SEC. 12 .

(1) Any person under investigation for

the commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and to
have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot
afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the
free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in

violation of this or Section 17 hereof
shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of
torture or similar practices, and their families.
-RIGHTS OF AN ACCUSED
UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION (APPLICATION OF
THE MIRANDA DOCTRINE/RIGHTS)
What is custodial investigation – involves any questioning
initiated by law authorities after a person is taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in
any significant manner.

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION – SHALL INCLUDE

THE PRACTICE OF ISSUING AN “invitation”
TO A PERSON WHO IS INVESTIGATED
IN CONNECTION WITH AN OFFENSE
HE IS SUSPECTED TO HAVE COMMITTED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE LIABILITY OF THE
“inviting” OFFICER FOR ANY VIOLATION OF THE
LAW (Section 2, R.A. 7438).

The rule begins to operate at once as soon as the

investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an
unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a
particular person as a suspect.
Miranda case: (Miranda vs. Arizona)
Facts of the case: in 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested
in Phoenix Arizona for stealing $8 from bank worker and
charged with armed robbery. Previously, he had already a
record of armed robbery and a juvenile record including
attempted rape, assault and burglary. While in police
custody, he signed a written confession to the robbery
and to kidnapping and raping an 18 years old
woman 11 days before the robbery. After
conviction, his lawyers appealed on the
Supreme Court established the landmark
decision that the accused has always the right to remain
silent and that the prosecutors may not use said
statements made by the defendant while in police
custody unless police have advised them their rights
commonly known as the Miranda Rights. The case was
later on re-tired and Miranda was convicted on the basis
of other evidence and served 11 years.

The Miranda rights then was:

1) the right to remain silent
2) statement that anything that he says can and will be
used against him in the court of law

3)he has the right to talk to an attorney before being

questioned and the presence of his counsel when being
questioned

4)if he cannot afford attorney, one will be

provided before any questioning if he so
desires
In the 1987 Constitution, the Miranda rights have been
expanded:

1) the right to remain silent

2) anything that he says can and will be used against
him in the court of law
3) the right to have competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice
4) if he cannot afford to have the services
of counsel, the same must be provided
with one
The Supreme Court has enunciated and explained fully
the so-called the MIRANDA WARNINGS: (People vs.
Mahinay 302 SCRA 385)

1. the person arrested, detained, invited or under

custodial investigation MUST BE INFORMED IN A
LANGUAGE KNOWN TO AND UNDERSTOOD BY HIMSOF
THE REASON OF THE ARREST AND HE MUST
BE SHOWN THE WARRANT OF ARREST IF
ANY; EVERY OTHER WARNINGS,
INOFRMATION OR COMMUNICATION MUST
BE IN A LANGUAGE KNOWN TO AND UNDERSTOOD BY
HIM.

How will said rights be communicated to the person

under custodial investigation: - it has to be effective
communication between the investigating officer and
suspected individual with the purpose of making
the latter understand these rights.
In People vs. Muleta, G.R. No. 130189, June
25, 1999. the Supreme Court said it
requires that said person be “informed of
such rights”
***it requires the transmission of meaningful information
rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory
recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.

***it has to explain the effects of such rights in practical

terms: it must be explained in the dialect of the person
under investigation; there must be showing of
comprehension and will depend largely upon
education, intelligence and other relevant
personal circumstances of person under
investigation. It has to be made simple
and in practical terms. *** deaf and dumb, there has to be
an a sign language expert to be called upon to expalin the
said rights.

2. He must be warned that he has a right to REMAIN SILENT

AND THAT ANY STATEMENT HE MAKES MAY USED AS
EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM IN THE COURT OF LAW

3. HE MUST BE INFORMED THAT HE HAS

THE RIGHT TO BE ASSISTED AT ALL TIMES,
AND HAVE THE PRESENCE OF AN
INDEPENDENT AND COMPETENT COUNSEL,
PREFERABLY OF HIS OWN CHOICE;
4. HE MUST BE INFORMED THAT IF HE HAS NOT LAWYER OR
CANNOT AFFORD THE SERVICES OF A LAWYER, ONE WILL BE
PROVIDED FOR HIM AND THAT A LAWYER MAY ALSO BE
ENGAGED BY ANY PERSON IN HIS BEHALF OR MAY BE
APPOINTED BY THE COURT UPON THE PERSON ARRESTED OR
ONE ACTING IN HIS BEHALF

5. THAT WHETHER OR NOT THE PERSON

ARRESTED HAS A LAWYER, HE MUST BE
INFORMED THAT NO CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION IN ANY FORM SHALL BE
CONDUCTED EXCEPT IN THE PRESENCE OF
HIS COUNSEL AFTER A VALID WAIVER HAS
BEEN MADE
6. THE PERSON ARRESTED MUST BE INFORMED THAT
ANY TIME, HE HAS THE RIGHT TO COMMUNICATE OR
CONFER BY THE MOST EXPEDIENT MEANS – TELEPHONE,
RADIO, LETTER OR MESSENGER, WITH HIS LAWYER
(EITHER RETAINED OR APPOINTED) ANY MEMBER OF
HIS IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR ANY MEDICAL DOCTOR,
PRIEST OR MINISTER CHOOSEN BY HIM OR ANU
ONE FROM IMMEDIATE FAMILY OR BY HIS
COUNSEL BE VISITED BY OR CONFER WITH
DULY ACCREDITED NATIONAL OR
INTERNATIONAL NON-GOVERNMENT
ORGANIZATION. THIS HAS BE MANDATORY
7. HE MUST BE INFORMED THAT HE HAS THE RIGHT TO
WAIVE ANY OF SAID RIGHTS PROVIDED IT IS MADE
VOLUNTARILY, KNOWINGLY AND INTELLIGENTLY AND
ENSURE THAT HE UNDERSTOOD THE SAID WAIVER

