING: NO.
 The court discussed here that the Writ of Amparo is an independent
and summary remedy that provides rapid judicial relief to protect the
people’s right to life, liberty and security. But it is confined to cases
of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
o As it stands, based on this case, are those the only basis
covering the writ of amparo?
 YES That is the limitation and the jurisprudence
has been consistent on that matter.
 It cannot be issued on amorphous and uncertain
grounds, and the quantum of evidence needed is
only substantial because it is hard to produce
proof beyond reasonable doubt whenever one is
faced with cases against government officials,
which is always the case in cases with writ of
amparo.
 What if the violation of the right has ceased, what happens to the
petition? And what happens when there is no proof of illegal
depravity?
o The petition will be denied and the case will become moot
and need not continue. That is what happened here in this
case. He was not able to prove that there was illegal
deprivation of his liberty, there was also no restraint
here and if there was any, it already ceased. That is why
there is no need to continue with this petition.
NAVIA VS. PANDICO 673 SCRA 618 (2012)
FACTS:
 A vehicle of Asian Land Strategies Corporation (Asian Land) arrived at
the house of Lolita M. Lapore. The arrival of the vehicle awakened
Lolitas son, Enrique Lapore (Bong), and Benhur Pardico (Ben), who
were then both staying in her house.
 When Lolita went out to investigate, she saw two uniformed guards
disembarking from the vehicle. One of them immediately asked Lolita
where they could find her son Bong. Before Lolita could answer, the
guard saw Bong and told him that he and Ben should go with them to
the security office of Asian Land because a complaint was lodged
against them for theft of electric wires and lamps in the subdivision.
 Exasperated with the mysterious disappearance of her husband,
Virginia filed a Petition for Writ of Amparo before the RTC of Malolos
City.
 RTC granted the petition.
ISSUE: Should the petition for writ of amparo be granted in this case?
RULING: NO.
 Virginias Petition for Writ of Amparo is fatally defective and must
perforce be dismissed.
 What does Section 1 of writ of amparo state?
SECTION 1. Petition. The petition for a writ of amparo is a
remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and
security is violated or threatened with violation by an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of
a private individual or entity.
The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances or threats thereof.
 The Court further qualified that in order for this to apply that there
must be State involvement. Why?
o That not only it would apply or cover extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats but it must also be
sanctioned or sponsored done by the State.
 Where did the Court get the definition or interpretation of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearance? What was the law
passed defining the instances?
93 | P a g e
o R.A. No. 9851
This defines enforced or involuntary disappearances as follows:
"Enforced or involuntary disappearance of persons" means the arrest,
detention, or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization,
support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization followed
by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give
information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the
intention of removing from the protection of the law for a prolonged
period of time. RA 9851, Section 3(g)
 This is where the Court further limited the application of the rule.
 Because of that definition the Court enumerated the elements of
enforced disappearance.
ELEMENTS OF ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE:
a. That there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of
deprivation of liberty;
b. That it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, the state or a political organization;
c. That it be follo wed by the state or political organizations refusal
to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts
of the person subject of the amparo petition; and,
d. That the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person
from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
 For a petition of writ of amparo to prosper, it must be alleged that
there is an enforced disappearance, aside from that, it must also be
alleged that this enforced disappearance was done by the State
agents or of a political organization and the allegations must be
proved.
 In this case, who purportedly abducted them?
o The two uniformed guards of Asia Land Strategies
Corporations.
o They are not State agents and therefore they are private
individuals.
o So the Court further limited the application of writ of
amparo vis-à-vis enforced disappearances.
o Therefore, enforced disappearance is not enough. Such
enforced disappearance must be carried out by, or with
the authorization, support or acquiescence of, the
government.
o Hence, the second element is indispensable.
 What about the phrase “of a private individual or entity” under
Section 1? How did the Court interpret that? Are they reconcilable?
o Even if the person sought to be held accountable or
responsible in an amparo petition is a private individual or
entity, still, government involvement in the
disappearance remains an indispensable element.
SAEZ VS. ARROYO 681 SCRA 678 (2012)
FACTS:
 Saez was a member of the CPP or Communist Party of the Philippines.
 He was tortured and then released.
 He filed a petition for writ of amparo against the former President
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo expressing his fear of being abducted and
killed; hence, he sought that he be placed in a sanctuary appointed
by the Court.
 After the filing the case, the Court issued the writ of amparo to make
these people answer by way of a Return the allegations against them
and have the matter heard before the CA.
 Those who were directed to answer by way of Return hey denied
their participation in the allegations in the petition.
 The CA denied on formal and substantial grounds the relief prayed
for in the petition.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 Hence, this person went to the SC to challenge the dismissal of the
division.
 As to form, the Court said that it conforms to the requirements of the
writ of amparo.
o This case teaches us what should be inside the petition in
order to issue the preliminary writ and so that the court
will not dismiss it outright.
 Here, the petitioner made specific allegations relative to his personal
circumstances, he also indicated particular acts which are allegedly
violative of his rights and the participation of some of the
respondents in their commission.
 There are also documents that supported his allegations, the order of
battle etc.
o So if you want to file a petition, you should not only allege
your allegations properly consistent with what the rule
requires but you also have to attach the documents to
prove it. So that from the filing up to the reading of the
court of first instance, writ will be issued directly and will
direct the other party to answer the allegations, otherwise
it will be dismissed outright.
