Constitutional Law Coverage 2

Constitutional Law 2
Atty. Rovynne Jumao-as
March 11, 2012
Transcribed by: Bruneson & Camille
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
What do you mean by competent court? The court has

jurisdiction. It has the authority to hear these cases because even
if all these rights afforded to the accused and the guilt of the
accused is proved beyond reasonable doubt, but it turns out that
the court has no authority or jurisdiction, what happens to the
proceedings? These are null and void.
So in the case of
Section 14.
OLAGUER VS. MILITARY COMMISSION

150 SCRA 144 (1987)
No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without

due process of law.
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.
Section 14 refers to the rights of the accused.
Paragraph 1 No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law. This phrase sounds familiar
to you due process of law. In Section 1 No persons shall be
deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. So
why is this repeated in Sec. 14? Sec. 14 is more specific for the
accused in criminal proceedings. So this is restricted to criminal
cases only and they are procedural requirements. What are the
procedural requirements when a person is held to answer for a
criminal offense?
Thats in paragraph 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.
What can you observe? The accused has been afforded
these number of rights under Section 14. In this jurisdiction,
compared to an ordinary citizen, the accused has more rights
under the Constitution. Why is that so? Why did we (because we
are supposed to be the authors of the our Constitution) give the
accused these several number of rights? Its because the accused
is up against the State. Its like the David versus Goliath scenario.
The state can use all its resources and power to convict the
accused- so state versus individual. So to ensure that the
individual will be afforded fairness and justice in his prosecution, it
is only proper to afford him this number of rights. Yun ang
sinasabi ko, even compared to an ordinary citizen, the accused has
more rights. Yan ang hindi naiintindihan ng military, the time when
I was talking about search warrants and warrants of arrest. They
asked how come this criminal is set free just because of the nonobservance of these rights. It has been held that its better to set
one criminal free than allow an innocent individual to suffer the
adversarial system. Okay na yung maset-free ang criminal than to
have this kind of procedure which is against an innocent individual.
A. CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
So Section 14 reiterates the due process clause in
Section 1. While section 1 is general and refers to both substantive
and procedural due process, Section 14 pertains to criminal
proceedings and is restricted to procedural due process. Can you
recall what procedural due process requires in judicial
proceedings? There must be:
1.
The accused must be heard before an

impartial, competent court
You have a civilian who allegedly committed an offense

during martial law. Thus a military tribunal tried him. He was
convicted there. The SC said the military tribunal has no
jurisdiction over civilians even if the offenses have been allegedly
committed during martial law, as long as the civilian courts are
open. Military courts/tribunals are for military men and they are
usually for violations of the rules of war. So the SC nullified the
conviction of all of them, being a civilian tried in a military tribunal.
Now impartial court means that the judge must not only
be impartial, but must appear to be impartial. Now in a court
proceeding, if it happens that a judge is laughing at a joke from a
lawyer for this party, the lawyer of the other party might have the
impression that the judge is in favor or favoring this other party.
Now what we have here is a situation where even if the judge is
impartial, he doesnt appear to be impartial. He will give this
lawyer an opportunity to further delay the proceedings if he moves
for the inhibition of the judge just because he believes that the
judge is showing some expressions of favouring the other party.
That is why if you happen to appear in a court where the judge
wears shades or sunglasses, there is no objection against that.
Why? The judge may be just complying with his mandate that he
must not only be impartial but also appear impartial.
So if the judge cannot perform that pokerface thing,
____ nalang kayo ng iba because the judge has to be pokerface.
So if he wears the sunglasses or shades, there is no objection to
that. He must not only be impartial but also appear impartial so
that the litigants particularly the accused will have faith in the
fairness of the proceedings.
2.
Now due process also requires that there

must be a hearing.
Procedural process means that he must be heard before

he is convicted. Right to be heard.
ALONTE VS. SAVELLANO
287 SCRA 245 (1998)
The accused here was charged of rape. Now in one
hearing, the rape victim, filed his affidavit of desistance, meaning
the rape victim desisted from further testifying against the
accused. So she was presented before the court, the court has the
opportunity to test the veracity or truthfulness of her desistance.
Now she said shes no longer interested in prosecuting the
accused. Because of that statement, the lawyer for the accused no
longer cross-examined the witness. Because of her testimony,
whats the choice of the prosecution? The prosecution would be
constrained to move for the dismissal of the case. Why? The
prosecution can no longer prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt especially in rape cases where usually the only
witness is the victim herself. It is one offense that committed
clandestinely. Usually, you have no other witness there. So
because of the desistance, the prosecution moved for the dismissal
of the accused. However, 2 months after, the judge issued the
decision, which was for the conviction of the accused. So the SC
said here, the accused was denied due process because the
conviction was made without a hearing. In this case, the SC did
not nullify the proceedings to the point that double jeopardy will
now take place, but the SC remanded the case back to trial court
for further proceedings.
PEOPLE VS. MACARANG
424 SCRA 18 (2005)
(3RD Exam Coverage) Vol. 3 | 1
The accused here was tried for the crime of qualified

rape. It was supposedly the turn of the accused to present their
defense evidence. Maybe they had no defense, or maybe there is
a ____ proceeding because the accused here and the lawyer
moved several times for the postponement of the hearing because
the counsel is not around, or the accused is not ready to testify.
After several postponements, gikapoy na nag prosecution, nagalit
na ang judge, the prosecution moved that the accused be deemed
to have waived his right to present evidence in his behalf. And the
court made a relief that because of these postponements, the
accused is now deemed to have waived his right to present
evidence, and the case is now deemed submitted for the decision
of the case. It was qualified rape, so he was convicted and the
penalty was death. The SC said there was denial of due process.
SO here there was no waiver to present evidence especially in this
case when the imposable penalty is death. What do we know
about waiver? It must be freely and intelligently be made, it
cannot be implied or presumed. Especially in this case where the
waiver is deemed to have come from the accused. So the accused
here was denied of due process.
Compare Section 14 with Section 12- Right of
person under custodial investigation. So this [12] means before a
charge is filed against you and he is arrested or under custody of
law. So section 12 is applicable. But once the accused has been
formally charged in court and there was already an arraignment,
hes now called an accused. Prior to that anong tawag sa kanya?
Respondent. So thats the difference. Under Section 14, this only
attaches when, because it speaks of criminal proceedings, there
must already be a criminal case. Section 14 applies only from the
time of arraignment up to the termination of the case.
B. RIGHTS
So what are THE RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Presumption of Innocence
Right to be heard by himself and counsel
To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
To have a speedy, impartial, public trial
Right to confrontation
To have compulsory processes to secure the attendance of
witnesses
What about trial in absentia? Is it part of the right of

the accused? The right means that the prosecution may proceed
even in the absence of the accused. Is it a right of the accused?
Its more of a right of the state to proceed notwithstanding the
absence of the accused.
RIGHT TO BE PRESUMED INNOCENT
Youve heard of this before when we discussed about bail. We said
that the right to bail flows from the right to be presumed innocent.
SO under Section 14, all persons charged criminally are presumed
innocent unless proven otherwise. By what degree of proof? Proof
beyond reasonable doubt. Now this presumption of innocence
remains even if the accused presents the weakest of the weak
defenses.
What are the WEAK defenses?
1.
2.
3.
Alibi- I was not there. That was the defense of Webb.

Thats a weak defense, he did not attack directly the
accusation.
Denial- I did not do it.
I was framed up.
Notwithstanding these weak defenses, he is still presumed

innocent. Accusation in itself or the charge in itself is not
synonymous with guilt. Because of this presumption, in this
jurisdiction, it is the responsibility of the prosecution to establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Otherwise, the accused is entitled
to an acquittal. The burden, therefore, is with the prosecution to
establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty, but only
moral certainty on the part of the judge that the accused did it.
Only moral certainty is required. But as it is, in this jurisdiction, it
is the duty of the prosecution to present proof sufficient, beyond
reasonable doubt, to the court that conviction may rest not on the
weakness of the defense but on the strength of the prosecution.
SO whats the role of the accused and his defense lawyers? The
accused can just remain silent, because the duty is with the
prosecution. It is a very difficult, and a heavy burden on the part
of the prosecution. Trust me, its easier to be a defense lawyer
than to be a prosecutor. Why? As a defense a lawyer, you can
destroy the case of the prosecution by creating doubt. You just
create doubt. You need not destroy evidence by rebutting
evidence by saying that yes and presenting evidence that it is no.
You can just say maybe, it can already destroy the case of
prosecution because of the presumption of innocence because the
proof required is beyond reasonable doubt and there is reasonable
doubt that the accused could be acquitted. Mas madali ang
trabaho sa defense lawyer.
But once the prosecution has established a prima facie
case against the accused, now presented in evidence, and the
prima facie guilt of the accused has already been established, the
burden now shifts to the accused. Sometimes, he should no longer
stay silent. This time, his silence may be an inference of nonrebuttable of evidence, not reduction of evidence, and this might
be harmful to the case of the accused. So if you ask me, if I am
representing the accused, pwede bang mag-remain silent nalang?
Yes. But after the presentation of evidence, think it over because
sometimes the prosecution might have already established a prima
facie case against the accused. But if the prosecution has already
rested its case, and you think that they have not proved guilt
beyond reasonable doubt, you have the opportunity to move for
demurer of evidence. You will just tell the court, your honor we
will no longer present any evidence because the prosecution has
failed to prove its case against the accused. Thats a demurer of
evidence. Pwede bay un? Yes, because again the burden is with
the prosecution.
However, we have laws which establish prima facie
presumption. Some laws may say if this fact is proven, then it is
already prima facie case against the accused. An example I can
think of is Anti-fencing. Theres a prima facie presumption
provision there, if the person is found in possession of stolen
goods, theres a prima facie presumption that he is guilty of AntiFencing.
Thus, in the cases of Dizon vs. People and Hizon vs. CA,
involved her is Fisheries Law/Decree.
DIZON VS. PEOPLE