8. IF THE PERSON CHOSES TO WAIVE HIS RIGHT TO

COUNSEL, HE MUST BE INFORMED THAT THE SAME
MUST BE DONE IN WRITING AND IN THE
PRESENCE OF COUNSEL, OTHERWISE, HE
MUST BE WARNED THAT THE WAIVER IS
VOID EVEN IF HE INSIST ON HIS WAIVER
AND CHOOSES TO SPEAK
9. THAT THE PERSON ARRESTED MUST BE INFORMED
THAT HE MAY INDICATED IN ANY MANNER AT ANY TIME
OR STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS THAT HE DOES NOT
WISH TO BE QUESTIONED WITH A WARNING THAT ONCE
HE MAKES SUCH INDICATION, THE POLICE MAY NOT
INTERROGATE HIM IF THE SAME HAD NOT YET
COMMENCED OR THE INTERROGATION MUST
CEASE IF IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN
10. THE PERSON ARRESTED MUST BE INFORMED THAT HIS
INITIAL WAIVER OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT, THE
RIGHT TO COUNSEL OR ANY OF HIS RIGHT DOES NOT BAR
HIM FROM INVOKING IT ANY TIME DURING PROCESS
REGARDLESS OF WHETHER HE MAY HAVE ANSWERED SOME
QUESTIONS OR VOLUNTEERED SOME STATEMENTS

11. HE MUST ALSO BE INFORMED THAT

ANY STATEMENT OR EVIDENCE AS THE
MAY BE OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF ANY
OF THE FOREGOING WHETHER
INCULPATORY OR EXCULPATORY IN
WHOLE OR IN PART, shall be inadmissible in
evidence.
CASES DECIDED BY THE SUPREME COURT-

1) guaranteed rights not applicable to spontaneous

statement not elicited through questioning by the police
authorities but given in an ordinary manner-before he
was place under custodial investigation – it was made
before a Barangay Captain prior to custodial
investigation ---- custodial investigation
starts when the police authorities invited
the person to the house of the Brgy. Captain
for questioning --- when the accused
was brought to the police station and made to sign the
confiscation of the marijuana he has already under the
custodial investigation

2)----POLICE LINE-UP A POLICE LINE UP IS NOT

CONSIDERED A PART OF CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
BECAUSE IT IS CONDUCTED BEFORE THE START
OF THE CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
----IN People vs. Escordial, the Supreme
Court said, where the accused having been
the focus of attention by the police
authorities after he had been pointed by
a certain eyewitness as the possible perpetrator of the
crime, it was held that the accused was already under
custodial investigation

3) CONFESSION MADE BEFORE BRGY. TANODS,

ADMISSIBLE

4) investigation conducted by the Police

along the Highway, after the apprehension,
confession made thereon are not admissible
in evidence
5) Accused already on board the police car, any
extrajudicial admission therein is admissible in evidence

6) accused, an illiterate was charged with the crime of

robbery with rape. He was made to sign the document
after the sworn statement was executed and the lawyer
signed it. The accused admitted the offense charged. He
was convicted. On appeal, his lawyer questioned
the admission citing that it was already
prepared and the action taken by the
lawyer was merely to affix his signature. –
not admissible in evidence
*** a prepared statement is not admissible in evidence if
the role of the lawyer assisting the accused is merely to
restate the questions and answers, but was not present
when those statements were allegedly uttered by the
accused himself

7. Admission made before the Municipal mayor is

admissible in evidence (P vs. Andan, G.R.
116437, March 3, 1997)
8. Confession made to repeorters-admissible in evidence
(P. vs. Andan)

9. Admission recorded on video – admissible in evidence

(P. vs. Endino)

10. Taped Interview – admissible in evidence (P.

vs. Vizcarra G.R. L-38859, July 30, 1982)

11. Admission in an informal talk with the

police investigators prior to custodial
investigation – inadmissible in evidence
12. Confession obtained thru torture is inadmissible in
evidence

INVESTIGATIONS NOT CONSIDERED CUSTODIAL

INVESTIGATION:

1. A person under normal audit investigation

because an audit examiner can hardly be
deemed to be the law enforcement
contemplated in the law itself;

2. Investigation conducted by the Office

of the Court Administrator
3. Investigation conducted by an employer for an alleged
offense committed by the employee

4. Investigation conducted by the Civil service

Commission on alleged fake eligibility

5. preliminary investigation is not part of custodial

investigation. Confession made in the court
thereof admissible evidence

6. Re-enactment of the crime, the

constitutional guaranteed rights applicable
 The above rights however may be WAIVED, BUT
ONLY IF IT IS DONE IN WRITING AND IN THE PRESENCE
OF COUNSEL-

***The right however TO BE INFORMED OF SUCH RIGHT

IS NOT A SUBJECT TO WAIVER.

---THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL-

--IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT
--IT IS BECAUSE EVEN THE MOST
INTELLIGENT OR EDUCATED MAN MAY
HAVE NO SKILL IN THE SCIENCE OF
 LAW PARTICULARLY IN THE RULES OF PROCEDURE.
He may be convicted not because he is guilty but
because he does not know how to establish his
innocence.

- the lawyer must be present in all stages of the custodial

investigation, counseling or

- Counsel must be competent and

independent counsel – must also be
effective and vigilant counsel –
In P vs. De Guzman, who at the start of the investigation
left the person under investigation to attend the wake of
a friend. At the critical stage, the accused gave his
uncounselled extrajudicial confession.
- Municipal Mayor is not an independent counsel
- Brgy. Captain is not an independent counsel
- Municipal Attorney is not an independent counsel
- Bar passer is not an independent counsel

Preference of counsel however is not

absolute – It will not preclude other equally
competent and independent from handling his defense.
The tempo of the custodial investigation should not be
left in the hands of the accused.

Confession obtained after the charges had already been

filed – The accused went to the Office of the City
Prosecutor and manifested his desire to confess.
When the notes were transcribed however,
the accused refused to sign and only the
lawyers who assisted him signed the
confession. Later on it was discovered that
at a time the Prosecutor took the confession, an
information was already him and another co-accused.
Here the right to counsel still applies to the accused
which is considered critical stages in the criminal process
which is the pre-trial proceedings. Custodial interrogation
before or after charges have been filed and non-custodial
interrogation after the accused has been formally
charged are considered “critical pre-trial
stages in the criminal process.
What are the fundamental requisites for an extrajudicial
confession to be admitted in evidence?

1. the confession must be voluntary

2. the confession must be made with the assistance of a
competent and independent counsel of choice
3. the confession must be expressed
4. the confession must be in writing
5. the confession must be signed/thumb
marked if he does not know how to read
and write
The time these rights are considered terminated? – no
longer applicable during the period of the preliminary
investigation or if the information is already filed in court.

In instances however, that the police still continues to

extract from the accused confessions or admissions
outside of judicial supervision such confession or
admission, the rights under Section 12 is still
applicable.
R.A. No. 7438 is an Act defining certain rights of the
persons arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation as well as the duties of arresting, detaining
and investigating officers, and providing penalties for
violations thereof.

