BILL OF RIGHTS

By: Prof. Rolando A. Suarez

 Sec.1

(Due Process/Equal
Protection)
Definition of due process no exact definition (left to the best judgment
of the judiciary based on the peculiarities and circumstances of each case.
a) Darmouth vs. Woodward
b) DP a guarantee against any form of abuse/arbitrariness
c) Standards of due process in case of termination of employment
CASES:
WenPhil v. NLRC; - Employee was dismissed for grave misconduct and
insubordination, a just ground for termination, but employee failed to
extend the right to an investigation. (employer was ordered to
indemnify P1,000.00 to employee.
Ruben Seranno v. NLRC; - The employer also violated the notice
requirement but the same was not considered a violation of Due
Process. The dismissal is INEFFECTUAL and employer must pay the
backwages.
Agabon v. NLRC SC said: The better rule is to abandon the Serano
doctrine and to follow WenPhil, BUT sanctions must BE STIFFER than
those imposed in WenPhil.
Procedural requirement to terminate employees.
1) Written notice
2) Hearing or conference
3) Written notice of termination (King of Kings
Transport v. Mamac; Aliling v. Feliciano
TERMS: (1)Person, Life, Liberty, due process of law,
equal protection of the laws
Two (2) Elements:
1) Substantive due process; and
2) Procedural due process.
A. Procedural due process in Judicial Proceedings
CODE: I J O J
1) Impartial court/tribunal
2) Jurisdiction
3) Opportunity to be heard
4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing

B. Procedural due process in Admin. Proceedings

CODE: H T D E D I B
1) Hearing
2) Tribunal must be consider evidence presented
3) Decision must have something to support itself
4) Evidence presented is the basis of decision
5) Independent consideration of the law/facts
6) Decision must state the facts/issue/reasons (AngTibay
vs. CIR)
CASES:
1) WenPhil v. NLRC;
2) Seranno v. NLRC;
3) Agabon v. NLRC;
4) Yrasuagi v. PAL;
5) Francisco Chavez v. Albert Romulo;
6) Tomas Velasquez vs. Helen B. Hernandez
7) Sec. of Justice vs. Lantion
8) RP v. Cagandahan;
9) People v. Silverio;
10) Pimentel vs. Committee of the Whole
11) Anonymous vs. Radam
12) Himagan v. People;
13) Duncan Association of Detailman, et.al. v. Glaxo
Wellcane Phil., Inc
 BRIEF SUMMARY OF CASES
1) WenPhil v. NLRC Already explained
2) Seranno v. NLRC Already explained
3) Agabon v. NLRC Already explained
4) King of Kings Transport v. Mamac; Aliling v. Feliciano
Already explained
5) Sec. of Justice v. Lantion An extraditee has no right
to notice and hearing during the evaluation stage of the
extradition process
6) Francisco Chavez v. Albert Romulo Licenses are not
property or property right. It is not a contract protected
by the due process clause. It may be revoked or
rescinded by executive action.
7) Tomas Velasquez vs. Helen B. Hernandez A respondent
in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the
findings and recommendations of an investigation
committee created to inquire into the charges filed against
him. He is entitled only to the administrative decision based
on substantial evidence made of record
8) Atty. Romeo L. Erece vs. Lyn B. Macalingay Right to
cross-examine, actual hearing, are notindispensable aspect
of due process. What is essential is simply opportunity to be
heard.
9) RP v. Cagandahan The gender classification is determined
by what the individual concerned thinks of himself/herself.
The court cannot dictate that. The respondent is the one who
has to live with his intersex anatomy.
10) People v. Silverio A change of name is a privilege not a
right. A persons first name cannot be changed on the ground
of sex reassignment.
11) Anonymous vs. Radam giving birth out of wedlock is not per
se immoral under civil service laws. To warrant such conduct to
disciplinary action, it must be grossly immoral. It cannot be
judged on personal bias. If the father of the child is unmarried,
the woman is not ordinarily administratively liable for
disgraceful and immoral conduct.
12) Pimentel vs. Committee of the Whole The Committee of the
Whole refused to publish the Rules of the Committee inspite of
its own provisions requiring publication. Was there violation of
due process and equal protection? HELD: The Constitution
does not require publication of the internal rules of the House or
Senate.They need not be published.
13) Himagan v. People Preventive suspension of Himagan
for over ninety days (90)does not violate the right to equal
protection. He is treated differently because of the nature
of his position.
14) Duncan Association of Detailman, et.al. v. Glaxo
Wellcane Phil., Inc Gloxos policy prohibiting the employee
for having a relationship with an employee of a competitor
company is a valid exercise of management prerogative.
15) Association of Small Land Owners vs. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform R.A 6657 is constitutional. Due process
was not violated. It is within the power of state to take the
regulate private property for which payment of just
compensation is provided.
16) Tabuena vs. Sandiganbayan The judge participation is
limited to clarificatory questions; it should be sparingly and
judiciously used; the judge should stay out of it as much as
possible, neither interfering nor intervening in the conduct of
the trial.
17) MTRCB vs. ABS-CBN The Inside Story being a TV
program, it is within the jurisdiction of MTRCB and within its
power to screen, review and examine
 Sec.2

(SEARCH and SEIZURE)

Sec. 2 is not absolute. It I subject to the following
exceptions:
CODE: W S in a plain view S of moving vehicle
C onsented warrantless search
C ustoms search
S top and frisk
E xigent and emergency circumstances
1) Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
2) S in plainview Seizure of evidence in plain view
3) S of moving vehicle Search of moving vehicle
4) C onsented search
5) C tustoms search
6) S top and frisk
7) E xigent and emergency circumstances
 EXAMPLES
1) Warrantless arrest of Robin Padilla
2) Search of evidence in plain view (1) prior valid
intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest; (2)
evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
who has a right to stay where he is; (3) evidence is
immediately apparent; (4) plainview justified
seizure of evidence without further search
3) Search of moving vehicle PP vs. Balingan. There
was probable cause because of information received
that the passenger going to Manila from Baguio has
a bag filled with marijuana.
4) Consented search PP vs. Cuizon NBI intercepted
H & W at the airport. They handed the four (4) bags
to the NBI agents.
5) Search and vehicles at the checkpoints Routine
checks are allowed. If there is extensive search,
there must be probable cause.