234 SCRA 63 (1994)
HIZON VS. CA
265 SCRA 516 (1996)
Now under that law, theres a provision there that states that a
discovery of explosives or obnoxious substance in any fishing boat
shall constitute a prima facie presumption that owner is fishing
with the use of explosives or poisonous substance. So if a person
is found in the possession of explosives, theres a presumption that
hes using this for illegal fishing. Now does this provision of law
establishing prima facie presumption against the accused violate
their right to be presumed innocent?
The SC said in these cases that it does not violate this
constitutional provision. Why? Prima facie presumption only makes
rebuttable presumption. There is no constitutional objection as
long as the facts presumed have a direct relation with the facts
proven. It is not arbitrary.
For example, the fact proven is you are in possession of
stolen goods. The natural conclusion would be you are guilty of
anti-fencing law. For example, you are found in possession of
dynamites in your boat, what would the natural and logical
presumption? Its logical to think that youre using that for illegal
fishing. So theres a relation between the facts proven and the
presumption of guilt. SO theres no violation of this constitutional
provision.
Prima
facie
presumption
means
rebuttable
presumption. What this means is that hindi na magpresent ang
prosecution ng proof other than that. But the burden now shifts to
the accused, so the accused is now given the opportunity to rebut
that presumption. Even in the case of malversation, a crime
committed by a public official, if he feels to turn over or account
for the money, and he cannot, there is already a presumption that
he has already misappropriated the money. Thats the natural and
logical consequence of failing to return the money. So what the
prosecution would do is only to prove this fact, that upon demand,
he fails to return the money. The prosecution need not prove that
he ACTUALLY misappropriated the money, and theres no violation
of his right to innocence because the accused is still given the
opportunity to rebut the evidence.
RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND BY COUNSEL
Under this right, the accused may appear personally for

himself. Can the accused opt to personally represent himself? Yes,
because it is his constitutional right. But can this right be
reserved? Yes, it can together with the right to appear by counsel
because even the most intelligent person would not have the
knowledge of the intricacies of legal proceedings, rules of
evidence, rules of procedures. So this right to be heard by himself
would be for ____ given the equal right to be heard by counsel.
Thus it is stated in the constitution, provided there, constitutional
right ni siya ang right to counsel, because this (right to be heard
by himself) would be useless if the person is not given the
constitutional right to be heard by counsel.
PEOPLE VS. HOLGADO
85 PHIL 753 (1950)
This is a matter to the right to counsel. This was the interchange,
which transpired in court before arraignment, Accused, do you
have a lawyer? Or are you going to plead guilty?. So whats the
answer of the accused? I have no lawyer and I will plead guilty.
Naloko na. So the court proceeded with arraignment, trial and
then convicted the accused. The SC said Under the circumstances,
particularly the qualified plea given by the accused, who was
unaided by counsel, it was not prudent, to say the least, for the
trial court to render such a serious judgment finding the accused
guilty of a capital offense, and imposing upon him such a heavy
penalty as ten years and one day of prision mayor to twenty years.
Thats why in this case it was held that the accused has the right
to be heard not only by himself but also by counsel. And under the
ROC which was already instituted, [Rule 112, Sec. 3] "If the
defendant appears without attorney, he must be informed by the
court that it is his right to have attorney before being arraigned,
and must be asked if he desires the aid of attorney. If he desires
and is unable to employ attorney, the Court must assign attorney
de oficio to defend him. A reasonable time must be allowed for
procuring attorney."
Under this provision, when a defendant appears without attorney,
the court has four important duties to comply with before
arraignment:
1.
2.
3.
4.
It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have

attorney before being arraigned;
After giving him such information the court must ask him
if he desires the aid of an attorney- why? Kasi may
option siya to appear by himself.
If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court
must assign attorney de oficio to defend him; and
If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own,
and he can afford one, the court must grant him a
reasonable time therefore.
These are the basic rights under the right of attorney. Again
the right to be heard will be to little avail if it does not include the
right to be heard by counsel.
Even the most educated man who has no skill in the study of
law particularly in the rules of procedure, without counsel, he may
be convicted not to because he is guilty but because he cannot

establish his innocence.
As the counsel de officio what is your role?

It starts upon appointment and continues until the
arraignment before court, until trial and appeal. That is why during
hearings in criminal cases the moment that the accused appears
without counsel, all lawyers become fidgety. If the accused cannot
afford his own counsel, all the lawyers will bow down their heads
because the judge can appoint anyone in the courts. Usually, he
appoints the PAO lawyer, but sometimes he can appoint others
present in that court.
As counsel de officio your duty starts before
arraignment, before trial, during trial, in and after trial upon
appeal. In reality, when the judge appoints one, usually the
lawyers will put into record that they will represent the accused
only for the purpose of such arraignment. Otherwise, youre bound
to represent the accused even after arraignment
Limits to the appointment: It is only mandatory for the judge
to appoint the counsel de officio during arraignment. There shall
be no arraignment unless the accused has a lawyer except when
he voluntary waives that right. So, it is mandatory during the time
of arraignment. It is no longer so when:
say for example when the accused is already

represented by counsel de parte;and
in some occasions when the counsel is not present.
In these two cases, it is no longer mandatory to appoint a counsel
de officio.
Remember: Mandatory only during arraignment.
PEOPLE VS MANALO
148 SCRA 98 (1987)
The accused here was convicted death penalty for murder, the
case was for automatic review before the SC. He implores the fact
that several counsel de officio assisted him during different
hearings of his case. So in day1 he was assisted by CDO (counsel
de officio) 1, day 2, assisted by CDO 2, and so on and so forth.
Ang dami nyang CDO. And he is now saying that he was denied
the right to counsel, because even if he was represented by
several CDO, it was a sham representation kasi iba-iba.
HELD: SC said that it is not so in this case especially when it is not
shown that the CDO did not perform their duties to the appellant
and to the court. There was no showing that the appellant
suffered from such representations. It was even shown on record
that the CDO performed their duties in assisting the appellant,
protecting his interests, making objections in timely manner ,
present during the examination of witnesses by the prosecution,
etc. So, if that is the scenario, you have different counsels at the
different phases of the trial, it does not mean that you are denied
of your right to counsel.
People Vs Santocildes
321 SCRA 310 (1999)
The accused was charged for the crime of rape. During trial he
was represented by a certain Gualberto who turned out to be a
non-lawyer. He was convicted of course. On appeal he argues that
his right to counsel was violated so he should be acquitted.
The SC said yes, he was denied his right to counsel. The right to
be represented by A MEMBER OF THE BAR is what is
contemplated in that constitutional right even if the non lawyer
turns out to have the abilities of a seasoned lawyer and handled
the case in a professional and skillful manner, the fact that he is
not a member of the bar effectively denied the accused to counsel.
PEOPLE VS TULIN
364 SCRA 10 (2001)
The Supreme Court said that judgment is set aside but is
remanded to the lower court for further proceedings. It did not
result to the acquittal of the accused.
The accused here was tried for piracy. He was represented by
Tomas Posadas and he presented seven witnesses for the accused
but he turned out to be a non lawyer also. Does this happen? But
not everyday. In davao city it rarely happens because the number
of lawyers is small and we know almost everyone here. The judges
will usually have the counsel to make a courtesy call.
So, in this case, luckily, it was discovered in the course of the trial,
so that the accused was able to obtain the service of the real
lawyer. During the trial, the lawyer manifested that he is adapting
the testimony of the witnesses presented by Tomas. The accused
was convicted.
On appeal, the accused said that he was denied of his right to
counsel.
SC: There was already a waiver in this case. You have the right to
appear for yourself. Rights can be waived. There was already a
valid waiver of right to counsel especially that the adaption of the
witnesses presented and testimonies presented by Tomas was
manifested and put on record by a lawyer. So, the waiver was
done in the presence of the counsel.
PEOPLE VS BERMAS
306 SCRA 135 (1999)
The accused here was indigent charged with rape. As indigent he
was represented by CDO, now after the victim was presented
during the cross-examination. Counsel for the accused manifested
that he would withdraw as counsel. So, another CDO was
appointed, and he was able to prepare for only ten minutes. He
cross-examined the witness. After the examination, the court also
allowed him to withdraw. Then, there is another CDO, he also tried
to withdraw, but this time the court said NO. So, he was
constrained to present the accused as witness. On the
presentation, during the succeeding hearings, the counsel can no
longer found. He failed or refused to appear for no apparent
reason. Was he denied from his right to counsel?
Held: Yes. The right to counsel must be more than just presence
of counsel in court, more than asking questions, raising objections.
The right means that the counsel must believe in the cause of your
client. There should be active involvement of the lawyer bearing in
mind the rights of the accused. Even if you know that the accused
is guilty, you are there to ensure that his constitutional rights are
given.
People vs Larranaga
421 SCRA 530 (2004)
The accused here are from prominent families in Cebu,

accused of kidnapping. When it was the defenses time to present
their witnesses after the prosecution, their delaying tactics were
already very obvious. There were several motions filed up to the
point that there was a motion to withdraw by the counsel. Now,
because of that motion, they cannot proceed to the hearing of
evidence. The accused asked for time to secure the services of a
counsel for 3 days to 1 month. The judge denied the motion and
appointed a CDO for the accused. Was he denied the right?
Held: SC said no, the time they asked from the court was
unreasonable, they could have secured the services of the lawyer
at the very moment because they can afford one if they really
desire to get one. They could have acted at the short period of
time. This does not mean that the accused can avoid trial by
refusing to get a counsel. The proceedings should not depend on
the whims of the accused to the detriment of the hearing of the
case.
PEOPLE VS RIVERA
362 SCRA 153 (2001)
The case was for incestuous rape. Upon presentation of the

physician witness who has incriminating testimony against the
accused, what happened was that the lawyer for the accused did
not appear. So, the accused said that they are moving for the
postponement of the hearing. The judge denied the motion and
appointed a CDO. There was in fact no mandatory duty for the
judge to appoint a CDO because it was already during trial and
was already represented by a counsel de parte. But the judge to
avoid consti issues appointed a CDO just to hear the testimony of
the physician bec. He believes that the Dr. was so busy and it is
very difficult to get his appearance again. Was he denied the right
to counsel?
Held: SC said no. The judge has the duty to regulate the
proceeding for the speedy disposition of cases. Justice is not only
for the accused but also for the state and the victim. In this case,
the judge hast the duty to promote speedy and orderly
administration of justice.
PEOPLE VS LIWANAG
363 SCRA 62 (2001)
Accused here was charged with highway robbery with multiple
rape. He was initially represented by CDO. Then he had a counsel
de parte, on appeal he hired another counsel. On appeal, he
questioned the tactics of his own counsel on trial. According to
him, my counsel is inefficient! In other words bugo iyang lawyer.
Was he denied the right to counsel?
Held: SC said no. The right to counsel does not mean the right to
an intelligent counsel. What is required is only an EFFECTIVE
counsel. It is presumed that when you pass the bar exam, you
already know the rules of court and upholds professional
standards. He need not be the most intelligent lawyer.
PEOPLE VS SESBRENO
314 SCRA 87 (1999)
He was charged with murder and he represented himself because
he happened to be a lawyer, despite the suggestion of the court
that he find another counsel since the IBP can provide him with
one, he still insisted to defend himself. He was convicted. Can he
now invoke that he was denied such right?
Held: SC said no. he was accorded the right to counsel when he
was allowed to be represented by a competent member of the bar
namely himself. You have the choice to get your own counsel.
That he who is his own lawyer is a fool for his client.
PEOPLE VS NADERA
324 SCRA 490 (2000)
The accused is charged with rape. So after the rape victim
testified, counsel for the accused said that they are not conducting
any cross-examination because he is convinced that the witness is
telling the truth. Was the accused denied the right to counsel?
Held: Yes, the counsels failure to cross examine the witness is a
clear evidence of his lack of enthusiasm to his clients cause. To
defend a client means to effectively assist accused to ensure that
his constitutional rights are protected. The lawyer in this case has
the duty to test the credibility of the witness. To scrutinize the
private complainants testimony.
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
We have that very important stage in criminal proceedings what
we call as the arraignment.
ARRAIGNMENT:
The stage of reading of the charge where the information is read
by the court interpreter for the accused to know what he is being
tried for. The arraignment is an indispensable stage, without which
the judgment would not be valid.
PURPOSE: Portion wherein the accused will be informed of the
nature and the cause of the accusation against him. Precisely to
comply with the right of the accused to be informed.
PEOPLE VS LABADO
98 SCRA 730 (1980)
Supreme court said that the accused should know the nature of
the charge against him to enable him to make his defense. So he
can prepare.
Second is to protect himself for the prosecution of the same
cause of action. The basis of double jeopardy should come from
the information in case he is charged anew. Third is to inform the
court of the facts alleged whether they are sufficient for
conviction. It need not be the exact facts but must include time,
place, and circumstances. It must be specific. The discrepancy
should be so grave that there would be no way for the accused to
be convicted based on the information. For example, what was
alleged was that the victim was killed in 2002 but in reality, he was
killed in 1999. Thats why the information is very important.
People vs Crisologo
150 SCRA 653 (1987)
SC went over the causes of the delay and saw a lack of earnest
effort on the part of the judge to conduct arraignment as soon as
the court calendar will allow. In other words, napabayaan ng
judge. So there was violation to the right to speedy trial.
What is the effect? ACQUITTAL. See, he is acquitted.
TAI LIM VS CA
317 SCRA 521 (1999)
From the time that the arraignment was had, more than a year,
one year 3 months has passed before the trial actually
commenced. Here, there were 11 postponements.
When SC went over the reasons, the reasons vary from absence
on the part of prosecution, absence of the prosecutor and even
the re-raffling (?) of the case. When we say re-raffling of the case,
from one court to another. Na-transfer sya.
SC said that the reasons for postponements were reasonable and
not intended to delay the prosecution of the case. Now the
absences of witnesses have been validated by their excuse. The
excuse was reasonable. The right of the accused to speedy trial
should not be utilized to give primacy (?) of the reasonable ___ of
fairly prosecuting criminals.
The accused here was a deaf mute charged with robbery with
homicide. They cannot have the arraignment bec there was no
one to assist him. There was no one there to explain to the
accused the information or the charge, The accused cannot
understand sign language. The Trial court proceeded and
convicted the accused.
In practice, invoking the right to speedy trial under the rules, we