An extrajudicial confession shall be in writing and signed

by such person in the presence of his counsel,
or in the latter’s absence, upon a valid
waiver, and in the presence of any of the
parents, elder brothers and sisters, his
spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal
judge, district school supervisor or priest or minister of
the gospel chosen by him – failure of which the
extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence.

Under R.A. No. 7438 in the absence of a lawyer, no

custodial investigation can be conducted.

Penalty for the violation of the rights of the

accused under custodial investigation –
R.A. 7438
Any arresting public officer or employee or any
investigating officer who fails to inform any person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice shall
suffer a fine of Php 6,000 or a penalty of imprisonment of
not less than 8 years but not more than 10 years or
both. With perpetual absolute disqualification.
Any person who obstructs, prevent or prohibits any
lawyer or member of the immediate family or person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation or any
medical doctor, or priest or religious minister chosen by
him from visiting or conferring with him shall suffer a
penalty of imprisonment of not less than 4 years nor
more than 6 years and fine of Php 4,000.

R.A. No. 7309 – Compensation for unjust

imprisonment – the amount is Php 1,000
per month of detention but which shall
not exceed Php 10,000, or the amount necessary to
reimburse the claimant the claimant the expenses
incurred for hospitalization, medical treatment, loss of
wage, loss of support.

Exclusionary rule: any confession or admission obtained

shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
Sec. 13. All persons, except those charge with
offense 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 impaired even when
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required.
 - THE RIGHT TO BAIL-
BAIL DEFINED – A SECURITY GIVEN FOR THE
RELEASE OF A PERSON IN CUSTODY OF LAW
FURNISHED BY HIM OR BONDSMAN TO
GUARANTEE HIS APPEARANCE BEFORE ANY COURT
AS REQUIREDUNDER CONDITIONS THEREIN
SPECIFIED. BAIL MAY BE GIVEN IN CASH,
SURETY BOND, PROPERTY BOND OR
RECOGNIZANCE. WHAT IS
RECOGNIZANCE – IT IS AN OBLIGATION
OF RECORD ENTERED INTO BEFORE
A COURT GUARANTEEING THE APPEARANCE OF
THE ACCUSED FOR TRIAL. IT IS THE NATURE OF A
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE SURETY AND THE STATE.

THERE IS A NEW LAW ON RECOGNIZANCE – R.A.

10389 – AN ACT INSTITUTIONALIZING
RECOGNIZANCE AS A MODE OF GRANTING THE
RELEASE OF AN INDIGENT PERSON IN
CUSTODY AS AN ACCUSED INCRIMINAL
CASE DEFINITION OF RECOGNIZANCE
UNDER THE LAW – A MODE OR SECURING THE
RELEASE OF ANY PERSON IN CUSTODY OR
DETENTION FOR THE COMMISSION OF AN OFFENSE
WHO IS UNABLE TO POST BAIL DUE TO ABJECT
POVERTY. THE COURT SHALL ALLOW THE RELEASE
OF THE ACCUSED ON RECOGNIZANCE TO THE
CUSTODY OF A QUALIFIED MEMBER OF THE
BARANGAY, CITY OR MUNICIPALITY
WHERE THE ACCUSED RESIDES –

WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO BAIL? – All

person actually detained, EXCEPT
THOSE CHARGED WITH OFFENSES
PUNISHABLY BY RECLUSION PERPETUA OR DEATH
WHEN EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS STRONG

SCOPE OF ART. 13 – 1) THE RIGHT TO BAIL

2) THE RIGHT TO BAIL IS NOT
IMPAIRED EVEN WHEN THE PRIVILEGE OF THE
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSPENDED
3) EXCESSIVE BAIL
NOT BE REQUIRED.

BAIL CANNOT BE GRANTED IF THE

ACCUSED IS AT LARGE -
RATIONALE: A COURT CANNOT GRANT
PROVISIONAL LIBERTY TO ONE WHO IS ACTUALLY
IN THE ENJOYMENT OF HIS LIBERTY FOR IT
WOULD BE INCONGROUS TO GIVE FREEDOM TO
ONE WHO IS FREE. THE MOTION IS FILED IS
CONSIDERED PREMATURE (TABAO VS. ACTING
PRESIDING JUDGE BARATAMAN)

IT CAN BE GRANTED THEREFORE IS THE

ACCUSED IS UNDER THE CUSTODY OF
THE LAW EITHER WHEN HE HAS BEEN
ARRESTED OR HAS SURRENDERED
HIMSELF TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT, AS
WHEN HE WAS CONFINED IN A HOSPITAL
COMMUNICATED HIS SUBMISSION TO THE
JURISDICTION OF THE COURT (Paderanga vs.
Court of appeals, G.R. No. 115407, August 28,
1995)

CASES WHEN BAIL IS NOT REQUIRED: 1)

IN ACCORDNACE WITH THE RULES
2) WHEN A PERSON HAS BEEN IN
CUSTODY FOR A PERIOD EQUAL TO OR
MORE THAN THE POSSIBLE MAXIMUM
IMPRISONMENT PRESCRIBED FOR
THE OFFENSE CHARGED
3) IF THE MAXIMUM PENALTY TO WHICH THE
ACCUSED MAY BE SENTENCE IS DESTIERRO, HE
SHALL BE RELEASED AFTER 30 DAYS OF
PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION
4) A PERSON IN CUSTODY FOR A PERIOD EQUAL
TO OR MORE THAN THE MINIMUM OF THE
PRINCIPAL PENALTY PRESCRIBED FOR
THE SENTENCE LAW OR ANY
MODIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE SHALL BE
RELEASED ON A REDUCED BAIL OR ON
HIS OWN RECOGNIZANCE AT THE DISCRETION OF
THE COURT (Section 16, Rule 114 of the Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure)

When bail is a matter of right:

1) Before or after conviction by the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities or
Municipal Circuit Trail Court

2) Before Conviction by the Regional

Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment (Section 4,
Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure)

When bail is discretionary: Upon conviction by the

RTC 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
appeal.
Difference between “life imprisonment” and
“reclusion perpetua” –

1) Life imprisonment is a penalty in special laws

Reclusion perpetua is imposed by the Revised
Penal Code
2) Life imprisonment does not carries
accessory penalties
3) Life imprisonment is indefinite
Reclusion perpetua is from 20 yrs
and 1 day to yrs. After which the
convict is eligible for pardon
Bail can be granted in extradition cases – if bail
can be granted in deportation cases, we see no
justification why it should not also allowed in
extradition cases. While our extradition law does
not provide for the grant of bail to an extradite,
however, there is no provision prohibiting him or
her from a filing motion for bail. The court that bail
may be granted to a possible extradite only
a clear and convincing showing:
1) that he will not be a flight risk or danger t othe
community,

2) that there exist special humanitarian and

compelling circumstances (Rodriguez vs. Judge,
G.R. 157977, February 27, 2006).