6) Stop and Frisk Manalili vs. CA the police officers

observed that the accused had redlish eyes and was
wobbling like a drunk in a place which is a favorite
hangout of drug addicts.
Procedure to be observed in enforcing search and
seizure order.
People of the Philippines vs. Eden del Castillo
1. The search must be done in the presence of the
occupants. In the absence of occupants, two (2)
witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in
the same locality may be called to witness the search.
2. The detailed receipt of inventory must be given to the
lawful occupant.
3. The inventory receipt must be certified under oath by
any of the members of the raiding team.
4. PP vs. Huang Zhen Hua & Jogy Lee - Unannounced
intrusion into the premises is permissible in the following
instances:
a) The party refuses to open, upon demand
b) The party already knew of the identity of the officers &
their authority
c) The officers honestly believe that there is imminent
peril of the life and limb
d) The party is aware of the presence of someone outside.

Evidence shows that the police officers knocked on the outer

door before entering the condominium unit. The police did
not break open the door. The SC did not believe that there
was a frame-up.
5. PP vs. Feliciano Galvante vs. Hon. Orlando Casimiro
a) Complaint for warrantless search charges no criminal
offence
b) It is not penalized under RPC or any special law
c) The remedy of petitioner against warrantless search
conducted on his vehicle is civil under Art. 32 in
relation to Art. 2219 (6) and (10) of the Civil Code
d) What the RPC punishes are:
1) Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in
the service of those legally obtained
2) Searching domicile without witnesses.
6. WHO vs. Aquino Bar Q - The court should follow the
action of the political branch and should not embarrass
the latter by assuming antagonistic jurisdiction
 Sec.3

(Privacy of Communication
and Correspondence)
1. In re Wenceslao Laureta Regarding his letter to the
1st division of SC containing disparaging remarks
concerning the performance of their judicial
functions. The said 1st division referred the matter to
the court en banc. Dean Laureta invoked that his
letter is private in character, hence, covered by the
privacy of communication clause. HELD No. It
became a part of judicial record and has become a
matter of concern for the entire court.
2. Use of telephone extensions is not prohibited as a
tap.
3. Court can authorized wire tapping, if warranted, on
account of war, treason, espionage, piracy rebellion,
etc.
4. The prosecution presented a video tape recording
showing heated exchange between the accused and
the victim. The accused objected because it was
taken without his consent. It is violation of PCC?
HELD: The objection is not correct. The exchange of
heated words between the accused and the victim
that took place at the lobby of the hotel was not
private.
5. Hello Garci tape
6. Vigilio Garcilianos TRO for playing the tape.
Dismissed. It is moot and academic
 Sec.4

(Freedom of Speech and of

the Press)
 Four (4) aspects of the Freedom of the Press
(a) Freedom of prior restraint
(b)Freedom from subsequent punishment
(c) Freedom of access to information
(d) Freedom of circulation
3 Standards/Tests
Clear and present danger rule substantive evil must be extremely
serious and the degree of imminence extremely high before the
utterance can be punished
Dangerous tendency rule a person could be punished for words
uttered or for ideas expressed which create a dangerous tendency
Balancing of interest rule The court shall consider the circumstances
in each particular case, and thereafter, it shall settle the issue of
which right demands greater protection the right to privacy as
asserted by the respondent or the freedom of expression as invoked
by the petitioner, or as between the exercise of the freedom of
expression and the need to protect national security, which shall be
preferred?
 OLD CASES
Primicias vs. Fugoso, 80 Phil. 71
Refusal of Mayor Fugoso to allow the Nacionalista Party to hold
a meeting at Plaza Miranda. SC ruled against Fugoso.
Navarro vs. Villegas, 31 SCRA 730
Mayor Antonio Villegas refused request to hold meeting at Plaza
Miranda and offered alternative place because of his fear that a
public disorder may result. Supreme Court sustained Mayor
Villegas
Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553
Justice JBL Reyes filed application to hold a rally. Unacted upon,
JBL filed a petition to hold rally at Luneta, to march to US
Embassy. Mayor Bagatsing refused and suggested Rizal
Coliseum. SC ruled that the refusal of the permit was not valid
there being no clear and present danger that might arise.
 NEWCASES
Bayan Karapatan, Kilusang Magbubukid Ng Pilipinas (KMP) vs.
Eduardo Ermita, et al.
a) BP880 (Public Assembly Act of 1985), strict observance of no
permit no rally policy, arrest of violators and dispersal of unlawful
mass actions.
b) IS BP880 Constitutional? HELD: It is constitutional. It merely
regulates the use of public places as to the time, place and manner
of assemblies.
c) IS Calbrated Preemptive Response Legal? HELD: In view of the
maximum tolerance policy mandated by BP880 CPR serves no
valid purpose if it means the something as maximum tolerance. It
is illegal if it means something else.
d) What should be followed? HELD: Maximum Tolerance Highest
degree of restraint that the military, police and other peace
keeping authorities shall observe during a public assembly or in the
dispersal of the same
e. Other rulings of the Supreme Court in said case:
1) If no action on the application Show the application to the
police, rally per application without the need to show the permit
(the grant of the permit being then presumed under the law.
2) It will be the burden of the authorities to show that there has been a
denial of the application, in which case the rally may be peacefully
dispersed following the procedure of maximum tolerance prescribed
by the law
3) To safeguard liberty Supreme Court gave local governments a
deadline of 30 days within which to designate specific freedom
parks per BP880.
4) All public parks and plazas of the municipality or city concerned
shall in effect be deemed freedom parks; no prior permit of whatever
kind shall be required to hold an assembly therein. The only
requirement will be written notices to the police and the Mayors
office to allow proper coordination and order activities.
5) The only requirement will be written notices to the police and the
Mayors office to allow proper coordination and order activities.
IBP vs. Atienza
The National President of IBP requested for a permit to rally at the
foot of Mendiola Bridge on June 22, 2006, from 2:30 P.M. to 5:30
P.M. Mayor Joselito Atienza issued a permit to hold a rally on said
date, but he indicated that the rally be held in Plaza Miranda. IBP
claims that it is contrary to the Public Assembly Act, hence, contrary
to freedom of expression and public assembly. HELD: Mayor
Atienza committed a grave abuse of discretion for failure to inform
IBP immediately; That it should have been given the opportunity to
be heard first on the Mayors alleged perception of imminent danger
of substantive evil.
Marcos vs. Manglapus
According to Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan Verily, in the balancing
of interests, the scales tilt in favor of presidential prerogative, which
we do not find to have been gravely abused or arbitrarily exercised,
to ban the Marcoses from returning to the Philippines
 Sec.5