 We cannot do anything if after the hearing, the court dismisses it, but
for the preliminary writ, we should be able to comply with what
should be alleged and what should be supported with evidence.
 So here, the form was correct and the issuance of the CA of the writ
for the people to file the return. Nevertheless, when it went to the
hearing stage, he failed to prove with substantial evidence his
allegations. So, it’s different when you’re able to allege and it’s
another when proving your allegations.
 Take note that GMA was impleaded here. She was dropped by the CA
from the title of the respondents because of her presidential
immunity from suit but that is wrong.
o The court said that the dropping of her name from the list
of respondents was proper but not because of her
presidential immunity from suit because this immunity is
available to her during her incumbency, but she was
properly dropped in this case because of the non-
applicability of the command responsibility rule. There
are was no proof of her involvement.
o So, do not be misled to read it that way – that she was
dropped because of her immunity. She was no longer
immune in this case.
 Going back to his allegations in his petition, fear of his life.
o The court said that fear is reasonable and that threat or
intimidation which vitiates the free will constitutes the
violation of your right to security.
 So you can file a petition if you feel fear or
threatened that your security will be violated
among other things.
 But, that’s not enough that you’re paranoid for
your safety, it must be stressed, however, that
such "threat" must find rational basis on the
surrounding circumstances of the case.
o In this case, the petition was mainly anchored on the
alleged threats against his life, liberty and security by
reason of his inclusion in the military’s order of battle (the
hit list of the military), the surveillance and monitoring
activities made on him, and the intimidation exerted upon
him to compel him to be a military asset.
o While mere threats fall within the mantle of protection of
the writs of amparo and habeas data, in the petitioner’s
94 | P a g e
case, the restraints and threats allegedly made lack
corroborations.
o His petition was properly made, that’s why the CA issue
the writ at the outset, but when it came to the point that
he has to prove his allegations, he could not prove them
with the proper amount of evidence.
o They lacked corroborations, and are not supported by
independent and credible evidence, and thus stand on
nebulous grounds.
 So, you can file a petition based on threats but you should be able to
prove with substantial evidence once the issue is heard before the
court. Here, the evidence was not enough to support his claims.
LADAGA VS. MAPAGU 685 SCRA 322 (2012)
 There was an order of battle allegedly released by the Philippine
Army. We have here Atty. Trinidad, Atty. Ladaga and Atty. Zarate.
 Atty. Trinidad was a Davao City Councilor, member of the
Sangguinang Panglunsod. Atty. Zarate was the Secretary General of
the Union of People’s Lawyers in Mindanao and Davao City
coordinator of the Free Legal Assistance Group. Now, Atty Zarate is a
Congressman, sitting as a party list representative.
 So they were included in the order battle of the military because they
were allegedly associated with the CPP-NPA.
 They fear that the order battle is actually a hit list by the military
because there were prior incidents that involved the killing of certain
people included in the order battle list.
 Because of this, they went to court for the issuance of a writ of
amparo.
 The court issued the writ commanding these people to answer, by
way of a return, the allegations. They denied authorship of that order
battle, because that order battle was presented to the petitioners by
Satur Ocampo. According to them, that’s Satur Ocampo’s list, not the
respondent’s list.
 The RTC dismissed the petition finding no substantial evidence, so
they went to Supreme Court challenging that rule of the RTC. The
petition here was denied.
 What is the quantum of evidence? Substantial evidence.
 Why is it only substantial evidence?
o The summary nature of amparo proceedings, as well as,
the use of substantial evidence as standard of proof shows
the intent of the framers of the rule to address situations
of enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killings, or
threats thereof, with what is akin to administrative
proceedings.
o Suitable to, and consistent with this incipiently unique and
informal treatment of amparo cases, the Court eventually
recognized the evidentiary difficulties that beset amparo
petitioners, arising as they normally would from the fact
that the State itself, through its own agents, is involved in
the enforced disappearance or extrajudicial killing.
o It is difficult to get evidence in so far as these petitions are
concerned. Normally, the enemy would be the army or the
State. You need data from them, and could you easily get
these data? No, as a rule, that is why the Court limited it
to that quantum of evidence, the amount of evidence that
could support the conclusion made by a reasonable mind.
It is not required that there should be a preponderance or
a clear and convincing evidence. The evidence required is
equivalent to substantial evidence in administrative
cases which can be documents.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 What about the admissibility?
o Just because you have this evidence does not mean when
you present it to the Court, they will automatically admit
it as evidence, it must follow the rules of admissibility -
relevant and competent. It is competent because is not
excluded by the rules (it is not hearsay, etc.). It is relevant
because it is material to the case.
 How did the Court interpret that, in so far as petitions for amparo
are concerned?
o In Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis, the Court laid down a new standard
of relaxed admissibility of evidence to enable amparo
petitioners to meet the required amount of proof showing
the State's direct or indirect involvement in the purported
violations and found it a fair and proper rule in amparo
cases “to consider all the pieces of evidence adduced in
their totality” and “to consider any evidence otherwise
inadmissible under our usual rules to be admissible if it
is consistent with the admissible evidence adduced.”
o So this simply means that the Rules of Court, particularly
the rules on evidence, should not be strictly applied in so
far as petitions for writ of amparo are concerned; the rules
on admissibility are relaxed. In fact, hearsay evidence can
be admitted because under the normal rules, that cannot
be allowed especially it is the illegal form of hearsay
evidence but in petitions for writ of amparo, the same can
be admitted as evidence. Evidence is not to be rejected
outright because it is inadmissible under the rules, as long
as it satisfies the most basic test of reason and that is -
evidence must be relevant on the issue at hand and its
consistency with all other pieces of adduced evidence. It
is required for its admissibility that the evidence should
be relevant and competent.
o The rules are relaxed on competency, as long as you are
able to prove that it is relevant and consistent,
corroborative to the other pieces of evidence even if
under normal circumstances it would've been
inadmissible, that can be admitted by the Court. This is the
directive of the Court if it is faced with such petition, apply
the relaxed admissibility of the evidence so that the issues
can be threshed out fully.