can go with the 3-day rule. If the prosecution has been postponing
the hearing for 3 consecutive days, we can invoke the right to
speedy trial. 3 days lang. meaning, you can get an acquittal for
your client.
Held: SC said that he was denied his right to be informed of the

nature and cause of accusation.
DE ZURUARREGUI VS ROSETE
382 SCRA 1 (2002)
March 12, 2013
Transcribed by: Charity & Lou

Right to have a Speedy, Public & Impartial Trial
Speedy trial
What do you mean by speedy trial?
- Speedy trial would mean one that is free from vicious or
capricious delays. Now whether the delay is oppressive, the delay
is capricious, it depends upon the circumstances of the case. So
its still case to case basis.
- That is why, if we move for the postponement of lets say a trial
or a hearing, we always allege on the last portion that this motion
is not for the purpose of delaying the proceedings.
- This is in view of the accused right to speedy trial.
What is the objective of this right?
To assure the innocent man, free from anxiety (?),
expense of litigation, so that if you can shorten the period
of litigation, it would mean lesser expense on the part of
the accused and lesser anxiety.
And if otherwise, he is to be found guilty, that guilt be
determined the soonest time possible. This would be to
give consolation for evidence of the defense (?).
This right is more for the accused. Again this is a case to
case basis. Bear in mind the purpose or object of this right
Now under the speedy trial act of 1998, there is a provision which
states that the arraignment shall be held within 30 days from the
date that the court acquired jurisdiction over the accused. . So
from arrest, for example, an arraignment must be had within 30
days. But in the case of Lumanlaw vs Peralta
LUMANLAW VS PERALTA
482 SCRA 396 (2006)
From the time the accused was arrested, the arraignment was had
one year 9 months and 4 days after. All in all, there were 14
postponements. So almost 2 years before accused was arraigned.
Now in determining the violation of this right, the court has to look
into the reasons of the delay.
From the arraignment, there was no trial for 2 years. This is due to
15 postponements. The postponements are either on motions on
both parties or agreements on both parties.
SC said that the reasons there are reasonable, justified. Speedy
trial means that if one party, soon after indictment filed after
prosecution can with reasonable negligence to prepare for trial.
(ANO DAW? Sorry kaayo, I cant keep up with her. Paspas kaayo
sya. And I think what she is reading is a complex sentence, so
many commas! Sorry. But I think what Maam is saying is that
prosecution is allowed a reasonable amount of time to prepare).
The court should do more than a mathematical computation on
the number of postponements of scheduled hearing.
What offense derives in a speedy trial are unjustified

postponements?
SUMBANG VS GEN COURT
337 SCRA 227 (2000)
Sumbang here is a member of the Philippine Constabulary. There
was a decomposition of the Philippine National Police. Dili na sya
PC nagging PNP na sya. Anyway, because of the decomposition of
the entire unit, it took more than 8 years before his trial was
continued. Was there violation of the right to speedy trial?
SC said there was no violation because of the operation of law
which delayed the proceedings. So dahil na decompose ang PC
nagging PNP, they have new rules, new laws, etc.
Public and impartial trial

PUBLIC TRIAL
- This is given to the accused to assure the proceedings will not be
tainted with any irregularities or impropriety. Again, when you say
criminal proceeding, you have a scenario of David vs Goliath.
There was an assurance that the rights of David would be
observed or respected. The public has to observe the proceedings.
What will happen when the proceedings would be private? So
basig kulatahon si David ron. So thats why the constitution
provided that the trial should be made in public to ensure that the
Judge in the proceeding will not do anything irregular and that the
accused will be accorded such protection. If it is done in closed
door sessions, it will cause the anxiety of the accused, wala syang
kakampi. Gusto mo meron kang supporters, kung pwede pa lang
may banner ka.
Public trial means that the trial should be done in court rooms.
Some court rooms are as big as this, some half lang. now, thats
public trial. If you want to observe public students, you can go
there as law students. Wala naming attendance dun. You dont
need to identify who you are. So punta ka lang dun. Anyway, the
court requires that you come in decent clothings and shoes. Bawal
mag-chinelas or sleeveless.
(Maam shares story of fellow lawyer: arraignment nya tapos nakatshirt, so pinalabas ng Judge, akala law student.)
GARCIA VS DOMINGO
52 SCRA 143 (1973)
What happened here is that, the trial was held not in the court
room but in the adjacent room, which is the chamber of the judge.
Trial was had inside the chambers. Does this violate the right to
public trial?
SC said that trial is public when anyone interested in observing the
manner how the judge conducts the proceeding may do so. There
is legal bank on such attendance is being __ of no moment and
no relationship to the . that is public trial. Meaning, any member of
the public can observe/witness the proceeding.
In the case at bar, SC said that there was no prohibition on the
part of the public made by the judge. Meaning, anyone who is
interested na makisiksik doon, can do so. SC said, trial inside the
chamber qualifies as public trial.
Maam: But the reality is, may aura ung chamber ng

judge. Sa labas pa lang, ayaw mo ng pumasok. Sino
kaya papasok dun?
Are there instances wherein a judge may exclude a

member of the family of the accused from witnessing the
proceeding but still will not violate the right?
YES. Particularly in cases where maselan ang issue,

like if it involves public decency or public morals. Im
talking about rape cases. Particularly when it is the
turn of the victim to testify because it cannot be
avoided that the victim has to testify as to the
details of the acts.
Also, another acceptable exception is when it is a
minor who will testify. Kahit pa sabihin pa natin na
hindi rape, and the minor cannot testify in the
presence of many people. Pwede din i-excuse yun
ng judge. Another example would be if the witness
is to be corroborated by another witness. The judge
can exclude that other witness from hearing the
testimony of the first witness. Why? His testimony is
supposed to be corroborated with the first
testimony. So if he hear the testimony, then there is
already coaching. Ay yun pala sasabihin, etc etc.
so in this case, the judge can validly exclude and
there is no violation of the right.
PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ
302 SCRA 21 (1999)
If we say that the trial must be public, here, the accused is now
defrauding (?) the publicity of his trial. Who is familiar here of
Mayor Sanchez? Mayor Sanchez here is charged with rape, 7
counts of rape with homicide. Now the mayor, being a public
figure, his case has been attended by widespread media coverage.
So this extreme spectrum, he doesnt want pervasive publicity my
the media. According to him, it has violated his right to trial
because it has affected the impartiality of the judge.
So is the right of an accused to fair trial incompatible to a free
press?
SC said NO. Publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of the

accused to fair trial. It does not itself prove that the publicity so
permeate the mind of the judge and impaired his impartiality on
the case. The most that you can do is to allege the possibility of
the tendency of the judge to be unfair. But you have to go more
that, you have to prove that it actually affected the judge by such
publicity. So more than allege, you have to prove.
Impartial trial
Impartial trial, ah I already discussed this to you.

The judge must not be impartial. Impartial, publicity,
impartial, publicity, are they incompatible?
No. that is also what happened in the Estrada case.

ESTRADA VS. DESIERTO
356 SCRA 109 (2001)
There was a finding of probable cause indicting him of plunder.

The proceeding was had at and the ombudsman conducted
preliminary investigation. During the conduct of preliminary
investigation, there was already a day-to-day coverage of the
proceedings in the newspapers. So according to Estrada, it has
already prejudiced his case. He contends his right to impartial trial
was affected by the prejudicial trial by publicity proceedings before
the ombudsman. There was also, according to him, a hate
campaign launched by some newspapers so that the prosecution
and the judiciary can no longer assure him of an impartial trial.
Again, thats an allegation.
SC held that more than the allegation, you have to prove that
there is already impartiality because of this publicity. The mere
fact that the proceeding was given a wide media coverage does
not prove that the publicity so far affected the tribunals
impartiality.
Its just the same as the Sanchez case. We cannot help it, hes the
president of the Philippines.
In relation to the case..
ESTRADA VS DESIERTO
356 SCRA 109 (2001)
This time ex-pesident who was being charged of plunder after

allegedly resigning from public office. So in this case, Estrada for
reconsideration and the decision of the SC wherein the SC ruled
that he has resigned, one of his grounds is that he was denied the
right to impartial trial because the impartiality of his trial was
affected/ prejudice by pre trial publicity / proceeding before the
ombudsman. Even before the case was filed, even before the case
was still in the investigatory stage. It already received media
mileage! Not only locally but internationally pa!!! so, that is his
contention. The Publicity so permeated the mind of the trial judge
impaired his impartiality. There must be allegation and proof that
the judges have been unduly influenced, not simply that they
might be.
the SC was consistent with this ruling in PEOPLE VS SANCHEZ.
RE: REQUEST FOR RADIO TV COVERAGE
360 SCRA 248 (2001)
In relation to that case, the KBP, consisting of duly franchised
radio/TV networks petitioned the SC to request that they be
allowed live media coverage of the trial of the former Pres.
Estrada. The Request was anchored to assure the public of full
transparency of the proceedings of the public trial. What do we
have here? The issue here is the constitutionality of the freedom of
the press, and the right to public information and the fundamental
right of the accused the right to fair trial/impartial trial. Where
there is clash between these 2 rights, which right should prevail
right to public information, freedom of the press vs right of the
accused. Which right should be preferred? The SC said the right
of the accused must be preferred.
with the possibility of losing not only the precious liberty but also
the very life of the accused, it behooves all to make absolutely
certain that an accused receives a verdict solely on the basis of a
just and dispassionate judgment. Why? ---what is the effect of
Television coverage? At least in this case that there is recognition
of the SC. Example. I am a potential witness. To ensure that I will
not bother myself before the court. I will make my research and
watch the TV coverage. If I am going to testify in the
impeachment proceedings against the CJ therefore prudence
would dictate that I watched so that my testimony would be
consistent with another witnesses. So more or less there is that
possible effect.
Another effect it can effect the performance of the judge (di ka
artista pero may live coverage) .. just look at the senator judges
and the effect of the live media coverage.. and it can destroy the
image of the accused in the eyes of the public.
will give the judge an idea of WON to believe the testimony of

the accused.
So another TIP! If you are going to be a trial court
lawyer if you find that the demeanor of the witness is
relevant to the credibility of his/her own testimony, you make
sure that it is put on record because the transcript /
stenographic notes only records the spoken words. It is not
written there kahit hahahah pa yan. The court stenographer
will not write there HAHHAHAHHA! so what will you do? -----your honor, may we put into record that after the witness
testified na-rape din ako, she smiled sabi pa nga nila, if
umiyak yan iparecord ang luha! (lol) if the witness is crying,
that will also add to his credibility. So it your witness is a good
actor/actress why not???
Right to have compulsory processes to secure the
attendance of the witness
In order to protect the parties right to due process, to prevent

the distraction of the participants in the proceedings and in the
last analysis, to avoid miscarriage of justice, the request was
denied
In criminal proceedings, the venue or where the case should be

filed is JURISDICTIONAL! What do you mean by that? The place
where the case should be filed is equivalent to the court which has
jurisdiction over the case.
IN RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE COVERAGE