(Freedom of Religion)
 DEFINITION
A. In a broad sense, religion includes any form of belief
in regard to the relation of human beings to some
supernatural powers, or as defined in Aglipay vs.
Ruiz (64 Phil. 201), it is a profession of faith to an
active power that binds and elevates man to his
creator.
B. In specific or restricted sense It is a system of
belief, or worship, or philosophy not necessarily in
the existence of God, or power of a more superior
being, but in a philosophy or way of life detached
from any reverence or obedience to God.
 THREE (3) PRINCIPAL PARTS
a) First Part: Non-establishment clause (First
Sentence, Section 5, Article III)
b) Second Part: Free exercise clause (Second
Sentence, Section 5, Article III)
c) Third Part: Non-religious test clause (Third
Sentence, Section 5, Article III)
Two (2) aspects of religious freedom
a) Freedom to believe; and
b) Freedom to act on ones beliefs.
 OLD CASES
Engel vs. Vitale
A student was expelled because he refused to recite the
prayer Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence
upon thee and beg the blessings upon us, etc. HELD:
Expulsion is not valid. Reason: It is not part of the business
of government to compose official prayer for any group of
individuals. Religious freedom even guarantees the right of
a person not to believe in God.
Gerona vs. Secretary of Education
The flag salute Law required compulsory participation by
public school students. HELD: The flag is devoid of any
religious significance. Saluting the flag therefore does not
involve any religious ceremony.
Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of
Cebu
Reversed the ruling of Gerona. HELD: (1) Forcing a
religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to
participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs,
will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly
constituted authorities. (2) What petitioners seek is only an
exception from the flag ceremony, not exclusion from the
public schools were they may study the Constitution, the
democratic way of life and form of government, and learn
not only the acts, sciences, Philippine history and culture but
also receive training for a vocation or profession and be
taught the virtues of patriotism, respect for human rights,
appreciation for national heroes, the rights and duties of
citizenship and moral and spiritual values.
 U.S. CASES
West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette
Those who refused to participate in a flag ceremony, to recite an
oath of allegiance and to salute the American flag while it was
being raised, were subject to expulsion until readmitted upon
compliance. Jehovahs witnesses protested. HELD: U.S.
Supreme Court rejected the same Compulsory unification of
opinion achieves only the unity of the graveyard.
PHILIPPINE CASES
Jehovahs request to hold a meeting in the plaza near the Roman
Catholic Church. They were allowed to use only the northwestern
part of the plaza. The Jehovahs claim that it is a violation of the
freedom of speech, assembly and religious worship. HELD: The
said refusal is valid. Reasons: The authorities deemed it better
and wise in the name of public order to deny the permit especially
so because the Johovahs witnesses advocated tenets which are
derogatory to those of the Catholic Church.
 DISSEMINATION OF ONES BELIEFS
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila
Sale or peddling by a religious organization of religious literature and other
materials from house to house conducted not for the purpose of profit.
Imposition of license or permit fees on such sale or peddling is an impairment
of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship.
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance
Imposition of a tax on the sale of religious materials.This is not prohibited.
Marsh vs. Alabama
a woman who distributed religious literature in the premises of a privately-
owned town despite prohibitions of the town authorities. HELD: complaint of
trespassing against said woman was not upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court,.
Reasons: (1) Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more
an owner for his advantage opens up his property for use by the public in
general; the more his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and
constitutional rights of those who use it. (2) The public has an identical
interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channel
of communication remains free.
Alejandro Estrada vs. Soledad S. Escritor
Soledad S. Escritor, court interpreter, lived with a man, not her husband, and
out of her live-in arrangement with said man, they had a child. She was
charged with disgraceful and immoral conduct. She claims that her conjugal
arrangement has the approval of her congregation, claiming that she
executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness after living together for ten
years. She pleaded for exemption. HELD: (1) Said conjugal arrangement
cannot be penalized; (2) The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with
respect to these governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be
allowed, not to promote the governments favored form of religion, but to
allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance; (3)
Invocation of the Free Exercise Clause is an appeal to higher sovereignty.
Dominador Taruc, et. al., vs. Bishop Perfirio Dela Cruz
Petitioners, members of Philippine Independent Church, clamored for the
transfer of B to another parish. Bishop Cruz denied the said request and
declared their expulsion/excommunication from their church. Petitioners filed
complaint for damages with injunction against Bishop Cruz. HELD: The
courts cannot exercise control over church authorities in the performance of
discretionary and official functions
 OLD CASES:
In Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Phil. 660 [1919])
A law which created reservations for MangyanTribes was challenged as
a deprivation of liberty but the law was justified by general welfare and
public interest.
In Villavicencio vs. Lukban (39 Phil. 778, 780, 787)
The Supreme Court granted a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the
return to Manila of prostitutes who were shipped to Davao on the
ground that it can only assist in retaining a government of laws, and
not of men.
In Caunca vs. Salazar (82 Phil. 851)
The Supreme Court sustained petitioners liberty of abode and ruled
that her detention was not constitutional. The claim of the employment
agency that it has advanced some amounts of money to a prospective
employee was rejected. The court nevertheless sustained that said
agency has absolutely no power to curtail the freedom of the maid even
if she has not yet paid the amount advanced.
In Salonga vs. Hermoso (17 SCRA 121, April 25, 1980)
A petition for mandamus was filed to compel the
issuance of a permit to travel abroad. Before the case
could be heard, however, the permit was issued and the
case became moot and academic. The pertinent portion
of Chief Justice Enrique Fernandos statement is as
follows: x x x in view of the likelihood that in the future,
this Court may be faced again with a situation like the
present which takes up its time and energy needlessly, it
is desirable that respondent Travel Processing Center
should exercise the utmost care to avoid the impression
that certain citizens desirous of exercising their
constitutional right to travel could be subjected to
inconvenience or annoyance.
 Sec.6

(Liberty of Abode and Travel)

Silverio vs. Court of Appeals
Silverio was criminally charged for violating the Securities Act. He
posted bail. Two (2) years after the filing of information, the people
moved to cancel Silverios passport because he went abroad several
times without the courts permission, resulting in postponements of
arraignment the trial court ordered the Department of Foreign Affairs
(DFA) to cancel Silverios passport and for the Commission on
Immigration (CID) to prevent him from leaving the country, which the
Court of Appeals (CA) granted. Silverio appealed. HELD:
Holding/preventing Siverios departure is a valid restriction on his right
to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law.
Ones right to freedom of movement and to choose his residence is
protected not only by Section 6, but also by Article 13 of the Declaration
of Human Rights
REMEDY: Habeas Corpus
CASES: (1) Villavicencio vs. Lukban (2) Caunca vs. Salazar (82 Phil.
851) (3) Salonga vs. Hermoso (17 SCRA 121, April 25, 1980) (4)
Marcos vs. Manglapus (177 SCRA 668 [1989])
Denial of the request or demand of the Marcoses
Decided not only on the basis of Section 6, Article III, but also on
the basis of other principles and considerations which calls for a
balancing of the general welfare of the people.
Rationale by the Supreme Court by Justice Irene R. Cortes,
Justice Marcela B. Fernan, et al.
The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from
taking pre-emptive action against threats to its existence if,
though still nascent, they are perceived as apt to become serious
The State, acting through the Government, is not precluded from
taking pre-emptive action against threats to its existence if,
though still nascent, they are perceived as apt to become serious
The President has determined that the destabilization caused by
the return of the Marcoses would wipe away the gains achieved
during the past few years and lead to total economic collapse.
 Sec.7