Does a person admitted to bail

necessarily have the right to leave the
Philippines?
Answer: A court as a necessary consequence of the
nature of a bail bond, may prevent a person
admitted to bail from leaving the country.

A bail bond of Php 18,000 for an offense

punishable with prision mayor or a fine Php 5,000
to Php 10,000 or both was found excessive.

A bail bond in the amount of Php

1,195,200 was found to be excessive in
a case for Murder.
SEC. 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for
a criminal offense without due process of law.

(2) in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall

be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,
and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself
and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have
a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to
meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have 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 has been duly notified and
his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
-CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT S OF THE
ACCUSED:
1) PRESUMPTION OF THE INNOCENCE – HE IS
PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY BY
PROOF/EVIDENCE BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT
- ONCE FACING A CRIMINAL CHARGE, ONE CANNOT
BE CONVICTED BY MERE SUSPICION, OR
CONJECTURE OR A PROBABILITY THAT THE
ACCUSED COMMITTED THE CRIME OR BY THE
FACT THAT HE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY
TO DO SO.
-ITS PURPOSE IS TO BALANCE THE
SCALES IN WHAT OTHERWISE BE AN
UNEVEN CONTEST BETWEEN THE LONE
INDIVIDUAL PITTED AGAINST THE PEOPLE AND
ALL THE RESOURCES AT THEIR COMMAND
-CONFLICTS IN EVIDENCE MUST BE RESOLVED
UPON THE THEORY OF INNOCENCE RATHER THAN A
THEORY OF GUILT WHEN IT IS POSSIBLE TO DO
SO. (People vs. Ablaneda, G.R. No. 128075,
Sept. 14, 1999).

-PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY IN
THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL
FUNCTION CANNOT PREVAIL OVER
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE.

- CONVICTION MUST BE BASED ON THE STRENGTH

OF THE PROSECUTION
- QUANTUM OF PROOF FOR CONVICTION – PROOF
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT

- What is an EQUIPOISE OR
EQUIPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE –
THAT WHEN THE SCALE SHALL STAND
UPON AND EQUIPOISE AND THERE IS
NOTHING IN THE EVIDENCE WHICH
SHALL INCLINE IT TO ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER,
THE COURT WILL FIND FOR THE ACCUSED. THE
ACCUSED. THE PROSECUTION MUST RELY ON THE
STRENGTH OF HIS EVIDENCE, AND NOT ON THE
WEAKNESS OF THE DEFENDANT’S CLAIM. EVEN IF
THE EVIDENCE OF THE PLAINTIFF MAY BE
STRONGER THAN THAT OF THE DEFENDANT, THERE
IS NO PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE ON
ON HIS SIDE, IF SUCH EVIDENCE IS
INSUFFICIENT IN ITSELF TO ESTABLISH
HIS CAUSE OF ACTION (Municipality
of Candijay Bohol vs. Court of Appeals,
G.R. No. 116702, December 28, 1995)
Example: 1. Section 4, Batas Pambansa, Blg. 52 says:
for purposes of disqualification in an election, the rules
provide that the filing of charges for the commission of
such crime before a civil court or military tribunal after
preliminary investigation shall be prima facie evidence
of such fact of disqualification. Held: Invalid, this
violate the guarantee of presumption of innocence
(Dumlao vs. COMELEC, G.R. No. 52245,
Jan. 22, 1980)

2. Does preventive suspension pendent

lite violate the right to be presumed
innocent?
ans. No because preventive suspension is not a
penalty (Gonzaga vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
96131, September 6, 1991)

II. RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL

- THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS ABSOLUTE AND

MAY BE INVOKED AT ALL TIMES.
- The accused has the right to counsel
at all stages of the proceedings
- The right assumes an active involvement by the
lawyer in the proceedings particularly at the trial of
the case, his bearing constantly in mind of the
basic right of the accused, his being well verse of
the case, and his knowing the fundamental
procedures, essential laws and existing
jurisprudence. The right of the accused to counsel
finds substance in the performance by the
lawyer of his sworn duty of fidelity to
his client (People vs. Bernas, G.R. No.
120420 April 21, 1999)
The right to be heard is inviolate/cannot be
dispensed with/not subject to waiver

Elements of the right to be heard:

1. the right to be present at the trial

2. the right to counsel
3. the right to an impartial judge
4. the right to compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses
 --- presence must be from arraignment up to
promulgation of sentence. This has been modified
by the fact that after arraignment, the trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused provided that has been duly notified and
his failure to appears is unjustifiable.
He
---Trial in absentia: 1. He has been
arraigned 2) he has been duly notified
of the trial 3) his failure to appear is
unjustifiable (Parada vs. Veneracion,
People vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 357 (1986)
Example: 1. After conviction,
accused discovers that the “lawyer”
who defended her was not a member of
the bar. May she be granted new trial? Ans. Yes.
She has the right to qualified counsel (Delgado vs.
Court of Appeals, 145 SCRA 357 (1986)

2. Accused faults the trial court for

appointing counsel de ofi-cio despite
their insistence to be assisted by the
counsel of their choice and for
refusing to suspend the trial until they have been
able to secure the services of a new counsel. Held.
There was no denial of the right to counsel. The
court appointed a counsel de oficio because of the
absence of the counsel de parte. Indisputably, it
was a strategic machinations of the accused and
his counsel which prompted the trial court to
appoint counsel de oficio been lagging
in the court dockets for years due to
dilatory maneuvers of the accused
counsel.
III. THE RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE
AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM –

Reason for the right – 1. To furnish the accused of

the description of the charge against him to enable
him to prepare and be ready with his defense
2. for protection against him to prepare and
be ready with this defense
3. to inform the court of the facts
so that it may decide whether they are
sufficient in law to support a conviction
- the complaint must contain specific allegations of
every fact and circumstances necessary to
constitute the crime charged. – the particular
place, time, names of the plaintiff and the accused.