365 SCRA 62 (2001)
When you study jurisdiction, the rules would just say for this kinds
of offenses MTC, for this kind RTC, SANDIGANBAYAN, ETC
regardless where.
The Request was made by the KBP diba? It was denied. Who
move for the reconsideration para ma-grant? Its the state via the
secretary of Justiceetc.. anyways,
The motion was filed by the Secretary of Justice, as one of the
petitioners, who argues that there is really no conflict between the
right of the people to public information and the freedom of the
press, on one hand, and on the other hand, the right of the
accused to a fair trial; that if there is a clash between these
rights, it must be resolved in favor of the right of the people and
the press because the people, as the repository of sovereignty, are
entitled to information; and that live media coverage is a
safeguard against attempts by any party to use the courts as
instruments for the pursuit of selfish interest.
There will be more damage to the accused than damage to the
public as repository of democracy. Maxado vague na allegation
to whereas the damage to the accused would be concrete. So this
was also denied. However, because of importance of the trial and
preserving the records, the SC ruled that there should be audiovisual recording of the proceedings. The recording will not be for
live or real broadcast but for documentary purposes. Only later will
they be available for public showing, after the Sandiganbayan shall
have promulgates its decision in every case to which the
recordings pertains. The Material Film shall be deposited in the
National Museum and the Records Management and Archives
Office for historical preservation and exhibition pursuant to LAW!!!
RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION
This right refers to the right to CROSS EXAMINATION. This right
is very important to criminal prosecution for 2 reasons:
1.
It allows the accused to examine the witness to

test the credibility, truthfulness and test against
prejudice/bias against the accused.
- If I am the accused the sole purpose is to create the doubt

diba? Because I can only be convicted upon proof beyond
reasonable doubt. So to be given that opportunity, I should
be allowed to confront the witness to test his credibility, to
test his bias against me so that somehow this may prove to
shake the veracity of his testimony.
2.
And the other reason is for the judge to OBSERVE

THE DEMEANOR of the witness.
DEMEANOR is important because this will help the
judge in appreciating the testimony of the witness. Sometimes
we can see the truthfulness or falsity by just the demeanor of
the witness. For example, narape din ako, hehehe so that
In Civil Cases, the option where the case is filed lets say RTC,
the option is with the plaintiff, either at the place where the
plaintiff resides or where the defense resides at the option of
the plaintiff.
But when it comes to Criminal Cases, this case can only be
filed at the place where the crime was committed.
JURISDICTIONAL means that the case is filed in another RTC not
in the RTC of the Place, that another RTC has no jurisdiction of
that offense.
----the presumption is that, if the crime is committed here, the
witness for the accused can also be located in this place. So to
make it easier for the accused, the venue should be in the same
place where the offense / crime was committed.
----Now the accused, should have available witness not matter
where the witness may be located however, they should be made
available to the accused at the expense of the state.
Now, how can the court secure the attendance of the witness?? By
subpoena
1.
Subpoena ad testificandum an order for the

person to appear in court to testify
2.
Subpoena duces tecum aka subpoena for

production of evidence if it as an order for the
person to appear in court and to bring documents. ( is
a court summons ordering a named party to appear
before the court and produce documents or other
tangible evidence for use at a hearing or trial
In this similar rules of procedure, we have the 100km radius rule

this is a compulsory process of the court to compel the attendance
of the witness had no effect if the witness resides more than
100KM to the place where he is to testify. Meaning that it your
witness is already in Batanes, he could not be compelled by a
subpoena. But that is true in civil cass. But when it comes to
witnesses for the accused, wherever the witness may be, he can
be compelled to appear in court. HOW? If he disobeys the
subpoena, he can be arrested or cited by the court in contempt.
That is to favor the accused vis-s-vis the state the accused has no
resource to compel the attendance of the witness. So it is now the
constitution that will give now the duty to compel the attendance
of the witness of the case. It will be the state who will prosecute
you, it will be the state that wll find your witnesses.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
Trial by absentia is no longer a right accorded to the accused. It is
a right accorded to the state to continue with the trial in a criminal
prosecution despite the absence of the accused. So we call that
trial by absentia. Under the rule, trial by absentia is not allowed
because if the accused will be denied his right to defend himself,
right to counsel, confront witness, etc. but under the new
Constitution, trial by absentia is already allowed. Why? So that the
case in the prosecution will not be dependent upon the presence
of the accused and the accused cannot invoke state liability by
being absent and more importantly, there will be no mockery of
the criminal justice system.
But there are requisites for Trial in Absentia to be allowed.
1. There should be an arraignment. The accused must
first be arraigned.
2. The accused must be notified of the schedule trial.
3. Despite the notice, the accused failed to appear in
court.
PEOPLE VS SALAS
143 SCRA 163 (1986)
The accused here was charged with homicide with no bail
recommended. Trial after arraignment was had, trial commenced
for murer but along the way the granted him bail. Whaen he was
given provisional liberty, he juped bail and hence escaped. The
copurt now refused to continue the trial unless the accused is
arrested.
If you are the lawyer of the complainant, what would you do if the
accused jumped bail, how can you go on/proceed presenting the
evidence?
What were your options? The bail will be forfeited in favor of the
State; the trial will proceed despite the absence of the accused.
AS LONG AS THE ACCUSED HAS ALREADY BEEN ARRAIGNED,
TRIAL SHOULD PROCEED
GIMENEZ VS NAZARENO
160 SCRA 1 (1988)
There were 6 accused here. One of them however, escaped. After
arraignment, all of the 6 were arraigned; the trial proceeded as
against the 5 accused. But the court refused to consider that he is
one of the accused who escaped. So for the mindset of the court
this will be a trial only against the 5 accused (hindi niya sinali yung
isang naka-escaped). According to him, the court has lost
jurisdiction over the person of the accused. What if my custody
kana, the accused escapes, to the mind of the trial court the
escape means the court has lost jurisdiction over the accused. Is
ha correct? NOOO!!! The principle is that once the court acquires
jurisdiction over the person of the accused, JURISDICTION IS
NEVE LOST!!! until the termination of the case. Here, trial in
absentia should proceed even as against the person who escaped
so that the rendering of the decision it should include not only
findings of evidence but also who escaped.
So what is the rule in ESCAPE??
waiver of notice on the part of the accused. So under the law, is
deemed notified of the hearing. So in actual huh!!! Mag panic ka if
youre the prosecution lawyer. So the escape is deemed a waiver
of his notice. So the escape makes his absence unjustified. And it
is deemed waiver of his right to cross examination the witness.
What if he appears for the purpose of cross examining the
witness? Can he do that? Yes! He can waive, he cannot waive,
thats the right of the accused.
present his evidence. It does not affect his

presumption of innocence.
REASON: The court is still mandated to convict/acquit the accused

based on proof beyond reasonable doubt. Meaning if the
prosecution, despite na wala xang kalaban still fails to present the
proof beyond reasonable doubt, the court can always acquit the
accused because the presumption of innocence is still there. Dyan
mu ma appreciate the difference ng proof in civil cases therefore
the relief will be granted to that party whereas in criminal cases
BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT talaga!!. Presumption of innocence
vs proof that was shown by the prosecution and it must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
March 13, 2012

Transcribed by: Kirsten & Marlie
----------------------------------------WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
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.
Sounds familiar to you? Under what article?
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 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
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 of habeas corpus 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
of
habeas
corpus.
What is the effect of Trial by Absentia vis--vis the right of the

accused to be presumed innocent. Na-imagine mu yung scenario
sa court?
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.
ARRAIGNMENT THE ACCUSED PLEAS Now

what happen? The prosecution will continue to
present his witnesses / documentary evidence
without the presence of the accused. So what
do we have? Only that he waived that right by
escaping /by not appearing during his term to
During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas

corpus, any person thus arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within three days, otherwise he shall be released.
Executive department: powers of the commander in chief,

particularly Sec 18. It covers both martial law and the suspension
of
the
privilege
of
the
writ
of
habeas
corpus.
Now, the second to the last paragraph of Art 7 Sec 18 states that:
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.
I think you already know the implication of this provision. And then
during the suspension of the privilege, any person arrested or
detained shall be judicially charged within three days, otherwise he
shall be released. So, the usual limit for detention is suspended for
3 days but only insofar as those persons judicially charged for
rebellion or offenses inherent therein. So as I've said, when you
say the privilege of the writ is suspended, it only affects these
classes of persons or these classes of offenses or charges.
WHAT IS A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (WHC)?
Writ- order
Habeas corpus- produce the body
Corpus- body
Under the rules on the ROC:

The WHC is an order directed to the person detaining another
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a

designated time and place and explain why that person detained
should not be released.
It has nothing to do with any other issue but only as to the reason
of his detention. In other words, the only objective of the WHC is
to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint and to relieve the
person
therefrom
if
such
restraint
is
illegal.
she be freed from those conditions? She has to file for a petition
for the issuance of WHC to inquire into the validity of those
conditions.
AMPATUAN V MACARAIG
622 SCRA 266 (2010)
This involves a police officer from Sultan Kudarat suspected of

killing the head of the Law Dept. of Comelec. He was placed in
inquest. There was an investigation conducted by the prosecutor.
During the inquest, however, while there was still no charge, he
was released. But under the PNP rules and regulations, he was
charged for grave misconduct arising from murder. So, there was
an administrative charge. Now, the PNP law allows the PNP
Director General to place him under "restrictive custody". So
notwithstanding that he was released by the City Prosecutor
because there was no charge yet, there was an administrative
case filed against him by the PNP and because of that, he was
placed on "restrictive custody". His movement is being monitored
by the PNP General, kung saan siya and he was not yet allowed to
go back to his family. The wife filed for a petition for the issuance
of the WHC.
SC said that here, since the PNP law authorizes "restrictive
custody" as a matter of internal discipline, this constitutes a valid
argument for his continued detention. In other words, the
continued detention is lawful. And besides, he is not really in
actual detention and is under other nominal restraint which is
beyond the ambit of HC. Under monitioring lang siya ng PNP, so it
is not a proper subject for the petition for the issuance of the
WHC.
IN RE: AQUINO V ESPERON