(Right to Information)
1. It shall be recognized
2. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
3. People Refers to citizens of the Philippines, but aliens
have the right to have access to the records of cases
where they are involved.
4. Remedy of a person denied the right to information, or
the right to access to official records:
a) Petition for mandamus
b) Civil action for damages
 Sec.8

(Right to Association)
The right to organize include the right to form unions or associations
but it does not include the right to strike and to engage in similar
actions.
Dissenting opinion
a) Justice Isagani Cruz The fact that they belong to the civil service has not
deprived them of their freedom of expression,
b) Justice Hugo Gutierrez who said - Employees have freedom speak when
they are demeaned by low salaries and inattention to their needs,
Gesite vs. Court of Appeals 800 teachers assembled in front of the
Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS) and they defied the
order of Secretary Isidro Cario to return to work within 24 hours. HELD:
They have the right to assemble peacefully but it does not include the right
to strike.
Mere membership in the communist party and nothing more merely
implies advocacy of interest. It becomes a criminal offense only if it is
coupled with advocacy of action (i.e. rebellion or act conducive thereto.
A lawyer cannot be compelled to associate, but it is compulsory for him to
pay his dues to IBP.
 Sec.9

(Taking of Private Property

for Public Use)
What may be subject of expropriation?
1. Any private property, subject to payment of Just
Compensation (JC).
2. Franchise, if it is for public good and there is genuine necessity.
3. Services are considered property which may be subject of
expropriation (the Bureau of Telecommunications may
demand interconnections between the Government Telephone
System and that of PLDT, so that it could make use of the lines
and facilities of PLDT).
4. Real properties may, be subjected to an easement of right of
way to just compensation as determined by the court.
Can properties of the church be expropriated? Yes, based on
the principle that the power of eminent domain. If the
government is reluctant, it is not because it cannot do so but
only because of deference to the principle of separation of
church and State.
What is compensable and not compensable?
TAKING means either
(1) physical seizure,
(2) limitation of the use of the property.
Who can exercise the power of eminent domain?
Traditionally vested in the executive department, but
the executive department cannot proceed without
authority of the legislature.
Just Compensation just and complete equivalent of
the loss which the owner suffers.
When is the property subject of expropriation
assessed? At the time of the taking which usually
coincides with the commencement of the expropriation
proceedings. If there is an entry before the filing of the
complaint of expropriation, the assessment should be
made as of the time of the entry.
What is just and proper? When should the owner be
paid? The owner should be paid at the time he is
actually paid.
When does taking take place? At the time the owner is
ousted from property and deprived of its beneficial use.
 AIR TRANSPORTATION OFFICE, ET. AL. VS.
ANGELES URGELLO TONGOY, ET. AL.,
FACTS: Two (2) Lots were expropriated by the government to
expand Lahug Airport in Cebu City. The trial court ruled in favor
of the government. The respondent filed an appeal. During the
appeal, the parties had a verbal compromise agreement (the
owners agreed to withdraw their appeal in consideration of a
commitment that there is an expansion plan). This did not,
however materialize because ATO (Air Transportation Office)
decided to move its operations to the Mactan Airbase, and to
lease out the area, the Lahug Airport.
Respondents sought to repurchase the said properties from the
government. but ATO refused to sell the said lots, on the
ground that it still needs the property for its operations.
Respondents filed an action for recovery of possession and
reconveyance of ownership of properties with damages.
 ATO failed to present testimonial/documentary evidence,
and to cross-examine the witness of respondents,
RTC ordered ATO to restore possession and ownership and
to remove all improvements therein upon reimbursement
of the just compensation paid to the respondents at the
time of expropriation.
ISSUE: Can owners of expropriated properties repurchase
the same on the basis of the alleged oral compromise
agreement
HELD: (1) The previous owners were able to prove the
commitment of the government to allow them to
repurchase the land; (2) That the expropriated properties
may be recovered by the owners once the airport is
transferred to Mactan, Cebu. In fact, the witness to the
respondent testified that 15 lots were already reconveyed
to their previous owners.
 Sec.10

(Prohibition Against
Impairment of Obligation of
Contracts)
A law impairs a contract when it enlarges, abridges, or in any manner
change the intentions of the parties and this is true even if the change
is done indirectly.
Parties have no vested right in particular remedies or modes of
procedure They are made in the exercise of the police power of the
State.
Considerations prevail over contracts
Demands of police power arising from social justice, general welfare,
public health, safety, amelioration of labor conditions. Reason: Salus
Populi Est Suprema Lex,
1. Republic Act No. 6657,
2. Presidential Decree No. 27,
Automatic conversion from agricultural share to agricultural leasehold
was made applicable to sugarland tenants.
Franchises
Compulsory arbitration in certain cases
Batangas CATV Inc. vs.The Court of Appeals
Whatever authority the LGUs had before, the same had
been withdrawn when President Marcos issued P.D. No.
1512 terminating all franchises, permits or
certificates for the operation of CATV system
previously granted by local governments. Now
only persons/associations/partnerships/corporations or
cooperatives granted a Provisional Authority or
Certificate of Authority by the NTC may install, operate
and maintain a cable television system or render cable
television service within a service area.
 Sec.11

(Free Access to Courts and

Quasi-Judicial Bodies and
Adequate Legal Assistance)
This is a collective primary responsibility of all lawyers, judges,
prosecutors, legislators, and executives in government including
all its employees
Examples of existing laws that alleviate the disadvantages
caused by poverty.
a) Free transcript of stenographic notes
b) A litigant to prosecute his action or defense as an indigent
c) Republic Act No. 7438 (April 27, 1992), any person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel
d) Counsel de officio

PAUPER is a person so poor that he must be supported at

public expense.
INDIGENT He has no money or property sufficient and
available for food/shelter and basic necessities for himself and
his family
 Sec.12