 Nevertheless, even with this relaxed admissibility, did it reduce the
quantum of evidence?
o NO, the Court emphasized here that it did not do away
with the requirement of substantial evidence in showing
the State’s involvement in the enforced disappearance,
extrajudicial killing or threats thereof. It merely permits,
in the absence of hard-to-produce direct evidence, a
closer look at the relevance and significance of every
available evidence, including those that are, strictly
speaking, hearsay where the circumstances of the case so
require, and allows the consideration of the evidence
adduced in terms of their consistency with the totality of
the evidence.
o Take note of that, even if the rules on admissibility are
relaxed it does not do away with the requirement of the
quantum of evidence which is substantial evidence to be
presented at the Court. The Court also said, you are
alleging an enforced disappearance there must be a state
participation. In cases of actual enforced disappearance
the evidence that would directly establish a violation of
the right to life, liberty and security is indubitably in the
95 | P a g e
State’s possession. So it's quite difficult to get that.
Relaxed admissibility, but still prove it with substantial
evidence.
 Were they able to prove their allegations?
o NO, a mere inclusion of one’s name in the OB List, without
more, does not suffice to discharge the burden to
establish actual threat to one’s right to life, liberty and
security by substantial evidence. The court said here that
there was no actual threat to life, liberty or security.
o The OB list was published by Satur Ocampo, and the latter
was not presented before the court to authenticate that
OB list and therefore that could be considered as hearsay
evidence. The court said that even we can admit that piece
of evidence, still it is not enough even if the Court was to
apply the appropriate measure, flexibility, it still is not
enough to lead to the conclusion that the threats to their
security are true; they have not been adequately proven.
 What about the violent deaths of known activists Celso Pojas,
Lodenio Monzon and Dr. Rogelio Peñera?
o The Court said that those were not connected to the list.
The violent death of the known personalities are
unrelated to the list. Except for one of them (Pojas), those
two were not even on the list, so their fear was nebulous
or unfounded. The form or the nature of the threat must
be actual, and not merely one of supposition or with the
likelihood of happening. And, when the evidence adduced
establishes the threat to be existent, then, it goes without
saying that the threshold requirement of substantial
evidence has also been met. Here, the mere inclusion of
their name in the list is not enough without corroborative
evidence from which it can be presumed that the deaths
were linked to the list.
 Take note of the doctrines in this case. The relaxed admissibility; the
quantum of evidence; the requirement if you allege a threat it must
be proved that there must be an actual threat and not a nebulous
one; and even with the relaxed admissibility on the rules, it did not
do away with the quantum of evidence.
DELIMA VS. GATDULA 691 SCRA 226 (2013)
FACTS:
 This is the case where the Court noted the erroneous procedure done
by the trial court when there was a petition filed before it.
 This person, Gatdula, was involved in the supposed frustrated murder
of a certain person. He claimed that there was a frame-up being
conducted by the DOJ against him, prompting him to go court by way
of a petition for the issuance of the writ of amparo to stop them from
doing what they were doing.
 The judge here issued a summons to order Sec. De Lima to file an
answer. De Lima manifested that they should have been directed to
file a return. The judge persisted, and De Lima filed an answer.
 There was a hearing where the court ultimately rendered a decision,
granting the petition issuing the writ of amparo and also granting the
interim reliefs prayed for. De Lima went to the SC, and the Court here
noted the many errors committed by the trial court.
ISSUE 1: How is a petition of a writ of amparo initiated?
RULING:
 By way of a petition filed in the appropriate court—RTC,
Sandiganbayan, CA, or the SC. Not in the MTC. RTC is the lowest
appropriate court.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 What may the judge or justice do?
o He makes an immediate evaluation of the facts as alleged
in the petition and the affidavits submitted. Your
allegations must be properly said, with attachments
detailing the attendant circumstances.
o After evaluation, the judge has the option to issue the writ
of amparo, or dismiss the case if the facts are insufficient.
o Dismissal is proper if the petition and the supporting
affidavits do not show that there is a violation of the right
to life, liberty, and security.
o On the other hand, the writ would be issued if the
violation is alleged properly at the outset.
o It sets in motion, thereafter, judicial protection for the
person petitioning the court. The court then compels the
respondents to appear before a court of law to show
whether the grounds for more permanent protection in
the interim is necessary.
 After the writ is issued, you must file a return, which serves as the
responsive pleading to the petition.
 Is the return equivalent to an answer?
o An Answer is a pleading you file in a civil case. The court
said that they are not similar. The return has other
purposes aside from identifying the issues in the case.
Why?
o In returns, respondents are also required to detail the
actions they had taken to determine the fate or
whereabouts of the aggrieved party.
 A Return is in the nature of an Answer because
it allows you to answer the charges, but it is not
synonymous to an Answer or be in the form of
an Answer.
