Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

Republic of the Philippines COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS PHILIPPINES Regional Office III City of San Fernando, Pampanga


The Bill of Rights (Article III, Sections 1 to 22, The 1987 Philippine Constitution) - It is a declaration and enumeration of the individual rights and privileges, which the Constitution designed to protect against violation by the government or by individuals or group of individuals. It is a charter of liberties for the individual and a limitation upon the power of the government. - It set forth certain limitations to the inherent powers of the State because, in the absence thereof, government being so powerful, may have the tendency to resort to tyranny. 3 Inherent Powers of the State Police Power Power of Eminent Domain Power of Taxation

1.Right to Due Process and Equal Protection of the Law Section 1 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the law. What is meant by due process? - A law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial . (Darmouth College v Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518) What does equal protection of the law connote? It means that no person or class of person shall be deprived of the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by other person or class of person in the same place and in like circumstances. (PHILRECA vs. the Secretary, DILG, 403 SCRA 588) This guaranty is universal in its application to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, color or nationality.

- All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. -Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may nonetheless, be treated differently if there is basis for valid classification. 2.Right against unreasonable searches and seizures Section 2 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Right against unreasonable search and seizures. . . General Rule: No arrest, search or seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent judicial authority. Essential requisite of a valid warrant 1. There exist probable cause to be determine by a judge; 2. Such judge must personally examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses that he may produce; and 3. The warrant must particularly describe the person to be arrested or the place to be searched and the things to be seized. (Particularity of Description) Any evidence obtained in violation of . . . shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Section 3 (2) Article III) What is meant by Probable Cause? Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, or that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. (Nala vs. Barroso, Jr., G.R. No. 153087, August 7, 2003) Exceptions to the requirement of a warrant. . . . .WARRANTLESS ARREST/CITIZENS ARREST Rule 113, Section 5 Rules on Criminal Procedure A peace officer or a private person may effect an arrest without a warrant under any of the following conditions: a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense ( in flagrante arrest); b. When an offense has just been committed and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it ; and c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped. Personal knowledge. . . . .

- means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion, based on actual facts, that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the crime.(People vs. Doria, G.R. No. 123595, January 22, 1999) - mere intelligence information or information given by a third person is not equivalent to personal knowledge of the arresting officer. The arresting officer must have a personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested committed the offense. Properties subject to seizure (Sec.2, Rule 126, Rules of Court 1. Subject of the offense 2. Stolen or embezzled property and other proceeds or fruits of the offense 3. Property used or intended to be used as means for the commission of an offense @ownership not required @sufficient that it is within his control or possession Conduct of Search (Sec. 7, Rule 126, Rules of Court No search of a house, room or any of the premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion, residing in the same locality Failure t o comply with the requirements invalidates the search Only the articles particularly described in the warrant may be seized; no other property may be taken unless it is prohibited by law Illegal possession of firearms is malum prohibitum, it does not follow that the subject thereof is illegal per se; A search warrant is still necessary. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence of evidence or articles relating to a crime. Thus, the search warrant was no authority for the police officers to seize the firearm which was not mentioned , much less described with particularity. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures. . . . . . . . Exceptions to the general rule: Search incidental to a lawful arrest; (Sec. 12, Rule 126, Rules of Court) Plain view Doctrine visible to the eye; Search of moving vehicle; (Check points) Consented search; Custom search; and Stop and Search (Terry search) PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE 1. prior valid intrusion 2.evidence was inadvertently discovered 3. evidence must be evidently apparent

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

4. plain view (plainly exposed to the eye) justified the seizure of the evidence without any further search SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLE JUSTIFICATION: It is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be moved quickly out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought -allowed for purposes of preventing violations of smuggling or immigration laws made at borders/constructive borders - required by the exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists Check point search may either be a mere routine inspection or an extensive search ROUTINE SEARCH- limited to a visual search

EXTENSIVE SEARCH constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law offender or they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched (Caballes vs. CA, January 15, 2002)

CONSENTED SEARCH Consent must be given by the person whose rights is being violated CUSTOM SEARCH Example: Search of passenger in airports TERRY SEARCH/STOP &FRISK -based from the landmark case Terry v. Ohio (The policemen chanced upon the accused who had reddish eyes, walking in a swaying manner, and who appeared to be high on drugs, thus the searcyh -vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate and pat him for weapons whenever he observes unusual conduct which leads him to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot

3. Right to Privacy of Communication and Correspondence. . . Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except: a)upon lawful order of the court, or b)where public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (e.g. Anti-wiretapping law, Bank Secrecy Law)

4.The Freedom of Speech, of Expression, of the Press and the right to assemble peacefully Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances. Seditious Speech Libel Oral Defamation

5. Liberty of Abode and the Right to Travel Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

Liberty of Abode Exception: UPON LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT Example: penalty of destierro Right to Travel shall not be impaired except in the interest of: 1. national security, 2.public safety, 3.or public health, as may be provided by law. 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. MIRANDA DOCTRINE/MIRANDA RIGHTS (Miranda v. Arizona) (Sec. 12, Art.III) 1.Any person under investigation for the for the commission of an offense shall have the (a) right to be informed of his right to remain silent and (b) 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. 3. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this section shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. 4. The law 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.