(Right to Remain Silent and

To Have Competent and
Independent Counsel)
1. Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.
2. If said person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be
provided with one.
3. Said rights (1&2) cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
4. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other
means which vitiates the free will shall be used against him.
5. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other
similar forms of detention are prohibited.
6. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof
SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM.
7. The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations
of this Section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of
victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.
 QUESTIONS:
When can the said rights of the accused be invoked?
When the accused is taken into custody and the police ask
direct interrogatory questions which tend to elicit
incriminating statements. (People of the Philippines vs.
Rodolfo De La Cruz (G.R. Nos. 118866-68, 87 SCAD 122,
September 17, 1997)
Right to Remain Silent A person under investigation (1)
has the right to refuse to answer any question; (2) His
silence may not be used against him.
Right to be Informed of Ones Rights - It is not enough
that a police officer will just repeat to the person under
investigation the provisions of the Constitution. He must
also explain the effects in practical terms.
When are the said rights not available? Not applicable
1. To admissions made during an investigation conducted by officials
of the Philippine Air Lines
2. To admission or confession made to a private individual
3. To a person undergoing audit because an audit examiner is not a
law enforcement officer.
4. To a person who voluntarily surrenders to the police and
voluntarily admits the killing.
Examples
1. Before A is arrested he intimated to a friend that he is indeed
the one who killed Dr. X. Is As uncounseled admission
admissible? Yes. does not apply
2. As spontaneous admission to a policeman while in custody
that he is the one who killed Dr. X. Admissible? Yes. It is a
spontaneous statement.
People vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. 91535, September 2, 1992 Right to
Counsel means a right to effective counsel from the first moment
of questioning and all throughout
 Sec.13

(Right to Bail)
Rule, as simplified All persons shall before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law
except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.
Rationale An accused is presumed innocent until his
guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt by final
judgment. The right to bail gives the accused not only an
opportunity to obtain provisional liberty but also the
chance to prepare for trial while continuing his usual
work or employment.
Basic principles of the right to bail
1. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
2. Excessive bail shall not be required.
3. Factors to consider
a) Ability to post bail;
b) Nature of the offense;
c) Penalty imposed by law;
d) Character and reputation of the accused;
e) Health of the accused;
f) Strength of the evidence;
g) Probability of appearing for trial;
h) Prior forfeiture of bonds;
i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive when he was
arrested; and
j) The fact that the accused was under bond in other cases.
Responsibility of Sureties Sureties become in law the
jailers of their principal. Hence, it is responsible to keep the
accused under its surveillance, to see to it that the accused
does not live our country so he will not be beyond the reach
of court orders and processes.
Conditions of the Bail
A. Before conviction The accused shall answer the
complaint or information in the court in which it is filed
or to which it may be transferred for trial.
B. After conviction The accused will surrender himself in
execution of the judgment that the appellate court may
render.
C. In case of new trial The accused will appear in court
to which it may be remanded and submit himself to the
orders and processes thereof.
Is posting bail a matter of right? From the moment he is
placed under arrest, detention or restraint by officers of the
law, he can claim his right to bail and he retains this right
unless and until he is charged with a capital offense and the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
When is bail available? Available in criminal proceedings
and not in administrative proceedings such as a deportation
proceeding. This is discretionary on the part of the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
When accused is convicted by the trial court, the grant of
bail is the discretion of the court
Posting of a bail bond When this is posted, the accused is
estopped from questioning the validity of his arrest.
When is bail a matter of right? When is it a matter of discretion?

1. Before and after conviction by 1. Upon conviction by the RTC of

the MTC, in MTC in Cities and
MCTC. It is a matter of right for
all persons in custody to be
admitted to bail with sufficient
sureties, or to be released on
recognizance
an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment. The accused
may be granted the right to bail
upon the discretion of the court

2. Before conviction by the RTC of

an offense not punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment. It is a matter
of right for all persons in custody
to be admitted to bail, with
sufficient sureties, or to be
released on recognizance.
Anita Esteban vs. Hon. Reynaldo A. Alhambra
1. Petitioner posted cash bail of P20,000.00 in each case for the
temporary liberty of his brother in law.
2. While out on bail, Gerardo Esteban(his brother-in-law) was charged
with another crime for which he was arrested and detained.
3. Fed up, petitioner refused to post another bail. Instead, she applied
for the cancellation of the cash bonds she posted in the four (4)
cases. She said she is terminating the cash bail by surrendering the
accused who is in jail.
4. The same was denied. Motion for Reconsideration was also denied.
Petitioner alleged the orders were issued with grave abuse of
discretion.
HELD: As far as the State is concerned, the money deposited is
regarded as the money of the accused, hence it can be applied in
payment of any fine and costs that may be imposed by the court.
 Sec.14

(Due Process in Criminal

Proceedings)
IN CRIMINAL CASES - No person shall be held to answer for a criminal
offense without due process of law.
IN ALL CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS:
P (1)The accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved,
E (2)The accused shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,
I (3) The accused shall be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him,
SIP (4) The accused shall have the right to speedy, impartial, and public
trial,
MEET (5) The accused shall have the right to meet the witnesses face to
face,
COM (6) The accused shall have the right to have compulsory process to
secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
behalf.
HOWEVER, AFTER THE ARRAIGNMENT Trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been
duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.)
 FOR A CLEARER UNDERSTANDING OF SECTION 14,
RIGHTS BEFORE THE TRIAL
(The period after the filing of the complaint against
the accused and before he is arrested)
1) He is entitled to preliminary investigation
2) If arrested in flagrante delicto or surrenders to the
authorities, he is entitled to counsel. He may not be
asked without the assistance of counsel.
3) When arrested, he may exercise his right to bail as
long as the offense committed is not punishable by
reclusion perpetua and the evidence of guilt is not
strong.
4) In case of irregular warrant, and the accused is
arrested, he may ask that the same be quashed.
5) If detained due to his inability to post bail, he is
entitled to be visited by his counsel. He may confer
with his counsel at any hour of the day, or even at
night, in urgent cases. (Section 14, Rule 113)
6) While under custodial investigation, the accused has
rights under Section 12, right against self-
incrimination, confession may not be extracted by
violence, force, threat, intimidation or other
measures which vitiates consent.
7) No secret detention places, solitary or
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention
 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED DURING THE TRIAL
(The period or stage after the case against the accused was
filed in Court)
1. He is be presumed innocent until his guilt is proved.
2. He is entitled to know the nature and cause of accusation
against him.
3. He is entitled to be heard by himself and counsel.
4. He is entitled to a speedy, impartial and public trial;
5. To meet the witnesses face to face and
6. To have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
 RIGHTS AFTER THE TRIAL
1. The accused may either be acquitted or convicted. If he
is acquitted, the case against him is dismissed. If he is
convicted, he shall have the following rights:
a) He can appeal his case;
b) He is entitled to a right against the imposition of
excessive, cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment;
c) If the case is dismissed without his consent, he enjoys
the protection of the double jeopardy clause.