Example: 1. Two information each charge the

accused of the crime of rape. During the trial
, the evidence presented showed that
the accused raped the private
complainant of rape on 6 different
occasions. May the accused be
convicted of 6 counts of rape?

Ans. No. He cannot be liable for more than what he

was charged with. (P vs. Ranido, G.R. No. 116450-
51, March 31, 1998, 288 SCRA 369)

2. The information charged the accused

with the statutory rape committed
before 1993 and until October 15, 1994.
Was his right to be informed violated?
Held. No. The information need not
not allege the precise time of the commission of an
offense, unless time is an essential element of the
crime charged. Date is not essential element of
rape, the gravaman is carnal knowledge of a
woman.

3. Accused was convicted by the RTC of

consummated rape based on the complaint
filed against him that he raped the
victim on April 25, 1999. However
during the cross-examination, the
complaint herself admitted that she
was not raped on April 25, 1999, but the date much
earlier than April 25, 1991. Held. The accused
cannot be convicted of rape where the evidence
shows that rape was committed on some other
date different from the date indicated in the
Information. The accused however was found
guilty of attempted rape. (People vs. Cruz, G.R. No.
116728, July 1996, 259 SCRA 109).

The right of the accused of the

Information cannot be waived -
VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE – a STATUTE
ESPECIALLY ONE INVOLVING CRIMINAL
PROSECUTION, MUST BE DEFINITE TO BE VALID. A
STATUTE IS VAGUE OR OVERBOARD, IN VIOLATION
OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE WHERE ITS
LANGUAGE DOES NOT CONVEY SUFFICIENTLY
DEFINITE WARNING TO THE AVERAGE PERSON AS
STATUTE WHICH ENTER FORBIDS OR
REQUIRES THE DOING OF AN ACT IN
TERMS SO VAGUE THAT MEN OF
COMMON INTELLIGENCE MUST
NECESSARILY GUESS AT ITS MEANING AND DIFFER
AS TO ITS APPLICATION (ESTRADA VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 148560, November 19,
2001)

VOID FOR OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE – A STATUTE

OR REGULATION IS CONSIDERED VOID FOR
OVERBREADTH WHEN IT OFFENDS
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE
THAT A GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE TO
CONTROL OR PREVENT ACTIVITIES
CONSTITUTIONALLY SUBJECT TO STATE
REGULATIONS MAY NOT BE ACHIEVED BY MEANS
THAT SWEEP UNNECESSARILY BROADLY AND
THEREBY INVADE THE AREA OF PROTECTED
FREEDOM (ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANAYAN THIRD
DIVISION, G.R. No. 148560, November 19, 2001)

In our jurisdiction the above doctrines are

not applicable in penal statutes but only
to statutes on free speech, religious
freedom and other fundamental rights
may be facially challenged. If allowed,
then no prosecution would be possible.

Example: The Anti-Plunder law (R.A. 7080) is not

vague, thus it constitutional. The argument is that the
ill-gotten wealth is already punishable under the
Revised penal Code.

IV. THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL

AND PUBLIC – A SPEEDY TRIAL IS
CONDUCTED ACCORDING TO THE LAW
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS, FREE FROM
VEXATIOUS, CAPRICIOUS AND OPPRESIVE
DELAYS
R.A. No. 8493, Speedy Trial Act of 1998 –
- arraignment of the accused is scheduled within
30 days from the filing of the information
- where a plea of not guilty is entered, the accused
shall have at least fifteen (15) days to prepare for
trial
- trial shall commence within 30 days from
date of arraignment
In case shall trial exceed 180 days
from the first day of trial.
- this is subject to extended time limit
limit after 180 days for first 12 calendar month 120
days for the 2nd 12 month period; 80 days for the next
3rd 12 month period Subject also to exclusions/factors
granting for continuance Remedy where accused is not
brought to trial within the limit –
If the accused is not brought to trial within the time
limit required the information shall be
dismissed on motion of the accused.

---IMPARTIAL – COLD NEUTRALITY

OF AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE – IT IMPLIES
AN ABSENCE OF ACTUAL BIAS IN THE
TRIAL COURT OF THE CASE. NO
PECUNIARY INTEREST OR OTHERWISE SHALL A JUDGE
OVER THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE.

Example: A conviction under an ordinance whereby a

portion of the fine imposed went to the judge and the
remainder to the municipal treasury

Prejudicial publicity --- the plunder case

of Estrada- the mere fact that the trial
of the case was given day to day, gavel
to gavel coverage does not itself prove
that the publicity so permeated the
mind of the trial judge and impaired his
impartiality.
---PUBLIC TRIAL – IT IS NOT THAT THE WHOLE
PUBLIC IS ADMITTED, BUT IT IS ONE SO FAR OPEN
TO ALL-
THE PUBLIC WILL EXCLUDED IN CASES WHERE THE
EVIDENCE TO BE PRESENTED MAY BE
CHARACTERIZED AS OFFENSIVE TO DECENCY OR
PUBLIC MORALS, IN WHICH CASE THE SAME SHALL
BE LIMITED TO FRIENDS AND RELATIVES
AND COUNSEL.
PUBLIC TRIAL IS NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH
PUBLICIZED TRIAL – PUBLIC TRIAL IMPLIES THAT
THE COURT DOORS MUST BE OPEN TO THOSE WHO
WISH TO COME, SIT IN THE AVAILABLE SEATS,
CONDUCT THEMSELVES WITH DECORUM AND
OBSERVE THE TRIAL PROCESS (Re: Request for the
Live TV Coverage of the Estrada Plunder Case)

****DENIAL OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY

TRIAL ENTITLES THE ACCUSED TO
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE –
CONSIDEREDAN ACQUITTAL FOR
FAILURE OF THE PROSECUTION TO PROVE HIS GUILTY
AND BARS HIS SUBSEQUENT PROSECUTION OF THE
SAME OFFENSE (Cue vs. IAC 179 SCRA 54 (1989)

V. RIGHT TO CONFRONT WITNESSES- RIGHT TO MEET

THE WITNESSES FACE TO FACE ------
SIMPLY STATED, THE RIGHT TO CROSS-
EXAMINE COMPLAINANT AND THE
WITNESSES PRESENTED AGAINST HIM
AND TO ALLOW THE JUDGE TO
OBSERVE THE DEPORTATION OF THE
WITNESSES.
Exceptions: 1. Trial in absentia and the
admissibility of dying declarations;

VI. RIGHT TO OMPULSORY PROCESS TO SECURE

THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES AND
PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE.