 There is a requirement in the Rules regarding
what should be stated in the Return.
o After the Return is filed, there would be a summary
hearing to hear the merits of the petition.
o If the Return is not filed, the petition would be decided ex-
parte. The court would render judgment within ten days
from the time the petition was submitted for decision.
 What does the court do after hearing?
o If the allegations are proven with substantial evidence, it
shall grant the privilege of the writ and such reliefs as may
be proper and appropriate.
o Other reliefs = Under the Rules: protection order, etc., can
be made permanent by the courts. Or enjoinment in order
to suppress the violation of the right to life, liberty, and
security, and to protect the same.
 Can the judgment be appealed?
o Yes, through Rule 45 before the SC.
 When is the judgment of the court granting the petition of the writ of
amparo satisfied?
o After the measures have served their purpose, the
judgment will be satisfied.
o It is when the threats to the life, liberty, and security of
the petitioner seize to exist, as evaluated by the court
which renders the judgment.
o It is also terminated if there is a subsequent case filed
against the respondents, whether it be criminal or civil.
 Why?
 Because the threats would have
already seized if those had
happened.
96 | P a g e
 Here, the SC that the trial court wrongly issued the order to file an
Answer and wrongly issued the decision.
 Also the Court noted that the Rules on Summary Procedure were
applied by the trial court, but those rules are only applicable to the
MTCs. And you can only file a petition for the issuance of a writ of
amparo before the RTC, Sandiganbayan, CA and SC. Therefore, you
cannot apply the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure in petitions
for the issuance of a writ of amparo.
PADOR VS. ARCAYAN 693 SCRA 192 (2013)
FACTS:
 The petitioners here claimed that barangay officials went to their
ampalaya farm to search for marijuana plants, but the officials were
not able to find any.
 This prompted the officials to invite the petitioners for a conference.
 The petitioners then filed a petition for writ of amparo, claiming that
they received threats—the possibility of harassment cases or false
accusations—and that the encroachment of their property was
illegal.
ISSUE: Are the grounds enough to issue a writ of amparo?
RULING:
 No, those cannot be the grounds for the issuance of the writ.
 These are insufficient basis for the grant of the privilege. The trial
court even found out that a roving patrol was conducted not on the
ampalaya farm but on another locality.
 These are not matters that involve extra-judicial killings, extralegal
killings, or forced disappearances. The allegation on the intrusion to
their property is insufficient to grant the privilege of the writ.
 What about the sending of the love letters?
o These are not threats to their life, liberty, or security.
IN RE: NORIEL RODRIGUEZ 696 SCRA 390 (2013)
 The case regarding the torture victim.
 A member of the NPA tortured and detained the victim, but he
escaped and filed a petition for a writ of amparo.
 Before that happened, the victim complained to the army. There was
a perfunctory investigation, although the victim claimed that the
investigation was not enough.
 The threats continued on his life and the life of his family.
 He went to the CA, and the latter granted the petition, directing the
officers of the army to do or conduct a more extensive examination
on the circumstances of this torture victim.
 When the case reached the SC, the Court said that it was properly
issued by the CA.
 The Court noted that the writ will be issued if there is a failure to
conduct a fair and effective investigation by the state actors involved.
o You are claiming that there is a violation of your rights, and
there should be an investigation. If the investigation is
half-hearted or perfunctory, that amounts to a violation of
your rights, since it includes omissions.
 Here, there was an omission: he prayed for the proper investigation,
and it was not done, which warranted the issuance of the writ.
 On MR, the respondents argued that they could not be held
accountable for the abduction and torture of the victim. The Court
denied the MR. The bosses of the Army were held accountable for
their acts.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019

BURGOS V. ESPERON, G.R. NO. 178497, FEBRUARY 4, 2014 investigation and prosecution proceedings are already beyond the reach of
FACTS: the Writ of Amparo proceeding now before the Supreme Court.
 Jonas Joseph Burgos was abducted and there was an investigation
conducted by several entities – AFP, CHR, PNP. Later on, the CHR The Supreme Court held that hold that the full extent of the remedies
submitted its report where it found that there was indeed an envisioned by the Rule on the Writ of Amparo has been served and
exhausted.
enforced disappearance of Mr. Burgos, and his rights therefore were
violated.
YUSAY V. SEGUI, G.R. NO. 193652, AUGUST 5, 2014
 However, they could not get sufficient evidence, either because it
This case has a dramatic set of facts.
was suppressed or they simply could not get access to it. In light of
FACTS:
the new evidence uncovered by the CHR, the Supreme Court issued
 Christina Yusay Caram here got pregnant without the benefit of
a resolution issuing a writ of habeas corpus referring the
marriage. She misled the guy that she had an abortion when in fact
case/petition before the Court of Appeals.
she actually gave birth to the child. She intended it to be adopted to
 The CA recognized the enforced disappearance. They held that
avoid the embarrassing situation of a 2nd illegitimate child.
certain people/individuals are liable/accountable. It also directed the
 So she gave birth and then she voluntarily surrendered Baby Julian by
AFP and the CHR to conduct their own independent investigation.
way of a Deed of Voluntary Commitment to the DSWD.
 Later on, there were pieces of evidence purportedly unearthed by the
 Later on, the guy died. During the wake, she confessed to the family
petitioner here. This documentary evidence consists of:
that they had a child. As a result, the guy’s family wanted to get
1. After Apprehension Report dated April 30, 2007;
custody of the child.