531 SCRA 788 (2007)
The only issue on the WHC: Is there a legal basis for the
continued detention of that person?
FUNCTIONS OF THE WHC:
1) It is the only effective remedy to question any form of

involuntary restraints.
Restraint does not limit itself to imprisonment or custody. It covers
any form of involuntary restraints.
Example:
VILLAVICENCIO V LUKBAN
39 Phil 778 (1919)
Women were involuntary sent to a far-flung island. This is the
case of prostitutes in the red light district of Manila where they
were all sent on a ship going to Davao. Davao was still a very,
very far island from Manila. Unheard of for most of them. There
was no imprisonment to talk about, yet they were there
involuntarily. What case should you file? File for damages and/or
criminal charges against those persons who sent these women to
Davao? But the objective is to release these women and bring
them back to Manila.
The proper petition is the petition for the WHC. It will inquire into
the validity of the involuntary restraint.
MONCUPA VS. ENRILE
141 SCRA 233 (1986)
Here the petitioner was detained by the military through the
Secretary of Defense, Enrile. After detention, she was released
with no charges. The release, however, was with other conditions
like she has to report every now and then to the Secretary of
Defense and she should not give interviews to reporters. So, there
were accompanying conditions to her release.
Although there is no custody, no actual detention to speak of,
what we have here is a detention with conditions. How should
Major Aquino is the head of the highest officer of the Scout

Rangers na nandoon sa Air Force Barracks. They had this petition
of redress against the government but they are members of the
military, so they cannot do that. He was one of those charged with
violation against the Articles of War. So, he was under the custody
of the military where he is supposed to be under court martial.
The wife filed for a petition for the issuance of the WHC because
according to her, he was not placed in his barracks, quarters or
tents as mandated in the articles of war, rather he was placed in a
solitary confinement with maximum security detention cell and the
wife also questions the fact that she was restricted from visiting
her husband. What is she questioning?
She is not questioning the legality of the detention because there
is a legal basis for such and that is the fact that he is under court
martial proceedings for violation of the articles of war.
What she is questioning is actually the conditions of his
confinement which is not the proper question in the petition for
WHC (Bakit sa isang maximum protection detention cell? Bakit
hindi sa barracks where he can freely roam around?) Again, the
question should only inquire into the validity of the continued
detention.
Example:
You already filed a bail bond and was approved by the court but
your client was not yet released by the chief of police,
notwithstanding several request, notwithstanding the filing of
illegal detention, arbitrary detention pala. What would you file as a
lawyer for your client to be immediately released? WHC.
Iba yung arbitrary detention kasi liability yun ng officer.
2) It functions as a post-conviction remedy.

Here, the convict is already serving sentence. What happens if
along the way, there is a new law that, if applied retroactively, will
be advantageous to your client or to the convict? Say, the penalty
has
been
reduced,
what
would
you
file?
GUMAHON V DIR. OF PRISON

37 SCRA 420 (1958)
He was convicted in 1953 for the complex crime of rebellion with
murder. Until now, jurisprudence would say that there is no
complex crime of rebellion with murder, right? What we have is
only rebellion and the murder is already incorporated in the former
crime. This was because of the ruling in the case of Amado v
Hernandez that was decided 3 years after he started serving
sentence. His original penalty was life imprisonment then, lumabas
ang Amado v Hernandez where the penalty of rebellion is just
prision mayor. Can he appeal his case? No. There is a period of
appeal, which is usually 15 days from the time of judgment. Can
he file a certiorari for grave abuse of discretion? No, it is already
beyond the period. Usually it is 60 days.
What can he file in order to question the validity of his continued
detention? WHC.
But when can he file that action? When is his cause of action
accrue? When he has serve at least prision mayor maximum. He
can allege that he has already served the penalty as properly
interpreted by the SC. Because after the conviction, when the
decision is already final and executory, it can no longer be
changed. Here, the decision cannot be changed but the continued
detention can be questioned via the petition of a WHC.
Another example is the case of
LAMEN V DIRECTOR OF PRISON
241 SCRA 537 (1995)
The accused here is convicted for violation of RA 6245. At that
time, the law provided for a penalty of life imprisonment then
came the case of Pp v Simon. In this case, the SC interpreted for
the first time the penalty range for the crime of possessing or
selling regulated drugs. The law says the penalty ranges from
prision correccional to death. So SC divided the penalty in relation
to the grams of shabu. Here, he was caught in possession of 13.6
grams of shabu. During his conviction, he was sentenced to LI but
after the SC interpreted the penalty range in a later decision, he
should only serve the penalty of prision correccional. So ilang
years yun? Diba, 6 years? So, when he has already served 6 years,
the proper petition to question his continued detention is the WHC.
Also, even if the decision is already final and the convict is already
serving sentence, if it shown that there is a deprivation of the
constitutional rights of the accused, the court is deemed ousted of
its
jurisdiction.
Simple and easily understood example is the case of Olaguer. He
was a civilian charged and convicted before the military tribunal.
There were proceedings but at the end, he was denied of due
process because he was tried before the military courts following
military rules of procedure. That's why the SC said that that court
has no jurisdiction over this person. That military court is
supposedly ousted of its jurisdiction. What happens to the
decision? How would you question that? Through a petition for the
WHC. You would allege that the court has no jurisdiction over your
person.
ANDAL V PEOPLE
307 SCRA 650
However, there was already judgment, the accused already
served his sentence and then later on, he questioned the decision
through a petition of WHC alleging that during the police line-up,
he was identified without the assistance of a counsel. Thus, he
was denied of his constitutional right. You know that the argument
is wrong but had it been right, you know that the petition for the
WHC
is
proper.
IN RE: GARCIA
399 SCRA 292 (2000)

The same. Judgment, sentence, wala na silang ma-file, hindi na
sila maka-appeal, hindi na sila maka-certiorari. To question his
continued detention, he alleged that his constitutional right was
violated during trial because the judge failed to appreciate the
evidence. The argument is wrong because it is part of the duty of
the judge to appreciate evidence. But had it been right, the court
would
have
been
ousted
of
its
jursidiction.
FERIA VS. CA
325 SCRA 525 (2000)
the same. He alleged that he was deprived of his constitutional

right and so he filed for a petition of the WHC. He asked for a
transfer from his present detention facility to another. He
requested to transfer to Muntinlupa but he can't be transferred
because allegedly, his conviction papers got lost or nasunog. So,
according to him, there is no longer a basis for his conviction.
Wala na ang papers, so how will you prove that he was convicted?
Kaya nagfile sya ng WHC.
The SC said that: you read your pleading, read your complaint.
You said that you are serving sentence because of conviction. The
fact that the conviction papers were lost does not affect
jurisdiction. Although tama sana ang WHC, the argument is wrong.
WRIT OF AMPARO
Writ of amparo is a very recent rule promulgated by the SC to
protect the constitutional rights of the people under Art. 8.
SEC. OF NATIONAL DEFENSE VS. MANALO
568 SCRA 1 (2008)
The case of Manalo brothers is the first SC decision applying this
rule. So the rule of Amparo took effect on Oct 24, 2007.
The case is actually filed sometime in August 2001. There was yet
no rule. What they filed was a prohibition or injunction and TRO.
When the rule came out, they manifested that it be changed to a
petition for a WOA.
What happened to the Manalo brothers?

They were suspected as CCP-NPA supporters. Actually, the
brother, not these two brothers Raymond and Reynand, is
suspected to be the leader of NPA in their town. Since sila ang
nandoon, the two were forcibly abducted. They were tortured and
threatened of death. The family actually filed for a WHC para
irelease sila. Now every time that there is supposed to be a
hearing on the WHC, the persons who abducted them would bring
them to their house, ipakita sila sa nanay and threaten the nanay
that she will be killed or her sons will be killed if she appears in the
hearing. They were subjected to continuous torture for 18 months.
But of course, there were scheduled hearings so somehow along
the way, they were also subjected to medical treatment para
gumaling yung mga sugat then after, torture na naman. Now, they
applied for the issuance of the petition for the WOA because it
seems that the WHC will not be sufficient. In fact, in the WHC, it
was not shown that they were detained by someone.
But here, they were able to identify the persons who abducted
them (members of the CAFGU who were their neighbors) and the
persons who were cohorts of the CAFGUs who were military men.
They actually saw where they were brought (in a military fort). (I
forgot the name of the fort but read this case). When they filed
the WOA, the SC granted and ordered the petitioner(s), this
Secretary of National Defense the following (these are the reliefs
granted
to
them):
1) To furnish respondents with all official and unofficial

reports of the investigation undertaken in connection with
their case, except those already filed with the court.
Because the military said that in lieu of this petition, they already
conducted an investigation but it did not actually happen.
2) To confirm in writing the present places of official
assignments of respondents w/in 5 days from notice of

this
decision
Their location is necessary in order to avoid them because these
are persons who are continually threatening the liberty and
security of the Manalo brothers.
3) To produce to the CA the medical records and charts

because as I've mentioned earlier, they were subjected to medical
treatments. These will verify the allegations in the pleading that
they
were
tortured
and
subjected
to
treatment.
WHAT IS THE WRIT OF AMPARO?

As provided for in Sec 1 of the Rule is a remedy available to
any person whose right to life, liberty, and security is
violated or threatened by a violation or an unlawful act or
commission by a public official or employee or by a private
individual or entity. This covers extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
This power made its first appearance in the 1987 Constitution to
protect the constitutional rights of the people. Before the 1987
Constitution, the court has no power to protect the constitutional
rights of the people. The WOA was taken from Mexico. Amparo is
properly translated as protection. WOA is an order of protection. It
is a protective remedy in providing an initial relief consisting of
appropriate measures and directive crafted by the court. So the
court can actually craft for measures it sees proper to protect this
constitutional rights of life, liberty, and security from threat or
violation. This was originally conceived as a response to the
extraordinary rise in the number of killings and forced
disappearances.
WOA, therefore, is an extraordinary and independent
remedy. You can still file a petition for other remedies under the
ROC allowing alongside the WOA.
TWO MATTERS:
1.
EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS
2.
ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES or THREATS
So when you allege EXTRALEGAL KILLING OR

ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES and you wanted to be protected
from this, either the damage has been done or your properties are
threaten thereof, the proper remedy would be the WRIT OF
AMPARO.
1.
EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS refer to killings committed

without due process of law, without legal safeguards in
judicial proceedings
2.
ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCES an arrest, detention,

abduction of person by ordinary institution or organize group
or private individuals acting indirect or direct appearance
with the government. The refusal of the state to disclose the
fate or whereabouts of the persons concern, or the refusal to
acknowledge the deprivation of liberty which in a case such
persons outside the protection of law.
If you cannot cope with copying what is there, actually it is in

the case of the SECRETARY of DEFENSE v MANALO, the
definition was there. You dont have to memorize this, under the
rules when a WRIT is issued against an official this requires a
compliant to RETURN. Now, if you would like to have an idea of
what a RETURN could be, because you will be given an idea how
available a WRIT OF AMPARO is. Because the context of the
RETURN is MANDATORY, in fact a mere denial is not sufficient. So
if a WRIT is issued or served of an official what is required is
placed in his RETURN. Of course those are noble defenses, that he
did not violate the right to life, liberty or security of the
aggrieved party. But more than that, what course of actions have
you taken to determine the fate or whereabouts.
Example parent ang nag file na nawawala ang anak niya,

nagreport siya sa military, walang aksyon. So the parent filed a
petition for WRIT OF AMPARO. The court would order this officer
not only to explain his defenses that he did not involve in that
enforced disappearance but he has also taken action, honorable
information in the possession of the respondent pertaining to the
threat, act or omission against the aggrieved party. Maybe he has
already received reports from petitioners regarding this person,
baka subject or target na pala siya ng military, PNP or DDS. If the
respondent is a public official or employee the RETURN shall
further state the actions that had been formerly taken, verified the
identity of the aggrieved party. Recovery and preserved evidence
related to the death or disappearance of the person, identifying
witnesses and obtain statements. So maraming nirerequire sa
public officer not only to answer the military involvement (such as
the military or police is not involve), they are required to write in
their RETURN these FACTS, determine the cause, manner, location
and time of death or disappearance as well as other facts that
may have brought about the disappearance, that might apprehend
the person/s involve in the death or disappearance and to bring
the suspected offenders before a competent court. So if you are
the secretary of defense or you are the chief of the armed forces
and you are issued this WRIT, kung ikaw ang mastermind ng
disappearance, you will be forced to bring all offenses siguro,
because you are required to perform all these.
Now, also the WRIT provides for INTERIM RELIEFS. While
it is still being heard the court will issue TEMPORARY DETENTION
ORDER. The petitioner or the aggrieved party, even the members
of immediate family of the aggrieved person are protected by the
government agency or accredited person, pwede ring mga madre
as long as they are accredited. INSPECTION ORDER, Order in the
person in possession or control of the disputed land, or other
property to forbid entry for the purpose of inspecting, surveying,
usurping or operation thereof
ROXAS v MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
630 SCRA 211 (2010)
Here involved is Roxas who is a US citizen, very young girl,
US citizen involve a BAYAN- USA, she enrolled in their program to
tour around the Philippines. Biruin nyo US citizen na siya pumunta
lang siya sa Philippines to look at the barrios. She has a medical
background, she brought with her, her stethoscope and
sphygmomanometer, and allegedly she was conducting a medical
mission. But one day while resting in a house, around 3 persons
abducted them everything was taken from them, she was actually
under custody in an unknown place, blindfolded all the time for
around 5 days. Now, one of her prayers is a petition of WRIT OF
AMPARO, because according to her she was brought to a military
camp. Because according to her even if she was taken blind
folded she can hear planes landing and taking-off, gun fire and
construction going on. So why not military camp ito?
So the SC based on the estimate the time of travel, they went to
this particular camp, actually the CA denied her prayer for relief ,
INSPECTION ORDER, because according to CA concurred by the
SC the basic requirement before granting the INSPECTION
ORDER, the place to be inspected is at least determinable for the
allegation in the court. Now, according to her, she is certain that it
is a military camp because of the time travel.
But the SC said that you are not familiar with place, there might
be mistake, also there is no certainty that it is a military camp just
because you heard airplanes landing and takeoff, gun fire and
construction while being blind folded. So it was not granted,
because it has NOT been an INTENTION of SC to make the WRIT
OF AMPARO AN AVENUE OF FISHING EXPEDITION OF EVIDENCE.
So in that case she was denied the prayer.
The court can also issue a PRODUCTION ORDER, an order
to any person in possession, in custody or in control of any
designated documents, papers, books, accounts, letters,
photographs, objects or tangible things or others, in digitize or
applied forms which constitute or contain evidence written in their
petition for RETURN. To produce and permit their inspection,
copy
In this case of the MANALO BROTHERS there was a
PRODUCTION ORDER issued by the court but the NATIONAL
DEFENSE, the petitioners then, said that the PRODUCTION ORDER
must comply the requisites of SEARCH WARRANT. Ano yun?
Application, personal knowledge, probable cause determined by
the judge in relation to one offense. So is this a correct argument?
The SC said NO. This PRODUCTION ORDER is the order to protect
the individual against government intrusion. It is an order issued
against the government to protect an individual. Whereas in the
issuance of a SEARCH WARRANT the act to be done is the
government.
Distinction
PRODUCTION ORDER the applicant is individual as against
the government.
SEARCH WARRANT the applicant is the state as against the
individual.
The principle applies if there is state intrusion but here there is no
state intrusion because it is for the benefit of the individual.
PRODUCTION ORDER is liken to a civil case, when you file
subpoena in a civil case. PRODUCTION of documents or things
under the rules of CIVIL PROCEDURE, subpoena is a civil
procedure it cannot be identified or confused with unreasonable
searches and seizure prohibited by the constitution.
The court can also issue WITNESS PROTECTION
ORDER, with the WRIT OF AMPARO, they will be admitted to a
witness protection program. Thus, what we have when we say
WRIT OF AMPARO, it is provided with our lacking for judicial relief
(wanting judicial relief, so vague on my recording), SUMMARY IN
NATURE. The object of inquiry is WON there was EXTRA LEGAL
KILLING or ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE, yun lang. Other matters
are beyond the scope of the WRIT OF AMPARO.
SUMMARY PROCEEDING requires at least substantial
evidence. Was there EXTRA LEGAL KILLING, was there ENFORCED
DISAPPEARANCE, was there THREAT to EXTRA LEGAL KILLING or
THREAT to ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE, yan lang ang question. If
there was, the court can already issue a WRIT provided for
protection order that maybe proper adjudicating the circumstance.
What is it now? It is NOT the WRIT to protect ourselves to duly
PROPERTY or COMMERCIAL.
ROXAS v MACAPAGAL-ARROYO
630 SCRA 211 (2010)
In ROXAS v MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, si Roxas ay US citizen
na bata, she actually filed impleading the President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, because according to her she is responsible
under the DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY. The SC
said, other than immunity from suit of the president, the
DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY couldnt apply
because it presupposes an indication of an individual liability. Now,
for individual liability is more applicable in a full-blown criminal or
administrative case rather in a summary AMPARO PROCEEDINGS.
Again, an AMPARO PROCEEDING is not an action to
determine criminal guilt to prove beyond reasonable
doubt, to determine liability for damages in a civil case
requiring preponderance of evidence or in administrative
proceedings requiring substantial evidence that will
require lengthy proceedings. Take note this is a SUMMARY
PROCEEDINGS, requiring only substantial evidence and only on
the question on whether there was EXTRALEGAL KILLING and
ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE and whether appropriate pleas
should be granted.
Now, in the case of ROXAS v MACAPAGAL-ARROYO, when she was
abducted she have with her certain items, her journal, digital cam
with memory card, many laptops with external hard disk, iPad,
wrist watch, sphygmomanometer, stethoscope, medicines and
cash.
Now, among her petition is the return of her items, CA denied and
the SC affirmed the denial, why? An order for the return of person
belongings will be equivalent to conclusive pronouncement of
liabilities.
Again the WRIT OF AMPARO is not the venue for determining
liability. So the return will only be granted once the liability of the
respondent was already been fixed where in whole and assumptive
proceeding. But why did the court denied, again the WRIT OF
MAPARO is NOT A DETERMINATION OF PROPRIETARY RIGHTS,
right to property. Under the general rulings of Property rights
which is already beyond the scope of the WRIT OF AMPARO. So
again the scope is SPECIFIC and LIMITED ONLY on
EXTRALEGAL KILLING and ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE.
PAGLAS V MONTIL
They file a WRIT OF AMPARO because according to them they lost
in an ejectment case. They are supposed to be ejected. The
decision was already at bar on appeal and their house is about to
be demolished or some of them their houses were already been
demolished. According to them it is a violation of their right of
houses. The SC it is already beyond the scope of the WRIT OF
AMPARO. This is purely property issue of litigation which is beyond
the scope of a WRIT OF AMPARO. Again the scope is only
EXTRALEGAL KILLING and ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE. It does
not include the protection of the right to travel that is the case280
(2009)
Father Robert Reyes was among those in Manila Peninsula Siege
because of that they were caught. There was an inquest, there
was an investigation on WON he will be charge with rebellion. In
the meantime while the inquest was ongoing, there was hold
departure order against all of them were caught. Actually the
charge was never pursued against Father Robert Reyes but the
hold departure order is still there. So every time that he travels he
will be detained temporarily in the deputation office.
So he filed petition for the WRIT OF AMPARO, according to him it
is a violation of his liberty, right to travel. Is he correct?
The SC said No. Focus is the EXTRALEGAL KILLING and
ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE lang. It does not fix liabilities for
disappearances, killings or theft thereof, whether criminal
liabilities, civil liabilities or administrative liabilities. Again this is
summary in nature.
The TWO FOLD ROLES of WRIT OF AMPARO:

It is PREVENTIVE and CURATIVE.
PREVENTIVE brings the exculpation of immunity in
the commission of EXTRALEGAL KILLINGS and ENFORCED
DISAPPEARANCES.
CURATIVE as you can see in the RETURN, yung
required, facilitates subsequent punishment of perpetrators, as it
yield it leads to subsequent investigation and action. The public
officers are actually required or mandated to take action, to
conduct investigation, to identify suspects, arrests suspects and
then litigate them.
What is the difference between the WRIT OF AMPARO

& WRIT OF HABEAS DATA?
REVIEW
WRIT OF HABEA
CORPUS
WRIT OF AMPARO
-To bring or
produce the body
-The object is
unlawful
detention,
-EXTRALEGAL KILLING
and ENFORCED
DISAPPEARANCE
-RIGHT TO LIFE,
LIBERTY AND
WRIT OF
HABEAS DATA
-To produce the
data or information
-More on the
RIGHT TO
PRIVACY
continuous
detention
SECURITY
RIGHT TO SELF-INCRIMINATION
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
Under this rule a WRIT is readily available to a persons RIGHT TO
PRIVACY, LIFE, and LIBERTY AND SECURITY. So privacy in LIFE,
privacy in LIBERTY, privacy in SECURITY is violated by a public
officer or employee or by a private individual particularly those
engaged or involve in the gathering, collecting or storing of data or
information regarding the person, family home and
correspondence of aggrieved party.
The WRIT of HABEAS DATA in general is designed to protect by
means of judicial complaint the image, privacy, honor, information
and freedom of information of an individual. This is meant to
provide for the right to truth and the informational guarantee the
safeguarding constitutional guarantee to protect against abuse. To
protect breach of information and to help at least in the form of
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA.
In the case of ROXAS v MACAPAGAL- ARROYO, that US Citizen na
na-involve sa BAYANMUNA, because actually she was allegedly
abducted because she was included in the order of AMPARO of the
Military, so may listahan pala to, there was actually a video
footage and photograph wherein ROXAS to be allegedly among
those in the photograph involved in a MILITARY EXERCISE by the
rebels and in those videos, and this was being shown by Esqueron,
this come to the public. So in this ROXAS case the petitioner is
suppressed any existing governmental files or the linking her to
the communist movement and with the issuance of the WRIT OF
HABEAS DATA the respondents were enjoined further distributing
or causing the distribution to the public of any records in whatever
forms or reports documents of similar papers relative to her allege
spies with the CPP-NPA.
So, if you think that you are included in the list of the DDS, and
you have special prove to that, what petition can you file so that
you will be deleted from that list? WRIT OF HABEAS DATA. Like
the WRIT OF AMPARO it will not issue to protect duly property or
commercial concerns, if the petitions involve are vague or
doubtful.
In fact in the case of DEL ROSARIO, the judgment case again,
now according to them they want to get the WRIT OF HABEAS
DATA for the police report to be released. Police report na they
were threaten na sinusunog yung bahay nila at may threats na
may pumupunta sa bahay nila. Allegedly there was a police report,
they wanted it to be shown and provided them. The SC said, ang
dali-dali naming kumuha ng police report and beside it is in
relation to your property rights, so the WRIT OF HABEAS DATA will
not be a proper remedy.
In MANILA COMPANY, its a labor case, wherein the employee was
terminated because of a confidential letter submitted by an
anonymous person to the employer. Allegedly siniraan siya doon,
she wanted that letter to be produced. So is a WRIT OF HABEAS
DATA a proper remedy? NO. Again right to privacy in relation to
right to life, liberty and security, that is a labor issue. Labor is
under property rights also.
2nd part
Transcribed by Jade Canada
b. Various Proceedings
CHAVEZ VS. CA
24 SCRA 663 (1963)
In Chaves vs. CA, this is a petition for habeas corpus and then in
this case criminal case against Chavez, the first witness called by
the prosecution is the accused your honor may we call in the
witness stand the accused himself, Chavez. The accused said he
will not testify and he invokes the right to self-incrimination. The
lower court judge however said that the prosecution has the right
to call any witness in the witness stand including the accused. And
the counsel for the accused cannot raise any objection thereof. In
other words he is compelled to take the witness stand. Now he
was convicted vis a vis his testimony so he filed for a case for
habeas corpus. Was his right against self-incrimination violated?
He refused to take the witness stand. And the SC said . Ordinary
witness. Whereas an ordinary witness may be compelled to take
the witness stand. How? Subpoena, you are required to appear in
court. (case) Refused to take the witness stand and any and all
questions
He may all together refuse to take the witness stand. For in reality
what is the purpose of witness stand? To incriminate himself. The
mere fact of identifying himself is already incriminating himself. In
criminal cases, the first thing the prosecution could do is to
identify the accused. Now recall, in the movies that youve seen,
diba may scenes na do you know the accused? , is he around in
this court? , if you look around and find the accused is he the
one with black color? Because its the first object of the
prosecution to identify the accused. Now when the accused is
called to the witness stand, he already incriminates himself
because he already identifies himself. So, his rights as an accused
enjoys the right against self-incrimination all throughout. Recent
jurisprudence however, extends this right to the accused even to
respondents in administrative investigation. If the administrative
case pertains to the nature of criminal proceeding or analogous to
criminal proceedings. What do you mean by that? Since were
talking of conviction. If this administrative case has this effect of
penalty equivalent to conviction, then the respondent may invoke
his right against self-incrimination. And he may refuse to take the
witness stand.
As what happened in the case of Capunan