1. Issuance of subpoena ad
testificandum, and issuance of duces
tecum including warrant of arrest if
necessary.
2. Production upon motion by the accused to produce
or permit the inspection of the evidence previously
taken by the police authorities.

Requisites for compelling the attendance of witnesses

and the production of evidence
1. The evidence is material to his defense
2. The accused is not guilty of neglect
in previously obtaining the production
of the said evidence.
3. The evidence will be available at the
time desired
4. No similar evidence can be obtained.
VI. TRIAL IN ABSENTIA IS ALLOWED –
REQUISITES: 1. THE TRIAL IS DONE AFTER
ARRAIGNMENT.
2. THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN NOTIFIED
3. THE ABSENCE OF THE ACCUSED IS UNJUSTIFIED
REASON: IN THE INTEREST OF SPEEDY
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE WHICH ALSO
SHALL BE AFFORDED NOT ONLY TO
THE ACCUSED BUT TO THE
COMPLAINANT AS WELL
THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS – an order by a

competent court directing a person detaining
another requiring the former to produce the body
of the detainee at a designated time and place and
show cause and explain the reason for such
detention person.

-a remedy against illegal restraint of

liberty
-A high prerogative writ
What is the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus?
It is the right to have an immediate judicial
determination of the legality of the deprivation of
physical liberty.

What is there to be suspended in case of 1)

invasion or rebellion, when public safety
requires it? It is not the writ, but the
privilege for the issuance of a writ
of habeas corpus.
THE WRIT OF AMPARO – A REMEDY AVAILABLE TO ANY
PERSON WHOSE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY, SECURITY
HAS BEEN VIOLATED OR IS THREATENED WITH
VIOLATION OF AN UNLAWFUL ACT OR OMISSION OF A
PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE, OR OF A PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY. THE WRIT COVER
EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS AND FORCED DISAPPEARANCES
OR THREATS THEREOF.

UPON FILING OF THE PETITION THE

COURT SHALL IMMEDIATELY ORDER
THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT IF ON ITS
FACE IT OUGHT TO ISSUE. THE HEARING
IS SUMMARY IN NATURE.
Interim reliefs –
A. Temporary Protection Order – The petitioner or
the aggrieved party and any member of the
immediate family be protected in a government
agency or by an accredited person or private
institution capable of keeping and securing their
safety.

B. Inspection Order – Fro the purpose

of inspecting, measuring, surveying or
photographing property or operation
thereof.
C. Production Order – Requiring the production of
designated documents, papers, etc.

D. Witness protection order – For admission of

witnesses to the witness protection, security and
benefit program.

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA – A REMEDY

AVAILABLE TO ANY PERSON WHOSE
RIGHT TO PRIVACY IN LIFE, LIBERTY
OR SECURITY IS VIOLATED OR
THREATENED BY AN UNLAWFUL ACT
OMISSION OF A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR
EMPLOYEE OR A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
OR ENTITY ENGAGED IN THE gathering,
collecting, or sorting, or sorting of data or
information regarding the person, family, home
and correspondence of the aggrieved party.

It is summary in nature and once granted the court

will order the deletion, destruction or rectification
of the erroneous date or information and grant
other relevant reliefs.
THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES –
COVERAGE –BEFORE ALL JUDICIAL, QUAISI –
JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES UPHOLDS
THE TIME HONORED TRADITION IN THE TRUISM
THAT JUSTICE DELAYED, JUSTICE DENIED.

WHAT CONSTITUTE VIOLATION OF THE SAID

RIGHT – IS VIOLATED ONLY WHEN THE
PROCEEDINGS ARE ATTENDED BY
VEXATIOUS, CAPRICIOUS AND
OPPRESIVE DELAYS (MENDOZA – ONG
VS. SANDIGAYAN G.R. NOS. 146368 –
69, October 18, 2004)
The inordinate delay in terminating the preliminary
investigation and the filing of the information
constituted a violation of the right of the accused to
due process and to a speedy disposition of cases (Tatad
vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. No. 72335-39, March 21, 1988)

Delays may be allowed/Reasonable

postponements may be allowed
primarily due to absence of counsel or
availability of lawyer to attend the
hearing. What is prohibited is
UNJUSTIFIED DELAY – 14
POSTPONEMENTS MADE IT IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF JUDGES TO MINIMIZE THE
DELAY OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

INVOCATION OF THE RIGHT – CAN BE INVOKED

ONLY AFTER THE TERMINATION OF THE TRIAL OR
HEARING OF A CASE.

TIME LIMIT FOR DISPOSITION OF

CASES (Section 15, Art. VIII)
Reckoned from date of submission for
decision or resolution-
1. Supreme Court – within 24 months
2. Court of Appeals and other collegiate appellate
courts – within 12 months unless reduced by the
SC
3. Lower Courts – within 3 months unless reduced
by the Supreme Court

A case is deemed submitted for

decision or resolution from the date the
last pleading, brief or memorandum
is filed. Section 15 (5)(2), Art. VIII
Consequence of violation – for the SC, the same
constitute culpable violation of the constitution, a
ground for impeachment.
-RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION-

DEFINITION – REFERS TO ACTS OR DELCARATIONS

EITHER AS TESTIMONY AT TRIAL OR PRIOR TO
TRIAL BY EHICH ONE IMPLICATES HIMSELF IN A
CRIME.

Under the Rules of Court –

1. To be exempt from being a witness
against himself
2. To testify as witness in his own
behalf.
Scope – the right is available not only in criminal
proceedings, including civil action, administrative
or legislative investigations.

It can be claimed not only by the accused himself

but also by the witness to whom an incriminating
question is addressed.

Nature of guarantee –
1. The right is purely personal and may
be waived.
2. It is applicable only to a present not a past
criminally which involves no present danger of
prosecution
3. It may not be invoked to protect against being
compelled to testify to facts which may expose him
only to public ridicule or tend to disgrace him.
4. It can be availed only against testimonial
compulsion.

Example: 1. It extends to the

production by the accused of
documents, chattels, or other objects
demanded from him for then he is
compelled to make a statement, or express implied
as to the identity of the articles produced.

2. Produce a specimen of his handwriting – reason:

not purely a mechanical act but requires the
application of intelligence and attention and is
equivalent to testimonial compulsion.