2. Psycho Social Processing Report dated April 28, 2007; and
 However, the DSWD had already issued a certificate declaring the
3. Autobiography of Jonas.
baby to be legally available for adoption. There was already a couple,
 The petitioner also claimed that these are copies of confidential
Spouses Vergel and Filomina Medina, who were already compatible
official reports on file with the Philippine Army. These documents
or had been declared to be a “match” to adopt Baby Julian. The
were believed to be useful in leading to the identity of the abductors
adoption process for the child had already commenced.
of Jonas.
 Now, Christina, the biological mother of the child changed her mind
 One of the prayers here was for the CA to have access to certain
about the adoption. She had already voluntarily surrendered the child
requested documents for them to be able to conduct a better
to the DSWD but now she wants to get the child back. (Probably
investigation on the matter.
because he was an heir to the guy’s estate?) She wrote a letter to the
 Was this granted by the Supreme Court?
DSWD asking for a suspension of the baby’s adoption proceedings,
o The Court allowed. It granted the CHR access to the
but this was not heeded by the DSWD because the process for the
requested documents to establish the links.
adoption had already attained finality long before she asked for the
 What about the prayer asking the court to name the people named in
cessation thereof.
the new documents to be impleaded in the case? Was that granted
 This prompted her to file a petition for a writ of amparo to recover or
by the Court – to issue a writ of amparo on the basis of the newly
obtain custody of the baby.
discovered evidence?
o The Court no longer granted the petition because the
purpose of the writ has already been served. The
ISSUE: Was it proper for Christina to have filed that remedy?
beneficial purpose of the writ of amparo has been served
in the present case with the CA’s final determination of
HELD: NO.
the persons responsible and accountable for the enforced
 The RTC dismissed the petition because it was the wrong remedy to
disappearance of Jonas and the commencement of
regain custody of her child, Baby Julian.
criminal action against Lt. Baliaga.
 Was the RTC correct?
o The SC also took judicial notice that the RTC has already
o YES. It was the wrong remedy.
found probable cause for arbitrary detention against Lt.
o If she wants to get custody of her child, she has to file a
Baliaga and has ordered his arrest in connection with
petition for a writ of habeas corpus or other remedies
Jonas’ disappearance.
under the Rules.
o This person had already been charged before the court
TAKE NOTE:
and therefore, the purpose of the writ had already been
The remedy of a petition for a writ of amparo is limited to extralegal killings
served/accomplished.
and enforced disappearances. Neither of these two are present in this case.
o The Supreme Court emphasized that its role in a writ of
Although it can be argued that it falls within the ambit of enforced
amparo proceeding is merely to determine whether an
disappearances.
enforced disappearance has taken place; to determine
who is responsible or accountable; and to define and  For situations involving enforced disappearance, there must be State
impose the appropriate remedies to address the participation.
disappearance.  There are elements of enforced disappearance:
Section 3(g) of R.A. No. 9851
From Full Text: Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law,
The beneficial purpose of the Writ of Amparo has been served in the Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity
present case with the CA’s final determination of the persons responsible (a) That there be an arrest, detention, abduction or any form of
and accountable for the enforced disappearance of Jonas and the deprivation of liberty;
commencement of criminal action against Lt. Baliaga. At this stage, criminal, (b) That it be carried out by, or with the authorization, support or
acquiescence of, the State or a political organization;

97 | P a g e
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
(c) That it be followed by the State or political organization’s refusal
to acknowledge or give information on the fate or whereabouts
of the person subject of the amparo petition; and,
(d) That the intention for such refusal is to remove subject person
from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
 These requirements are not present in this case. The DSWD never
concealed the baby. They never hid the child. The child is in the
custody of the Spouses Medina and their family.
 In fact, Christina was able to obtain a copy of the Memorandum of
the DSWD explicitly stating that the baby was in the custody of the
Spouses Medina. Therefore, there was no enforced disappearance to
talk about.
 Clearly, what she wants in this case is custody of the child. She was
not searching for a lost child. Rather, she was asserting her parental
authority over the child and contesting custody over him. The petition
for a writ of amparo is not the way to go.
 What is involved here is the issue of child custody and the exercise of
parental rights. The writ of amparo cannot be issued for those
purposes. It is limited to cases involving enforced disappearances or
extralegal killings. There are other remedies available.
MISON V. GALLEGOS, G. R. NO. 210759, JUNE 23, 2015
FACTS:
 Ja Hoon Ku, a Korean, identified by the International Criminal Police
Organization (Interpol) to be harmful to society.
 What happened here?
o The International Criminal Police Organization of Seoul,
Republic of Korea sent a Notice to Interpol Manila
requesting assistance in the location and deportation of
respondent Ja Hoon Ku (Ku) for arbitrarily spending
money allotted as reserve fund of Phildip Korea Co., Ltd.
 Where is Ku?
o In the Philippines, and he have pending charges in South
Korea.
 What did the Bureau of Immigration do?
o The Bureau of Immigration issued a Summary Deportation
Order.
 They first got hold of this person. They arrested him. They take him.
 What did Ku do?
o Ku filed a petition for issuance of writ of amparo with
interim remedies.
 What was the decision of RTC?
o In favor of Ku. It granted the writ of amparo releasing him
from the custody of the state without prejudice to proper
remedy.
ISSUE: Was the RTC here correct?