This case is an administrative case of illegally acquired assets. As a
result of the case if hes found guilty, his assets will be __ as a
form of penalty. So when the respondent invoked his right against
self-incrimination when he was called to take the witness stand,
the SC said that is permissible.
Also in the case of
PASCUAL JR. VS. BOARD
28 SCRA 344 (1969)
REVIEW
WRIT OF HABEA
CORPUS
WRIT OF
AMPARO
-To bring or
produce the body
-The object is
unlawful
detention,
continuous
detention
-RIGHT TO LIFE,
LIBERTY AND
SECURITY specifically
in relation to
EXTRALEGAL KILLING
and ENFORCED
DISAPPEARANCE
WRIT OF
HABEAS DATA
- RIGHT TO
PRIVACY in
relation to RIGHT
TO LIFE, LIBERTY
AND SECURITY
-To produce the
data or
information
In the cases you read their full text. In all the cases, like the Roxas
case, Manalo case, at least you read the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
in MANALO CASE and in ROXAS CASE.
The respondent here is a doctor, case for medical malpractice

before the court. So this is a case of administrative. if found guilty
what would be his penalty for medical malpractice? Revoke his
license, which according to the SC is a penalty, almost the same as
conviction. So in this case, where the respondent was called to
take the witness stand and refused to take the witness stand that
he was compelled to give his testimony, the SC that was violation
of his right against self-incrimination. Therefore, that is not the
character of the suit involved but the nature of the proceeding .
The constitutional guarantee, along with other rights granted an

accused, stands for a belief that while crime should not go
unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, such desirable
objectives should not be accomplished according to means or
methods offensive to the high sense of respect accorded the
human personality. More and more in line with the democratic
creed, the deference accorded an individual even those suspected
of the most heinous crimes is given due weight. To quote from
Chief Justice Warren, "the constitutional foundation underlying the
privilege is the respect a government ... must accord to the dignity
and integrity of its citizens."
against you. Merely testifying and/or producing evidence do not

render the witness immune from prosecution notwithstanding his
invocation of the right against self- incrimination. He is merely
saved from the use against him of such statement and nothing
more. In other words hes still at risk of prosecution
What about in other proceedings? The witness may invoke the

right at an appropriate time when incriminating question is asked.
In other words, if you are not an accused in a criminal case, can
you invoke the right against self incrimination? Yes but only when
the incriminating question is asked. The difference is that you
cannot refuse to take the witness stand because before that there
is no way of knowing WON the question is incriminating. So an
ordinary witness cannot refused to take the witness stand even if
it is a criminal case except the accused.
Grants immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense to

which his compelled testimony relates. So he is immune from
prosecution. An example of which is a state witness. Your immune
from prosecution.
BAGADIONG VS. GONZALES

94 SCRA 906 (1979)
In this case this is a CIVIL case for prohibition. When the counsel
for the plaintiff started to present his evidence, the first witness
that he called is lo and behold, the kalaban . Can the plaintiff call
the kalaban to the witness the stand And that the defendant
refused to take the witness stand? There is no prohibiton to calling
the other party to the witness stand because under the rules of
evidence, presentation of witnesses, one can present a hostile
witness (defendant). There are different sets of rules in examining
a hostile witness. Under the rules there, there is no prohibition to
call the other party as a witness. So as I have said earlier, there is
no guarantee for person to refuse to take the witness stand.
Again, the right against self-incrimination is first and foremost,
only available to the accused in a criminal proceeding. The
privilege however particularly in this case, is considered only an
option to refuse to answer and incriminating question and not
prohibition of inquiry.
So this right is merely an option to refuse to answer an
incriminating question. But how do we know if the question is
incriminating? You have to hear the question first. Remember the
case of IN: Re Sabio? Settlement of some GOCCs were
summoned with subpoena before the legislative inquiry in the
senate and they refuse to appear on the ground of violation of
right to privacy and right against self incrimination. He refused to
appear before the legislative inquiry. And the SC said, you cannot
refuse to appear. You can only invoke the right against selfincrimination when the incriminating question is asked. Generally
speaking, only at the time when the claim of privilege may be
invoked.
Thats why the rule of the lawyer or counsel in this instance is very
important. Why? Of the question is asked sometimes the witness
would not know whether the question is incriminating .What the
lawyer should do? To make a timely objection. And if the lawyer is
ineffective, and did not make the timely objection? Whats the
result? Waiver of the right to self-incrimination. You will learn this
later in your rule of evidence because it matters whether there is
objection. If you raise it before the question is asked, then there is
no violation if you raise it after the question is answered, then
there is already a waiver.
Immunity statutes may be classified into 2 kinds:
1.) Use Immunity
2.) Transactional Immunity
Use immunity and transactional immunity

Use immunity you are required to give testimony or to produce
evidence in exchange whatever evidence you produce, will not be
use against you. You may still be prosecuted but the testimony
you use will not be used against you.
Use immunity" prohibits use of witness' compelled
testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with
the criminal prosecution of the witness. You may still be
prosecuted only that the testimony that you give will not be used
Transactional Immunity
GALMARAN VS. PAMARAN

138 SCRA 294 (1985)
This is a fact finding committee investigating the facts and
circumstances surrounding the death, murder, homicide and
killing of Benigno Aquino Sr . They were looking for suspects and
they have interviewed witnesses even potential suspects. Now ,
Corazon Aquino __ finding the assailant and the authority to
investigate. A law was enacted granting the authority to
investigate. and lets see if this is a use immunity or transactional
immunity.
Section 5 of that law provides that
Section 5 of P.D. 1886

SEC. 5. No person shall be excused from attending and testifying
or from producing books, records, correspondence, documents, or
other evidence in obedience to a subpoena issued by the Board on
the ground that his testimony or the evidence required of him may
tend to incriminate him or subject him to penalty or forfeiture; but
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, after having
invoked his privilege against self-incrimination, to testify or
produce evidence, except that such individual so testifying shall
not be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury
committed in so testifying, nor shall he be exempt from demotion
or removal from office. (Emphasis supplied)
So in other words you cannot refuse to appear and you

cannot refuse to testify even if the incriminating question is asked
for this law says you cannot refuse to testify even if the question is
incriminatory but your testimony will not be used against you in
matter or thing concerning which he is compelled, after having
invoked his privilege against self-incrimination except that such
individual so testifying shall not be exempt from prosecution and
punishment for perjury committed in so testifying, nor shall he be
exempt from demotion or removal from office. Kasi kasaramihan
ng inivestigate ay members of the military. Is this use immunity or
transactional immunity?
USE immunity. It grants merely immunity from use of any
statement given before the Board, but not immunity from
prosecution by reason or on the basis thereof. is this provision
valid? Your are still mandated to appear/testify.
Whats the problem there? You cannot refuse to appear even if the
question is incriminating but the testimony will not be used against
you. You cannot invoke self-incrimination but your immune to use
your testimony. so there is legal possibility
Section 4 of the however provides that the person who refuse to
give his testimony will be under the pain of contempt or will be
penalize for contempt.
SEC. 4. The Board may hold any person in direct or indirect
contempt, and impose appropriate penalties therefor. A person
guilty of .... including ... refusal to be sworn or to answer as a
witness or to subscribe to an affidavit or deposition when lawfully
required to do so may be summarily adjudged in direct contempt
by the Board. .
What do we have here, a law compelling a person to give a
testimony and the state said that is valid because what is
required to the person is he cant invoke his right against selfincrimination so it seems to us that he cannot invoke his right
against self-incrimination and the SC. . And the SC said first, how
can he invoked it if he can only invoke it with pain of contempt
2nd, it is not for the state to wait for the accused to invoke it in this
case. It is for the state to explain to the accused what will be the
circumstances if he gives his testimony and the presumption is
that person can invoke his right against self-incrimination and
therefore he is immune. So the SC said, to avoid voiding this
provision, the SC said it would be incompliance with the
constitutional provision against right of self incrimination so the SC
said, since the accused has already given his testimony it should
be presumed that he invoke his right against self-incrimination and
therefore the testimony whatever it is should not be used against
them.
Review
CRIMINAL CASE- prohibition of inquiry

CIVIL CASE an option to answer an incriminating question
ADMINISTRATIVE CASE when the punishment is equivalent to
conviction (Pascual jr. vs. Board)
What is the effect if the court fails to comply with the mandatory
period to dispose the case? Will it lead to the acquittal of the
accused? No. The judge is mandated only to make a certification
with the defect of the reason of delay and further mandated to
resolve the case ASAP. It does not affect the validity of the
proceedings but the judge is or can be subject for administrative
cases or discipline.
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
This is commonly called as a privilege against self incrimination.
Being compelled the witness against himself is an inhuman act.
During the time of the inquest of witches in the old centuries long
ago, HOW ARE ThE VILLIgERS able to know that they are witches?
It is by throwing them to the cliff.. If he survive he is a witch, if
you die, your sins are forgiven.
Actually that compelling you to testify against you is indeed a
inhuman act.
SCOPE OF THIS RIGTH
Section 16 speedy deposition of cases
Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy

disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial,
or administrative bodies.
Speedy Disposition vs Speedy Trial
Remember in Article VI the judicial department that there are
mandatory period for disposing cases. For Supreme Court it is 24
months. For low courts it is 12 months. For the lower courts 3
months
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY DISPOSING CASES?
From the time it is submitted from decision already. So
you count from there.
WHAT IS SPEEDY TRIAL?
When you say speedy trial you can impose it when the
trial of the case is too long. It is only during the
pendency of the trial but not after the case is submitted
for decision.
WHAT IS SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASE?
Speedy disposition of case can be invoke when the
case is already for decision. From then on you can invoke
the right for speedy disposition.
SPEEDY TRIAL
Speedy trial belongs to the
accused. It is under the rights
of the accused because his life
liberty and property is involved
here.
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASE

Whereas speedy disposition of
cases can be invoke by anyone.
Speedy trial take

available only in
proceedings.
Speedy disposition is available

to all kinds of proceedings
note is
criminal
WHEN THE TRIAL IS TOO LONG WHAT WILL YOU INVOKE?