INSTANCES OF ABSENCE OF
TESTIMONIAL COMPULSION –BECAUSE
THEY ARE ALL PURELY MECHANICAL
ACTS.
1. ACCUSED IS FORCED TO DISCHARGEMORPHINE
FROM HIS MOUTH.
2. ACCUSED IS COMPELLED TO PLACE HIS FOOT ON
A PIECE OF PAPER TO SECURE HIS FOOTPRINT.
3. ACCUSED IS COMPELLED TO BE PHOTOGRAPHED
OR REMOVES HIS GARMENTS AND HIS SHOES
4. WHERE A WOMAN ACCUSED OF ADULTERY
IS COMPELLED TO PERMIT HER BODY
TO BE EXAMINED BY PHYSICIANS TO
DETERMINE IF SHE IS PREGNANT
5. VOLUNTARY CONFESSION GIVEN IN THE
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF THE ACCUSED
IS ADMITTED AT THE TRIAL.
6. MEASURING THE PARTY’S HEIGHT AND WEIGHT
7. No violation of the right to self-incrimination if
one is required to undergo DNA testing to
determine paternity

AT WHAT STAGE OF AN INQUIRY MAY

THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF –
INCRIMINATION BE ASSERTED? RIGHT
FROM THE MOMENT HE IS ASKED TO
TESTIFY – AN ACCUSED HAS AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT
TO BE SILENT

THE MOMENT THE ACCUSED TOOK THE WITNESS

STAND, HE IS DEEMED TO HAVE WAIVED HIS
RIGHT TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND, BUT CAN
STILL REFUSE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS
WHICH MAY INCRIMINATE HIM.

The presence of a lawyer is a must to

warn the accused against incriminating
statements.
-NON DETENTION BY REASON OF POLITICAL
BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS-

-INCARCERATION WITHOUT CHARGES OF “political

prisoners” or “political detainees”-

A guarantee the one can voice his

contrary views and ideas about existing
political and social order that he can
articulate his hopes and aspirations
for the country views and ideas about existing political
and social order that he can articulate his hopes and
aspirations for the country without peril to this liberty
–

R.A. No. 1700 – Anti-Subversion Law which punishes

affiliation or membership in a
subversive organization has already
been repealed by R.A. 7636. – It
outlawed CCP and other similar
associations and their successors
because their existence and activities
constitute a clear, present and grave
danger to national security.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE – where one is
compelled by force, coercion or imprisonment and
against his will to labor for another whether he is
paid or not.

It includes: slavery – or the state of entire

subjection to the will of another and
Peonage – or the voluntary submission
of a person to the will of another
because of his debt.
Exceptions:
1. When the involuntary servitude is imposed as a
punishment of a crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted
2. When personal military or civil service is
required of citizens for the defense of the State
3. Injunctions requiring striking workers
to return to work pending settlement of
an industrial dispute
4. To exceptional service such as
military and naval enlistment – a
statute punishing sailors who desert
their ship do not contravene the constitutional
provision.
5. Exercise by parents of their authority to require
their children to perform reasonable amount of
work (PATRIA POTESTAS)
6. Proper exercise of police power of the state
(POSSE COMITATUS) – AN OBLIGATION BASED
ON POLICE POWER.
- RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES –
RIGHT AGAINST CRUEL, DEGRADING OR
INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS
RIGHTS AGAINST THE IMPOSITION OF THE
DEATH PENALTY

Basis: The Universal Declaration of Human

Rights – Art. 5 – “No one shall be
subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment or
punishment”
I. RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES – FINES ARE
PRESCRIBED BY STATUTES, AND ITS IMPOSITION
IS ADDRESED TO THE SOUND DISCRETION OF THE
COURT. IF IT KEEPS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF A
STATUTE, THE FINE CANNOT USUALLY BE HELD
UNREASONABLE –

II. CRUEL AND/OR INHUMAN – THEY

INVOLVE TORTURE, LINGERING DEATH,
SUCH AS BURNING ALIVE, MUTILATION,
STARVATION, DROWNING AND OTHER
BARBAROUS PUNISHMENT.
PUNISHMENT OF THE DEATH BY HANGING,
ELECTROCUTION OR MUSKETRY – NOT CRUEL
WITHIN THE MEANING AS USED IN THE
CONSTITUTION NOR CAN IT BE CONSIDERED
INHUMAN.

DESTIERRO OR BANISHMENT FROM A CERTAIN

LOCALITY OR PUNISHMENT IS NEITHER
CRUEL NOR INHUMAN.
PUNISHMENT IS DEGRADING WHEN IT BRINGS
SHAME AND HUMILIATION TO THE VICTIM OR
EXPOSED HIM TO CONTEMPT OR RIDICULE, OR
LOWERS HIS DIGNITY AND SELF-RESPECT AS A
HUMAN BEING.

ALL PUNISHMENTS GREATLY DISPROPORTIONATE

TO THE NATURE OF THE OFFENSE AS TO
BE SHOCKINGTO THE HUMAN
CONSCIENCE WOULD BE BOTH CRUEL
AND INHUMAN.
THUS, THE PENALTY OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT OR
EVEN DEATH, IS NOT CRUEL NOR INHUMAN WHEN
IMPOSED FOR TREASON, PARRICIDE, MURDER OR
OTHER HEINOUS CRIMES BUT IT IS IMPOSED FOR
PETTY CRIME LIKE SLANDER OR THEFT OF SMALL
VALUE, IT IS CONSIDERED CRUEL OR INHUMAN.

PUNISHMENTS INFLICTED AT THE

WHIPPING POST OR IN THE PILLORY
BURNING AT THE STAKE, BREAKING
ON THE WHEEL, DISEMBOWELING ARE
CONSIDERED INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS
LETHAL INJECTION IS A CRUEL INFECTION
PUNISHMENT.