HELD: NO.
 According to the Court, Judge Gallegos’ issuance of the writ was
improper because there was no substantial evidence for the proper
issuance of the writ of amparo.
 Aside from that, what is the extent or coverage of the remedy?
o Only for extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.
o Since Ku here is alive, it does not fall under extralegal
killings. So let’s go to enforced disappearances.
 Was there an enforced disappearance?
o No. According to the Court, the detention of Ku is
not concealed by the Bureau of Immigration. In fact,
98 | P a g e
his arrest was valid. There was no attempt to conceal
Ku or his whereabouts.
o They did not have any intention to remove Ku from
the protection of the law for a prolonged time.
 Enforced disappearance was not proved by substantial evidence.
Therefore, the ruling of the RTC was improper.
SANTIAGO VS. TULFO 773 SCRA 558 (2015)
FACTS:
 The case where Claudine Barreto and Reymart Santiago punched
Mon Tulfo.
 There was a scuffle in the airport because they noticed a man taking
photos of Claudine with his cellular phone.
 Reymart approached the man asking what he was doing and the man
taking pictures identified himself as Ramon Tulfo.
 Later on, he allegedly punched and kicked Reymart, forcing the latter
to fight back.
 Claudine approached. She was also part of the scuffle and she was
punched and kicked by this person.
 All of those incidents were recorded in the phone.
 The Tulfo brothers went to the aid of their brother and aired on their
TV program comments and expletives against Santiago and Claudine.
 Terrified by the gravity of the threats hurled against the spouses, they
went to court by way of a petition for the writ of amparo.
ISSUE: Was it proper for them to avail of this remedy?
HELD: NO.
 There was no extralegal killings nor enforced disappearance.
 The Court said that aside from the allegation of an enforced
disappearance and extralegal killing, the same must be also proved
by substantial evidence that the disappearance was carried out by the
State or a political organization.
 Not only that, the same requirement for state participation is also
applicable for extralegal killings.
 All in all, this writ of amparo, extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances, must be with the State or political organization’s
participation. Otherwise, it will not be granted.
 In this case, there was no allegation and there was no proof.
 So the Court did not grant it.
CALLO V. MORENTE (SEPTEMBER 19, 2017)
FACTS:
 Danielle Tan Parker, a holder of a Philippine passport is a foreigner but
she was found out be an undesirable, undocumented and overstaying
alien. In fact, she was a fugitive from justice so there was a Summary
Deportation Order filed against her.
 Later on, she was found by the officers of the Bureau of Immigration and
she was arrested and detained.
 This prompted her to file a petition for habeas corpus as well as a
petition for a writ of amparo seeking her release from detention.
ISSUE: Should the writ of amparo be issued?
HELD: NO.
 There was neither extralegal killing nor enforced disappearance. The
elements of enforced disappearance are not attendant in this case.
 There is also no threat of enforced disappearance because she was
not being held hidden from the public. The BI acknowledge their
custody of this person.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
 They produced the body of Parker before the RTC, the proceedings
for the writ of habeas corpus. It was proved that she have a pending
criminal case not only in abroad but also in Davao City preventing the
BI from deporting her and therefore she should be detained.
 It is not sufficient to allege and prove that a person has disappeared.
What is required by substantial evidence is that the disappearance or
the death must be carried out with or with the authorization, support
or acquiescence of a State or a political organization.
 What about the threats against her life by her co-detainees?
o That’s not enough. Even if this allegation is true, it will not
support the issuance of the writ.
 To repeat, the remedy of a writ of amparo is an extraordinary remedy
that is meant to balance the government's awesome power and to
curtail human rights abuses.
 So it was not granted.
 The Court also distinguished who can file a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus and writ of amparo. Writ of habeas corpus, it can be
an agent but as we discussed yesterday that the writ of amparo has
very strict rules. You have to follow the order.
SEC. 2. Who May File. – The petition may be filed by the
aggrieved party or by any qualified person or entity in the
following order:
Any member of the immediate family, namely: the spouse,
children and parents of the aggrieved party;
Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the
preceding paragraph; or
Any concerned citizen, organization, association or institution,
if there is no known member of the immediate family or
relative of the aggrieved party.
The filing of a petition by the aggrieved party suspends the
right of all other authorized parties to file similar petitions.
Likewise, the filing of the petition by an authorized party on
behalf of the aggrieved party suspends the right of all others,
observing the order established herein.
 If one is present, it excludes the filing of other people. You follow the
order.
 While "any person" may file a petition for the writ of habeas corpus.
In a petition for a writ of amparo, on the other hand, the order of
priority on who can file the petition should be strictly followed.
 In this case, there was neither allegation nor proof that Parker had no
immediate family members or any ascendant, descendant.
 So, the person who filed this case for her did not have standing.
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
AM No. 08-1-16-SC of 22 January 2008)
 There is separate rule for that AM No. 08-01-16-SC promulgated by
the SC on January 22, 2008.
SECTION 1. Habeas Data. - The writ of habeas data is a
remedy available to any person whose right to privacy in life,
liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act
or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private
individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
storing of data or information regarding the person, family,
home and correspondence of the aggrieved party.
 So, it is not limited to extralegal killing or enforced disappearances.