.
 EXPLANATION OF EACH
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
1. The prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused.
2. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not in the
weakness of the defense.
3. Right to be presumed innocent must be offset by guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
4. Any doubt as to the guilt of the accused must be resolved in his favor of
the accused.

RIGHT TO BE HEARD BY HIMSELF AND COUNSEL

Can the accused defend himself personally? The accused may be allowed to
defend himself in person when it sufficiently appears to the court that he can
properly protect his rights without the assistance of counsel. (Sec., Rule 115,
NRC)
TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF ACCUSATION
AGAINST HIM The accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged
or included in the information. Hence, If an accused is not informed of the
particular act or acts imputed to him, the information is void as to the accused.
 SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL
NOTE:
1. It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances.
What the Constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary
and oppressive delays which renders rights nugatory.
(Guerrero vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. 117211, August 14,
1996)
2. Trial inside the judges chambers does not violate
constitutional right to public trial Anyone interested may
observe
3. The public can be excluded from the courtroom if the
evidence to be produced during the trial is offensive to
decency or public morals.
4. Speedy trial is guaranteed by the Constitution but the same
shall not be utilized to deprive the State of a reasonable
opportunity of fairly indicting criminals.
Examples of long delay in the termination of
Preliminary Investigation and the filing of the
information.
1. Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan, et al., G.R. Nos. 7233539,
March 31, 1988;
2. Salonga vs. Pao, etc. et al. (G.R. No. 59521,
February 17, 1985
Remedy for violation of ones right to speedy trial
1. Dismissal of the case,
2. Release from detention if accused is under detention,
3. Habeas Corpus
.
Right to confrontation
1. Can be invoked in criminal civil administrative proceedings
2. Benefits of Right to Confrontation
3. It secures the opportunity to cross-examine,
4. To see/observe the demeanor of the witness
5. To assess the credibility of the witness
6. To obtain the benefit of the moral impact of the courtroom
atmosphere
7. Right to Confrontation is not available in Preliminary
investigation
To have Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of
Witnesses
1. This can be done through:
(a) Subpoena testificandum,
(b) Subpoena duces tecum, supported by efficient of the
accused.
2. Benito Astorga vs. People of the Philippines A group of DENR
operatives were sent to Daram, Western Samar, to conduct
intelligence operations on possible illegal logging activities. At
around 4:30-5:00 p.m., the team found two boats being constructed
at Barangay Locob-Locob. There they met petitioner Benito Astorga,
the Mayor of Daram, who turned out to be the owner of the boats. A
heated altercation ensued between Benito Astorga and the DENR
team. Astorga called for reinforcements and later, a boat bearing
ten armed men, some wearing fatigues, arrived. The DENR team
was then brought to Benito Astorgas house in Daram, where they
had dinner and drinks.The team left at 2: 00 a.m.
Benito Astorga was charged with and convicted of Arbitrary
Detention based on said facts. It is guilt proven beyond reasonable
doubt?
HELD: When the circumstances are capable of two or more
inferences, as in this case, one of which presumption of innocence
while the other is compatible with guilt, the presumption of
innocence must prevail and the court must acquit. It is better to
acquit a guilty man than to convict an innocent man. Benito
Astorga was acquitted
3. Galman vs. Sandiganbayan
The accused were acquitted by the Sandiganbayan. Later, the
Supreme Court ordered a new trial. Is this order a violation of due
process? No, the said trial was a sham trial, a mock trial the non-
trial of the century. There was predetermined judgment of acquittal
which is unlawful and void ab initio. (i.e. (1) secret Malacaang
conference on January 10, 1985, where President Marcos discussed
with the Presiding Justice of the Sandiganbayan and the entire
prosecution panel; (2) The acts of being summoned to Malacaang and
their ready acquiescence thereto are themselves pressure dramatized
and exemplified).
4. Instances when there is violation of due process?
1. Law or regulation was not published.
2. The law requires preliminary investigation but the same is denied.
3. There is a preliminary investigation but there is inordinate delay in
conducting the same
4. When the new lawyer is not a bona fide member of the Philippine Bar.
5. When the accused is entitled to appeal, but the same is denied.
 Sec.15

(Habeas Corpus)
Habeas Corpus 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.
Writ of Habeas Corpus writ or order directed to the
person detaining another and commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at a certain time and
place, with the day and the cause of his detention, to
do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or
judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.
 DIFFERENT SITUATIONS
a) There is restraint but the same is
voluntary. Habeas corpus is not available.

b) To regain custody of a minor

younger sister who is voluntarily Habeas corpus is not available. (Kelly,
living with a married man. etc. vs. Director of Prisons, 44 Phil. 623)

c) A daughter who is of legal age lives

voluntarily with a married man, Habeas corpus is not available. (Macazo
can he ask for a writ of habeas vs. Nuez, et al., 105 Phil. 55)
corpus.

d) A hospital that detains a patient Habeas corpus is available. It is not a

for failure to pay his hospital bills. ground to detain a patient. (Carmona vs.
UDMC, 93 SCRA 440, October 15, 1979)
e) A foreigner whose detention is
illegal in the beginning but which
was subsequently legalized with Habeas corpus is not available (Harvey
the issuance of a court order vs. UDMC, 93 SCRA 84)
commanding his arrest.
 Distinction:
Preliminary citation to show Peremptory writ of Habeas
cause why a writ of habeas Corpus
corpus should not issue.

Illegality of ones detention is not It is issued when the cause of

patent from the petition, and for this detention appears to be patently
reason, the court issues a citation to illegal and non-compliance is
the government officer who has punishable
custody of said person to show cause
why the writ of habeas corpus
should not issue
Eden Paredes vs. Sandiganbayan
Filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus because in
the preliminary investigation that was conducted, he
was not notified. HELD: Absence of Preliminary
Investigation, or invalid Preliminary Investigation,
cannot be invoked in a petition for a writ of habeas, but
it was allowed as a ground for a motion to quash the
said information.
NOTE:
The President can suspend the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus ONLY ON TWO GROUNDS (1) Invasion;
(2) Rebellion when the public safety requires it.
Said power is subject to the following limitations. (Section 18, Article
VII, 1987 Constitution)
1. Suspension of habeas corpus shall not exceed sixty days. If invasion or
rebellion persists after 60 days, Congress may extend upon the initiative
of the President, and period of extension shall be determined by
Congress.
2. Congress may revoke the suspension by at least a vote of the majority of
the members of Congress, voting jointly, which revocation may not be set
aside by the President.
3. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by
any citizen, the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or
suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus or the extension thereof. The
Supreme Court must promulgate its decision within thirty (30) days from
the filing.
4. Suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus shall apply only to persons
judicially charged for rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with invasion.
5. Persons detained/arrested during the suspension of the privilege of the
writ shall be judicially charged within 3 days, otherwise, he will be
released.
Barcelon vs. Baker (5 Phil. 87 [1905]) and in Montenegro
vs. Castaeda (91 Phi. 882)
(1) The Executive Department has the superior competence
to assess the peace and order situation in the country; (2)
Suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is a
political question. THIS IS NOW ABANDONED. Now,
Section 18, paragraph 3, Article VII, says that Supreme Court
may, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, may
review if there sufficient factual basis of the proclamation of
martial law or privilege of habeas corpus, or the extension
thereof.