Speedy trial
IF THE TRIAL IS A CIVIL CASE WHAT WILL YOU INVOKE? Not
speedy disposition. Not yet until it is submitted for decision.
NOTE: When we say in Speedy trial the delay would not refer to
mere mathematical computation. It is a case to case basis.
This it covers testimonial compulsions.

Testimonies are
something that is spoken or uttered. While it also prescribes
physical or moral compulsion to export communications it does not
include the body of the accused in evidence when it tried. What do
we mean by that? We have this case of
US vs TANG TENG
OBJECT: Body Fluids
SC ruled: No violations
We dont have the constitution that time and yet we
have already the right against self incrimination. In this case, we
have a cines men was hideous in obtains a 7 year old girl. What he
did is place a powder in is organ and force herself to the girl. The
older sister now discover that the girl develop a vaginal disease
called gonorrhea. Now based on the information the police strips
the clothes of the accused and collected the body fluids of the
accused. According to him, is right to self incrimination was
violated because the substance taken was without his consent.
The judge in the lower court decided against him and admitted in
evidence the test.
The judge in the RTC said that the accused was not
compelled to make any admission and was not ask to answer any
question. The mere fact that the object found in this person in
sampling seems no more the infringement of the lingo that the
introduction of evidence was a stolen property taken from the
person thief. In other words there was no testimonial compulsion.
The right to self incrimination is available to protect the person
against testimonial compulsion. It does not protect against all
kinds of compulsions. By analogy, The fluids or substance was
taken from the accused the lower court judge said which is affirm
by the supreme court was like taking stolen goods from a thief.
Pag may nakita kang object taken by a thief, there can be no
objection of taking it and introduce it as evidence against the thief.
So it is just like that. So no violation of the right. The prohibition
under the law at such time and the same was under our 1897
constitution is simply a prohibition which is a legal process to
extract evidence from the defendants owns lips against its will
and admission of his guilt. The accused shall not be compelled to
admit is guilt.
VILLAFLOR VS SUMMERS
OBJECT: Pregnancy Test
Violation: No violation
The accused here was charged with adultery and the
court order for her to undergo pregnancy test. She refuses to
undergo pregnancy test by the court and such reason she was
detain until she would take the test. She filed a petition for habeas
corpus to ask for her release. She invokes the violation of the right
against self incrimination. Was it proper? Of course no. It is
because there was no testimonial compulsion. She was merely
subjected to report herself for physical examination. What is
prohibited is merely testimonial compulsion. Therefore, an ocular
inspection of the body would be persuasive for. As long as the
examination is done without embarrassment to the accused there
would be no right that is violated. The court even ordered that she
be examine by here own obi.
Example:
requiring a person to reenact the crime scene. Kahit pa

silent movie ang ginawa nya if it would amount to the
disclosure of incriminating facts and communicative in
nature then it is deemed covered. What are not covered
are purely mechanical acts.
WHAT are MECHANICAL ACTS? Acts which the accused are made
to execute which are not meant or earned to disclose facts but
was certain physical attributes determinable by simple observation.
Not meant to earned undisclosed facts- the facts are already

People vs Rondero
OBJECT: Hair strands
This is rape with homicide case of a 9 year old girl. When
they found the body of the girl, there are strands of hair in her
hands. An order was made by the Judge to pull air strands of the
accused to which the accused refuse. In this case the SC ruled
that the right against self incrimination does not include the body
in evidence. What is only covered is the testimonial compulsions.
It is not required for the accused to admit is guilt.
People vs Yatar
known to the investigator , complainant and to the victim. It is

only to confirm the presence of these known facts.
Example:
1. Tattoo in the chest of the accused. The victim knows that
the assailant has a tattoo. If the accused is required to
remove his clothing to prove the existence of the tattoo
what is only required to him is purely mechanical act.
Therefore it is not part or covered in the prohibition.
2. What about being required to stand in a police lineup? Is
it an evidence committed in the future or purely
mechanical act? It is purely mechanical act. The features
of the suspect are already known to the victim and it was
not to earned undisclosed facts. Alam ng victim na may
bigote so the victim will point to the accused. It was not
meant for the accused to produce bigote diba.
OBJECT: blood samples and DNA test

This also involves rape and homicide case. Found in the
vaginal of the victim are semen or sperm specimen. It has to be
tested for the DNA samples and compares it to the accused. So
blood samples were taken from the accused. Was there violation
of the said right? NO.
People vs Paynor
Object: Clothes and personal items
Violation: No violations
Here the accused was stripped from is clothing and is
personal belongings in the absence of his counsel and the same
was presented as evidence during trial. Going back to the
discussion of Tangteng. It is like taking stolen clothes from the
body of a thief. So when the clothing are tainted with blood, it
could be taken as evidence if it is material to the case and there
would be no violation of the right under section 17.
REVIEW
The score covers testimonial compulsion and compulsion
that is producing evidence which is testimonial act but this does
not include the body in evidence.
Purely mechanical act are not included in the prohibition.
In this case , the accuse does not thereby speak of his guilt so the
assistance of the counsel not required.
WHAT IS PURELY MECHANICAL ACT?
People vs. Codilla et al
Object:
Violation:
The accused here was charged with rape and was
required to stand in a police lineup. He was identified by the
victim. The right against self incrimination as we said includes or
covers the protection against testimonial compulsion. It is now
extended to any evidence communicative in nature.
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY THAT? It means an act whether
testimonial or passive. It is passive when it amounts to the
disclosure of incriminatory facts. Take note of that Communicative
in nature or passive
People vs Gallarde
OBJECT: pull down his shorts and was photograph?
VIOLATIONS: there was no violation
The accused here was required by the kagawad to pull
down his shorts at the headquarters his he compiled and worst he
was photograph. Was there a violation of his right against self
incrimination? There was no violation of his right.
GlowingGloriaNotes: Under mechanical act, it is permissible for the

person to be compelled like for example to put on a pair of pants
belonging to the accused or to put gloves to determine if the same
is the accused there would be no violation of sec 17.
-
It would be permissible for the accused to remove his

own clothing or shoes to fit his size or put a cap. There
would be no violation.
WHAT ABOUT HANDWRITING? IS IT CONSIDERED TO BE PURELY

MECHANICAL ACT OR AN ACT COMMUNICATIVE IN NATURE?
Beltran vs Samson
It is a case of falsification against the accused. In order
to prove that he falsified, the court order requiring the accused to
appear before the fiscal and take down dictation and put it into
writing. Result now will be compared to the writing of the falsifier.
Can he invoke his right against self incrimination or can he be
compelled to write? SC ruled in this that writing is more than doing
the body (not clear). It is not purely mechanical act for it requires
application of intelligence and attention. So dont worry. When you
started writing during the examination of your consti 2 you are
still performing an intelligent act. So this is still covered with the
right.
The SC also said that this case is more serious than that
of compelling production papers and chattels. Because here the
witness is in fact compelled to create an evidence which do not
exist and which will identify him as the falsifier. Under ordinary
circumstance the court cannot order the accused to produce
documents containing your handwriting and compare it to the
falsifier. It would violate the right under section 17. The court
clearly cannot do that. If you want you can ask the prosecutor to
produce evidence against the accused but not the accused to
produce evidence against him. This is worst.
WHO WILL INVOKE THIS RIGHT? OR IS IST AVAILABLE TO
OTHER PROCEEDINGS?
General rule: as established in the case of

BERMUDEZ vs BATILES 1937
It is to prohibit the repetition and recurrence of certain
inhuman proceedings of compelling the person in a criminal and
any other case to furnish any evidence necessary for his
conviction. So highlight the phrase criminal and other case
necessary for his conviction
TO WHOM THIS PRIVILEGE IS AVAILABLE AND IN WHAT
PROCEEDING?
-
It is to the accused in the criminal case. The right is even

subsisting all throughout the proceeding. Relate this to
his right to remain silent to the accused cannot be
compelled to take the witness stand. Even without the
right against self incrimination he still have the right to
self incrimination he still have the right to remain silent
and with the right he cannot be compelled to take the
witness stand.

Constitutional Law Coverage 2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Constitutional Law Coverage 2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Constitutional Law 2

Atty. Rovynne Jumao-as

March 11, 2012

Transcribed by: Bruneson & Camille

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

What do you mean by competent court? The court has

OLAGUER VS. MILITARY COMMISSION

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without

The accused must be heard before an

You have a civilian who allegedly committed an offense

Now due process also requires that there

Procedural process means that he must be heard before

The accused here was tried for the crime of qualified

What about trial in absentia? Is it part of the right of

Alibi- I was not there. That was the defense of Webb.

Notwithstanding these weak defenses, he is still presumed

DIZON VS. PEOPLE

Under this right, the accused may appear personally for

It must inform the defendant that it is his right to have

be convicted not to because he is guilty but because he cannot

As the counsel de officio what is your role?

say for example when the accused is already

(3RD Exam Coverage) Vol. 3 | 3

The accused here are from prominent families in Cebu,

The case was for incestuous rape. Upon presentation of the

(3RD Exam Coverage) Vol. 3 | 4

In practice, invoking the right to speedy trial under the rules, we

Held: SC said that he was denied his right to be informed of the

March 12, 2013

Transcribed by: Charity & Lou

What offense derives in a speedy trial are unjustified

Public and impartial trial

Maam: But the reality is, may aura ung chamber ng

Are there instances wherein a judge may exclude a

YES. Particularly in cases where maselan ang issue,

SC said NO. Publicity is not per se prejudicial to the right of the

Impartial trial, ah I already discussed this to you.

No. that is also what happened in the Estrada case.

There was a finding of probable cause indicting him of plunder.

This time ex-pesident who was being charged of plunder after

will give the judge an idea of WON to believe the testimony of

In order to protect the parties right to due process, to prevent

In criminal proceedings, the venue or where the case should be

IN RE: REQUEST FOR LIVE COVERAGE

It allows the accused to examine the witness to

- If I am the accused the sole purpose is to create the doubt

And the other reason is for the judge to OBSERVE

Subpoena ad testificandum an order for the

Subpoena duces tecum aka subpoena for

In this similar rules of procedure, we have the 100km radius rule

(3RD Exam Coverage) Vol. 3 | 7

present his evidence. It does not affect his

REASON: The court is still mandated to convict/acquit the accused

March 13, 2012

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours

What is the effect of Trial by Absentia vis--vis the right of the

The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall

ARRAIGNMENT THE ACCUSED PLEAS Now

During the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas

Executive department: powers of the commander in chief,

Under the rules on the ROC:

commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a