99 | P a g e
SEC. 2. Who May File. - Any aggrieved party may file a
petition for the writ of habeas data. However, in cases of
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances, the petition
may be filed by:
(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved
party, namely: the spouse, children and parents; or
(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the
aggrieved party within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, in default of those mentioned in the
preceding paragraph; or
SEC. 3. Where to File. - The petition may be filed with the
Regional Trial Court where the petitioner or respondent
resides, or that which has jurisdiction over the place where
the data or information is gathered, collected or stored, at the
option of the petitioner.
The petition may also be filed with the Supreme Court or the
Court of Appeals or the Sandiganbayan when the action
concerns public data files of government offices.
What is the procedure?
 You file a petition.
 If the court finds it on its face meritorious, it would issue the writ
direct the person to cease what he is doing.
 File a return.
What does the return contain?
 The return shall, among other things, contain the following:
o The lawful defenses such as national security, state
secrets, privileged communications, confidentiality of the
source of information of media and others;
 In case of respondent in charge, in possession or in control of the data
or information subject of the petition;
o a disclosure of the data or information about the
petitioner, the nature of such data or information, and the
purpose for its collection;
o the steps or actions taken by the respondent to ensure the
security and confidentiality of the data or information;
and,
o the currency and accuracy of the data or information held;
and,
 Other allegations relevant to the resolution of the
proceeding. (Section 10)
 If this is not followed, he may be held in contempt by the court.
o Even if he did not file a return. It will not cause the
dismissal of the case.
 The petition will be heard ex parte. There will be a summary hearing
where the court shall render judgment within ten (10) days from the
time the petition is submitted for decision.
 If the allegations in the petition are proven by substantial evidence,
the court shall enjoin the act complained of, or order the deletion,
destruction, or rectification of the erroneous data or information and
grant other relevant reliefs as may be just and equitable; otherwise,
the privilege of the writ shall be denied.
Essentially, that is the writ of Habeas Data. It is the same as the writ of
amparo but this focuses on the right to privacy, to life, liberty and security.
Cases —
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019
GAMBOA VS. CHAN 677 SCRA 385 (2012)
 Petitioner Marynette R. Gamboa (Gamboa) was the Mayor of
Dingras, Ilocos Norte.
 Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Administrative
Order No. 275 (A.O. 275 to address the alleged existence of private
armies in the country and a body was created to effect this
investigation referred to as the Zeñarosa Commission.
 Now, pursuant to its investigation, activities of Mayor Gamboa were
investigated.
 She claimed that the PNP, pursuant to the investigation, conducted a
series of surveillance operation against her and classified her as
someone who keeps a private army group.
 So, she fears for the existence of these data against her; that is why
she file a petition for the writ of habeas data for the elimination of
their record or findings against her.
ISSUE: Was it granted in this case?
HELD: NO.
 The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy
designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and
freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to
enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy.
 What is its purpose?
o It seeks to protect a person’s right to control information
regarding oneself, particularly in instances in which such
information is being collected through unlawful means in
order to achieve unlawful ends.
 What was the reason why the investigation was done by the state,
the PNP?
o Because of that administrative order. This is consistent
with provisions in the constitutions that direct the
dismantling of private armies.
o Therefore, there is legal basis for the police to conduct
investigation.
o Therefore, there is no illegal act.
 Gamboa was able to sufficiently establish that the data contained in
the Report listing her as a PAG coddler came from the PNP but
this was not an unlawful act that violated or threatened her right to
privacy in life, liberty or security.
 In fact, the PNP was rationally expected to forward and share
intelligence regarding PAGs with the body.
 Gamboa wanted to stop it, but the court said that that cannot be
done because it is part of the process.
 Nevertheless, the court cautioned this body not to spread the data
and must observe strict confidentiality.
 Unfortunately for her, she was unable to prove through substantial
evidence that her inclusion in the list of individuals maintaining PAGs
made her and her supporters susceptible to harassment and to
increased police surveillance.
 At the end of the day it was not an illegal mining of data against her.
So, the petition was not granted.
SAEZ VS. ARROYO 681 SCRA 678 (2012)
 Member of the NPA again was subjected to torture.
 Among the many petition he filed was the petition of habeas data.
 The writ of amparo was also included here but these were dismissed
by the hearing court because he was not able to prove with
substantial evidence his allegation.
100 | P a g e
IN RE: NORIEL RODRIGUEZ 696 SCRA 390 (2013)
 The same.
 He also filed a writ of habeas data but here the discussion of the court
was focused on the writ of amparo but, nevertheless, it granted in
this case the petition of writ of habeas data consistent in this
discussion in the petition for a writ of amparo.
 The court said here that, taken in their totality, the pieces of
evidence adduced by Rodriguez leave credence to claim that they
were abducted and detained the soldiers in this case.
 So, warranted and his issuance of the writ of amparo as well as the
writ of habeas data.
VIVARES VS. ST. THERESA'S COLLEGE 737 SCRA 92 (2014)
 We already know this case; this was even asked in the exam.
 As a rule, you cannot suppress it the evidence because you are not
against the state but if you can successfully file and secure a petition
for a writ of habeas data the data that were taken from you can be
suppressed.
 So, remember this case regarding those students who took pictures
of their bodies and posted them on FB. These were used by the school
as evidence against them in the disciplinary proceedings.
 They filed a petition of a writ of habeas data to suppress that
evidence so the school cannot used them as basis to disciplinarily
sanction them.
 The court said that that cannot be done.
 The writ of habeas data here was not granted.
 Note that the abatement of the writ requires the existence of a nexus
or connection between the right to privacy on the one hand and the
right to life, security, liberty from the other.