NOTE: There is right to bail even when the privilege of

habeas corpus is suspended. This rule is not applicable when
evidence of guilt is strong. This will be determined by the
judge on the evidence presented.
 Sec.16
(Speedy Disposition of Cases
Before all Judicial, Quasi-
Judicial or Administrative
Bodies)
 Distinction:
SPEEDY TRIAL
1. The right to speedy trial is what
is provided under Article III,
Section 17 of the 1935
Constitution.
2. The right to speedy trial pertains
only to criminal prosecutions
which are at the trial stage.
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
1. The right to speedy disposition of
cases is provided under Article IV,
Section 16 of the 1973
Constitution, and now found
likewise in Article III, Section 16
of the 1987 Constitution.
2. It covers all phases of the
proceedings, whether judicial,
quasi-judicial or administrative.
This right is therefore broader
than speedy trial and applies to
civil, criminal and administrative
cases.
Similarity between the two Both rights are given a
relative concept consistent with reasonable delays
considering the circumstances. (Martin vs. Ver, 123
SCRA 745).
Remember that there is no hard and fast rule on how
long a case be tried and disposed of. The Rules of Court
can only fix several periods to file different pleadings,
appeals, etc. Explain this.
 Sec.17

(Right Against Self-

Incrimination).
Purpose To protect the witness or accused from
committing perjury, (2) to prevent a witness or accused
from being coerced, whether physically, morally and/or
psychologically into incriminating himself.
NOTE: Said right is available in criminal prosecutions
civil, administrative or legislative investigations.
Coverage of right
The protection is only against being compelled to
testify against himself.
However, a person may be compelled to submit
himself for physical examination to determine his
involvement in the offense he allegedly committed.
 Example:
1. Paraffin test; to undergo finger printing, photographing, or
when a woman accused of adultery is subjected to
examination to determine if she is pregnant or not. Reason:
They are mechanical acts only.
2. Other mechanical acts extracting virus from the body; to
remove his shoes or shirts; to place one foot on a piece of
paper to secure his footprints).
How about compelling an accused to write down a specimen of
his handwriting. He cannot be compelled to do so because
Writing is not purely mechanical act. It requires the application of
intelligence and attention. (Beltran vs. Samson and Jose, 53 Phil.
570)
Right against self-incrimination is not available to juridical
persons Because the State can demand from a corporation (to
whom it issued a franchise) to purchase its corporate books and
papers.
 Sec.18
(Freedom of Political Belief
and Freedom Against
Involuntary Servitude)
Salonga vs. Pano, Senator Jovito Salonga
Regarding his remark in a Political meeting that There is a
likelihood of a violent struggle here in the Philippines if reforms
are not instituted. Is that remark punishable? HELD: It is not a
threat against the government nor is it even the uninhibited,
robust, caustic, or unpleasantly sharp attack which is protected
by the guarantee of free speech. It cannot be construed as
subversive activities per se or as evidence of membership in
subversive organization.
Sarmiento vs. Tuico
if workers defy a return to work order on the reasoning that they
cannot be forced to render service against their will. HELD: They
cannot be obliged to return to work but if they choose not to obey
the return to work order, they have to give up their work. In other
words, they have to obey the order if they want to retain their
work.
SECTION 17 OF THE RH LAW VIOLATES
CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION ON INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE Petitioners claim that Section 17 of the RH
Law requires private and non- government health care
service providers to render forty-eight (48) hours of pro bono
health services, hence, it is involuntary servitude.
HELD: the rendition of pro bono services cannot be
considered as forced labor analogous to slavery;
(1) Reproductive health providers have discretion as to the
manner and time of giving pro-bono services;
(2) NGO reproductive health service providers are merely
encouraged to render pro bono service. No penalty if
they choose not render pro-bono services
 OTHER ISSUES:
The RH Law violates natural law The court is not obliged to
see if a statute, executive issuance or ordinance conforms with
natural laws. Natural laws are mere thoughts and notions on
inherent rights espoused by theorists, philosophers and
theologists
The RH Law does not sanction the taking away of life It only
seeks to enhance the population control program of the
government by providing information and making non-
abortifacient contraceptives more readily available to the
public, especially to the poor.
On Population Control The country has a population problem,
but the State should not use coercive measures (i.e. penal
provisions of the RH Law against conscientious objectors) to
solve it. THE POLICY OF THE COURT IS NON-INTERFERENCE
INTHE WISDOM OF A LAW.
 Sec.19
(Right Against Excessive
Fines, Degrading or Inhuman
Punishment)
I.
1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed,
2. Cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment shall not be
inflicted.
3. Death penalty not be imposed unless, for compelling
reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it.
4. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
II.
1. The employment of physical, psychological, or
degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee
on the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities
under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.
TERMS USED:
Excessive If the nature of the violation compared with the fine is
disproportionate,
Cruel If the punishment is flagrantly and plainly oppressive,
Degrading/Inhuman View that death penalty is cruel, degrading
and inhuman
REASONS:
1. It traumatizes not only the convict but also the members of his
family;
2. There is no solid evidence that death penalty has served as
effective deterrent against the commission of serious offenses;
3. Mastery over life of another person is just too presumptuous for
any human;
4. Human life is more valuable than institutions designed to save
human life.
People vs. Borja Languishing in jail under deplorable conditions
in the National Penitentiary has transformed that penalty into
a cruel one.
Due to mechanical failure in the electric chair Death penalty
against A was not executed. A claimed that he was subjected
to a cruel and unusual punishment. HELD: Said failure was
merely an unforeseeable accident. (Lousiana vs. Resueber, 329
U.S. 459)
Life imprisonment to peddler of drugs It is not cruel
punishment. REASON: To discourage the proliferation of
crimes hurtful to public interest.
Examples of Degarading, Inhuman and Barbarous
Punishment (i.e. Burning or crucifying a thief, Detaining
prostitutes in a plaza surrounded by barbed wire, suffering
under the heat of the sun, and coldness at nighttime, forcing a
thief to go around the public plaza with a plakard Akoy
magnanakaw,
REASONS OF AUTHOR (Prof. R.A. Suarez) Why
death penalty is not cruel, degarading or Inhuman:
1. Reformation should be available to those who are
willing to be reformed as shown and evidenced by
repeated criminal heinous acts
2. For as long as the criminal is given due process
execution of drug pushers is proper and effective
deterrent to rampant drug related offenses
3. Good men and women cannot watch helplessly
from their peaceful homes. Those in authority should
be able to impose a discipline that will make our
country a better place to live in. Otherwise, chaos,
and turmoil will prevail.
Indefinite Suspension of a Law Practitioner Not cruel,
degrading and inhuman. It gives the suspended lawyer the
chance to demonstrate his willingness and capacity to live
up to the exacting standards of conduct rightly demanded
from every member of the bar and officers of the court.
(Zaldivar vs. Sandiganbayan, 170 SCRA 1)
Yardsticks that penalty is justified, and fine imposed is
not excessive
1. Penalty imposed should be proportionate to the offense
committed
2. In imposing fine, the following should be considered: (a)
the financial condition of the convict; (b) the amount
fixed should be considered within the limits established
by law; and (c) the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances
 Sec.20
(Right Against Imprisonment
for Debt or Non-Payment of a
Poll Tax).
Lozano vs. Martinez
The Supreme Court held that the non-payment of the
obligation is not what the law punishes. What is
punished is the making and issuing of a worthless
check or a check which is dishonored upon its
presentation of payment. Moreover, the law punishes
the act not as an offense against property but against
public order. The purpose of the law is to protect the
integrity of the check as a commercial instrument and
prevent the proliferation of worthless checks from
creating havoc in trade circles and in the banking
community
 Sec.21