MULTIPLE PUNISHMENTS FOR MULTIPLE

CONVICTIONS – NOT CRUEL PUNISHMENT
---Example: TWELVE CONVICTIONS, MADE TO SERVE 92
YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT –
THERE IS A CAP – THE MAXIMUM
DURATION OF THE CONVICT’S
SENTENCE SHALL NOT BE MORE THAN
3 FOLD THE LENGTH OF TIME
CORRESPONDING THE MOST SEVERE
OF THE PENALTIES IMPOSED UPON HIM.
R.A. 7659, enumerates the crime penalized by
reclusion perpetua to death –

Arguments against death penalty –

a. cruel and inhuman for the convict and family
who are traumatized
b. no conclusive evidence from penologist that
it has a special deterrent effect on
criminality
c. it deprives the convict of a chance
of rehabilitation and reformation
d. possibility error
e. the state has no right to deprive a person of the
life, only God who can take it

Arguments in favor of death penalty-

a. not cruel and inhuman because the manner by
which it is executed does not involve
physical or mental pain
b. discourages others from committing
heinous crimes and its abolition will
increase the crime rate
c. its imposition is filled with numerous legal
safeguards
d. the State shall have the absolute right to take
the life person who has proved himself a great
menace to society by way of self-defense and as an
example and warning to others.
-NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBTS – (ordinary debt
or poll tax)

DEBT – IS A FIXED AMOUNT AND CERTAIN

OBLIGATION TO PAY MONEY OR SOME OTHER
VALUABLE THING OR THINGS EITHER IN THE
PRESENT OR IN THE FUTURE.

PROHIBITIONS LIMITED TO
CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS BUT NOT:
1. DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF A CRIMINAL ACTION
– THE DAMAGES RECOVERABLE THEREIN DO NOT
ARISE FROM ANY CONTRACT ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN THE PARTIES, BUT ARE IMPOSED UPON
THE DEFENDANT FOR THE WRONG HE HAS DONE
AND ARE CONSIDERED AS A PUNISHMENT
THEREFOR
2.FINE AND PENALTIES IMPOSED BY THE
COURTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS
PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME.
DEBT AS USED IN THIS CONSTITUTION REFERS TO
CIVIL OR CONTRACTUAL DEBT OR ONE NOT
ARISING FROM A CRIMINAL OFFENSE.

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 22 – BOUNCING CHECKS

LAWS – IT IS NOT THE PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT
THAT IS STATED IN THE CHECK BUT RATHER
THE ACT OF ISSUING A WORTHLESS
CHECK – THE LAW PUNISHES THE ACT
NOT AS AN OFFENSE AGAINST
PROPERTY, BUT AN OFFENSE AGAINST PUBLIC
ORDER. THUS IT DOES NOT TRANSGRESS TO THE
CONSTITUTION –

WHAT IS A POLL TAX – IS A TAX OF A FIXED

AMOUNT IMPOSED ON INDIVIDUALS RESIDING
WITHIN A SPECIFIED TERRITORY WHETHER
CITIZENS OR NOT WITHOUT REGARD TO
THEIR PROPERTY OR THE OCCUPATION
IN WHICH THEY MAY BE ENGAGED.
EXAMPLE OF POLL TAX – COMMUNITY TAX
(Residence Certificate or Cedula)

Basis and purpose of prohibition – dedicated by a

sense of humanity and sympathy for the plight of
the poorer elements of the population who cannot
even afford to pay their cedula.
- prevent the State from utilizing its
coercive power to compel the payment
of the tax especially due from those
without financial means.
BUT ONE CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR FALSIFICATION
OF A COMMUNITY TAX, THUS CAN BE IMPRISONED
FOR NON-PAYMENT OF OTHER TAXES IF SO
EXPRESSLY PROVIDED BY PERTINENT LAW.
-RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY –

-MEANS THAT WHEN A PERSON IS CHARGED WITH

AN OFFENSE AND THE CASE IS TERMINATED
EITHER BY ACQUITTAL OR CONVICTION OR IN ANY
OTHER MANNER WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE
ACCUSED, THE LATTER CANNOT AGAIN BE
BE CHARGED WITH THE SAME OR
IDENTICAL OFFENSE
AGAINST THE SAME – In P. vs. Ylagan 55 Phil 851-
the term same offense means that the second
offense charged is exactly the same charged as in
the first case, or when that the two offenses are
identical with each other. Two offenses are
identical not only when the second offense is
exactly the same as the first, but also when the
second offense is an attempt to commit
the first or a frustration thereof or when
it necessarily includes or is necessarily
included in the offense charged in the
former complain or information -
Same offense:
Example: 1st complaint or information for a crime
of murder committed on December 10, 2010. – if a
second complaint for murder is filed on December
10, 2014, with the same date and arising out of the
same occasion as that of December 10, 2014, -
double jeopardy.

Same act –
Where an act is promulgated by law
and also by an ordinance – a violation
of statute and a violation of an
ordinance -
Example:
1. Illegal construction – violation of the building
code and violation of an ordinance

2. Violation of traffic laws – non-wearing of helmet

(violation of the national law and violation of city
ordinance)

3. Violation of improper disposal of

garbage (violation of the National law
and violation of city ordinance)
Requisites before double jeopardy attaches:
To substantiate a claim for double jeopardy, the
following must be demonstrated:
A. The first jeopardy must have attached conditions
before double jeopardy must have attached
1. He has been previously brought to trial in
the first case.
2. In a court of competent jurisdiction-
court has jurisdiction over the offense
committed.
3. Under a valid compliant or information
(sufficient in form and substance to sustain a
conviction)
4. he has been arraigned and pleaded either guilty
or not guilty
5. He has been convicted or acquitted or the case
against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent
6. He is being charged again for the
same offense
B. The first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated.

C. 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 is a frustration thereof.
EXCEPTIONS TO THE PROHIBITION AGAINST
DOUBLE JEOPARDY (or that there is no double
jeopardy)

1. where there has been a deprivation of due

process
2. where there is mistrial

THE ACCUSED HAS THE BURDEN OF

PROVING DOUBLE JEOPARDY -
Doctrine of supervening event – under this
doctrine the accused may be prosecuted for
another offense if a subsequent development
changes the character of the first indictment under
which he may have been charged or convicted.

Example: a person convicted of physical injuries

may be prosecuted for homicide if the
victim dies later.
-charged with inflicting physical injuries that would
require 5 to 9 days medical attention (slight
physical injuries). The victim developed permanent
scar out of the injury inflicted and a case of serious
physical injuries – no double jeopardy

Doctrine of Inseparable offense –

Where one offense is inseparable from

another and proceeds from the same
act, they cannot be the subject of
separate prosecution.
Example: one who steals from one person a
number of valuables, cannot be charged with theft
for each of the said valuable stolen. Only one theft
case can be filed

Or: for one act to give rise to several crimes in

which case a separate prosecution for each
crime may be filed

Possession of shabu and caught in act

using it – he can be liable for
possession and as a user thereof.
A person involved in an accident without drivers
license – he can be both prosecuted for damage to
property and violation of the vehicle law (driving
without a license)