 What is the most basic requirement?
o There must be a violation of the right to privacy.
o Which the court said in this case did not happen.
 Why not?
o Because she could not expect her right to privacy to be
present in the first place as she relinquished it when the
students posted their pictures on the internet without any
limitation on the accessibility thereof.
 Take note that court emphasized in this case that the writ of habeas
data is not only confined to cases or extralegal killings and enforced
disappearances.
o It is not included in the rule, Sec. 1, that it is the limitation.
o Therefore, even if there is no extralegal killing or enforced
disappearance, you can file this petition.
o Had the framers of the rule intended to narrow it to such
limitation, they would have explicitly stated so. This
remedy was created to safeguard individual freedom from
abuse in the information age.
o Therefore, it is erroneous to limit its applicability to
extralegal killings and enforced disappearances to it.
 What about the engaging in gathering, collecting or storing of data
or information?
o Again, the writ of habeas data is available against an
unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee,
or of a private individual or entity engaged in the
gathering, collecting or storing of data or information. In
other words, any of these three violators can be a
respondent.
o It is not necessary that this private individual should also
be engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data.
Constitutional Law II • From the lectures of Atty. Gil Garcia • I-Sanchez Roman AY 2018-2019

o It is enough that he is a private individual without the RULING: NO.

qualification that he should be engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data.
 The contention here, that of the school, that the writ it may not be
issued against the school because it was not engaged in
the gathering, collecting or storing of data, according to the court, is
erroneous.
o Nothing in the rule would suggest that this protection is
only available to abuses of a persons' privacy committed
by an entity engaged in the business of gathering,
collecting or storing of data because again, the state,
public official or employee, private individual, or an entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data can
be liable or can be a respondent.
o It's not even necessary that this person is in the business
of gathering.
 So, the school’s contention that they are not in the business in
gathering is improper since it is not stated in the rules that you should
be in the business of gathering as long as you are engaged in
the gathering, collecting or storing of data you can be directed to
obey the orders pursuant to the writ.
 The availment was correct and is not limited to EJK or enforced
disappearance; several parties may be held liable not only the entities
engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data.
 In so far as the substantive issue on the matter is concerned, we
already know how it ended, because of the failure of the petitioner
here to prove that she had a right to privacy, the petition for writ
habeas data was not granted.
 No, the RTC was wrong. The Court finds that Ilagan was not able to
sufficiently allege that his right to privacy in life, liberty or security
was or would be violated through the supposed reproduction and
threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. The Court said
that his testimony was his self-serving which hardly meets the
substantial evidence requirement as prescribed by the Habeas
Data Rule. He fears that it would somehow find its way to Quiapo or
be uploaded in the internet for public consumption.
 The Court said that he failed to explain the connection between this
fear on his privacy interest and any violation to his right to life, liberty
or security. Why? Because his allegation were merely speculative or
contrive versions of possible transgressions. If you want to secure a
writ of habeas data alleging and eventually proving the nexus
between one's privacy right to the rights to life, liberty or security are
crucial in the habeas data cases, so much so that a failure on either
account certainly renders a habeas data petition dismissible.
 In any case, even though the filing of the petition was proper he was
not able to prove with substantial evidence his allegations because
his evidence were merely self-serving or non-corroborated by
anything. There was no proof that such video will ultimately be made
as a scandal.
 The Court here did not grant the petition for habeas data because the
respondent did not alleged properly and was based purely on
speculations, and even if alleged properly he was not able to
substantiate his allegations.
3. Compensation to, and rehabilitation of victims of tortures

LEE VS. ILAGAN 738 SCRA 59 (2014) ARTICLE III • SECTION 12. xxx
FACTS:
 Petitioner Dr. Lee and Respondent Ilagan were former common law (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
partners. violations of this section as well as compensation to and
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
 Sometime in July 2011, he visited Lee at the latter’s condominium,
their families.
rested for a while and thereafter, proceeded to his office.
 Upon arrival, Ilagan noticed that his digital camera was missing.
 This is a directive, under the Bill of Rights, for Congress to pass a law
 On August 23, 2011, Lee confronted Ilagan at the latter’s office to penalize. So we have a law for that, particularly the rights during
regarding a purported sex video she discovered from the aforesaid custodial investigation as well as the laws that protect against torture
camera involving Ilagan and another woman. and other similar practices.
 Subsequently, Lee utilized the said video as evidence in filing various
complaints against Ilagan for the violation of the Anti-VAWC
law and an administrative complaint for grave misconduct before the
NAPOLCOM.
 Ilagan filed a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data
claiming that Lee’s acts of reproducing the subject video and
threatening to distribute the same to the upper echelons of the
NAPOLCOM and uploading it to the internet violated not only his right
to life, liberty, security, and privacy but also that of the other woman.
 Dr. Lee however, contended that she indeed kept the memory card
of the digital camera and reproduced the aforesaid video but averred
that she only did so to utilize the same as evidence in the cases she
filed against Ilagan.
 The RTC granted the privilege of the writ of habeas data and ordered
the implementing officer to turn-over copies of the video to him, and
enjoined Lee from further reproducing the same.
 Petitioner Lee went to the Supreme Court to challenge the order of
the RTC.

ISSUE: WON the RTC is correct when it extended the privilege of the writ
of habeas data in favor of Ilagan.

101 | P a g e