(Double Jeopardy)
REQUISITES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY In order that
an accused may not be subjected to another trial and
punishment for the same offense, the following
requisites must be complied with, to wit:
1. There must be a valid complaint or information;
2. Said complaint or information must be filed in a court
of competent jurisdiction;
1) The accused has pleaded guilty to the charge; and
2) The accused has been acquitted or the case
dismissed or terminated without his express
consent. (People vs. Vergara, 41 SCAD 13, 221
SCRA 560; People vs. Navallo, 234 SCRA 175)
 EXAMPLES:
a) A was prosecuted for estafa. Same was dismissed by RTC for
lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, a charge for the same offense
was commenced in the RTC. Accused moved to quash
invoking double jeopardy: HELD: No double jeopardy
because the accused had not been in danger of conviction in
the original persecution.
b) Information was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by a court
which actually competent to hear it. HELD: The dismissal
will inure to the benefit of the accused.
c) If the dismissal of a case against the accused, even if with his
express consent, is based on (a) Insufficiency of evidence; (b)
or denial of his right to speedy trial. HELD: The dismissal is
considered an acquittal. Hence, the dismissal cannot be
appealed by the prosecution and will bar another prosecution
of the accused for the same offense. This is true even if the
dismissal is erroneous
DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT May an accused be
prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent development
changes the character of the first indictment under which he may
have already been charged or convicted? Yes, under the doctrine
of supervening event. BASIS: Rule 117, Sec. 7, Rules of Court
MEANING AND EXAMPLE OF SAID DOCTRINE It is a rule in
criminal procedure which holds where a new fact supervenes that
would change the character and nature of the first offense to a
graver one for which the defendant had already been convicted,
then the accused may still be prosecuted for the new offense
without placing him in double jeopardy. (Melo v. People, supra)
EXAMPLE: A hit B with his fist after their heated altercation. As
a result, B fell which caused his head to hit a cemented
pavement. B filed a complaint against A for physical injuries. The
prosecutor was about to file a case for physical injuries against A,
but he was informed by the family of B that the latter died as a
result of the same physical injuries suffered by B. The said death
of B change the character of the offense for which A may be
prosecuted for homicide.
ANOTHER PRINCIPLE When one offense is inseparable from another and proceeds
from the same act, they cannot be the subject of separate prosecutions.
EXAMPLE: (1) X is indicted for smoking opium. He cannot be charged with
possession of opium.; (2) X has stolen several things from B on the same date and
time. X can be charged only with the crime of theft.
HYPOTHETICAL CASE. Note my hypothetical question in pages 409-410 of my
reviewer.
Prof . A invited Ms. X, his student to a dinner. After the dinner, Prof drives his car to a
motel. While inside the motel, he started to kiss Ms. A and started to undress her.

Ms. X convinced Prof. A to take a bath first before she gives in to his demand for sexual
intercourse. While taking his shower, Ms. A went outside the motel, took a taxi and
went home.

Later, she filed an administrative case for disbarment against Prof. A and she also filed
attempted rape against Prof. A. The disbarment proceedings did not prosper but the
office of the City Prosecutor filed a case of attempted rape against Prof. A

Can Prof. A invoke double jeopardy? No. The case being a criminal case and the other
being an administrative case.
SAME FACTS EXCEPT THAT PROF. A WAS ABLE TO CONSUMMATE RAPE
The City Prosecutor filed the case but the complaint filed in Court was
dismissed. Later, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed a case, this time upon
the complaint of the offended party. Is the filing of a new case a valid
ground for Prof. A to invoke double jeopardy? The first element for double
jeopardy to apply is not present. The first information's is not valid in form and
in substance. Hence, Prof. A cannot invoke double jeopardy.
BAR Question 1984
Upon arraignment A pleaded guilty to the charge of serious physical injuries.
10 days later, the victim died. Hence, the Fiscal moved for amendment of
information so as to charge the accused with the crime of homicide.
Accused objected on the ground of being convicted of the crime of serious
physical injuries and that another presentation for homicide for the same act
under an amended infarction. constitute double jeopardy. RESOLVE.
Answer: No double jeopardy and motion of the accused should be denied.
His plea was only with respect to the charge of physical injuries, but not with
the crime of homicide
 SEC. 22

(Right Against Ex Post Facto

Law and Bill of Attainder)
DEFINITIONS:
Ex Post Facto Law A law which punishes an act
which at the time of its commission was not
punishable.
Bill of Attainder A legislative act which infects
punishment without judicial trial
Bill of Pains and Penalties A legislative act which
impose a penalty less than death, without the benefit
of judicial trial.
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHT TO PRACTICE MEDICINE
Criminal in Nature
SUSPENSION FROM OFFICE Not a penalty
 END
THANK YOU!