When does the Miranda Right begin to apply? Rights are available only during custodial investigation or in-custody interrogation of accused persons(People v. Judge Ayson, 175 SCRA 216) CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION- any questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way -questioning that tends to elicit incriminating statements (People v. de la Cruz, September 17, 1997) Custodial investigation shall include the practice of issuing invitation to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense, without prejudice to the liability of the inviting officer for any violation of law Apply only from the moment the investigating officer begins to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting admissions, confessions, or any information from the accused. Rights apply only to testimonial compulsion Paraffin testing? Drug testing?

Does it apply to spontaneous statements? Spontaneous statements or those not elicited through questioning by authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect having orally admitted having committed the offense Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a suspect before he was placed under custodial investigation ??? Narration before the barangay captain? ??? Confession before a priest? Can the rights be waived? Yes, but: 1. It must be writing ; (the right to be informed of such rights however could not be waived.) 2. In the presence of his counsel Confessions/Admissions obtained in violation of rights are inadmissible in evidence -coerced confessions (taken through torture, threat) -uncounselled statements (taken without the presence of counsel)


(exclusionary rule) - Once the primary source (tree) is shown to have been lawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (fruit) derived from it is also inadmissible Right of the Accused. . . . . 1. During the Arrest. . . . . . (a) Right to remain silent and right to counsel of his choice;(Miranda Doctrine) (b) Right to be delivered to the nearest police station or jail without unnecessary delay. (Rule 113, Section 3); and (c) Right against violence or used of unnecessary force during an arrest. (Rule 113, Section 2) 2. During Investigation and Detention (a) Right to remain silent; (Section 12, (1) Article III, 1987 Constitution) (b) To have competent and independent counsel of his own choice. If he cannot afford one, he must be provided with one; (Section 12, supra ) (c) Right against torture force, violence, threat, intimidation and the right against secret detention; (Section 12, (1), supra) (d) Right against self-incrimination; (Section 17, supra) . . . .During Investigation and Detention (e) Extra-judicial confession made by him shall be in writing and signed in the presence of his counsel; (Section 2 (d), RA 7438) (f) Any waiver under the provision of Article 125 ( period of detention) of the Revised Penal Code shall be in writing and signed by him in the presence of his counsel; (Section 2, (e), RA 7438) (g) He shall be allowed visitorial rights by or conferences with any members of his immediate family or any medical doctors, or by his counsel or any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission On Human Rights. (Section 2 (f), RA 7438) 3. During Trial (Criminal Prosecution) (a) Right to due process of law; (Section 14, (1), Article III, 1987 Constitution) (b) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved; (Section 14 (2), supra) (c) Right to be heard by himself and counsel; (supra) (d) Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; (supra)

(e) Right to have a speedy, impartial and public trial; (supra) (f) Right to meet the witnesses face to face; (supra) (g) Right to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf; (supra) and (h) Right against self-incrimination. (Section 17, Article III, 1987 Constitution

Right to speedy disposition of cases Section 16. All persons shall have the right to speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies. Bill of Rights. . . . . Right to Bail Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclucion 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 habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required. Bill of Rights. . . . . Section 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political belief and aspiration. (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. Right against excessive fines; from cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment; and right of prisoners or detainees 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 hereinafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclucion perpetua. (2) The employment of physical, psychological or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee, or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law. Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debts or non-payment of a poll tax. Rights against double jeopardy of punishment

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. Prohibition of ex post facto law and bill of attainder Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. - An ex post facto law is one that would make a previous act criminal although it was not so at the time it was committed. - A bill of attainder is a legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence being the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination. Those who are suppose to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of the individual in the name of order. Order is too high a price for the loss of liberty. As Justice Holmes, again said I think it a less evil that some criminals should escape than that the government should play an ignoble part. It is simply not allowed in the free society to violate a law to enforce another, especially if the law violated is the Constitution itself. There was a shooting that happened. The police were in search of the culprit. Six (6) days after the shooting , Go presented himself before the Arayat Police Station to verify news reports that he was being hunted being the main suspect for the crime. The police arrested and detained him because an eyewitness had positively identified him as the gunman who shot Maguan? Is the arrest valid?