Political Law Review Vol 3

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW
VOLUME III
Based on the outline of Justice Vicente V. Mendoza
1996 Revised Edition
_______________
PART TWO
INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS
I. THE DUE PROCESS E!UAL PROTECTION AND CONTRACT CLAUSES AS
LI"ITATIONS ON POLICE POWER E"INENT DO"AIN AND TA#ATION
A$t. III Se%. 1. No &e$son s'()) *e de&$ived o+ )i+e )i*e$t, o$ &$o&e$t, -it'o.t
d.e &$o%ess o+ )(- no$ s'()) (n, &e$son *e denied t'e e/.() &$ote%tion o+ t'e )(-s.

A$t. III Se%. 10. No )(- i1&(i$in2 t'e o*)i2(tion o+ %ont$(%ts s'()) *e &(ssed.
Fernando, Constitution of the Philippines, !"#$" %"d ed., &'((.)
LIMI*+*IO,- OF -OVE.EI/,*0
Inherent in sovereignty, and therefore not even required to be conferred by the
Constitution, are the police, eminent domain, and taxation powers. The Bill of Rights, notably
the due process, equal protection and nonimpairment clauses, is a means of limiting the
exercise of these powers by imposing on the !tate the obligation to protect individual rights. The
Bill of Rights is addressed to the !tate, notably the government, telling it what it cannot do to
the individual.
+. 1ue process # Procedural and -u2stanti3e
Civi) P$o%ed.$() D.e P$o%ess
In ci3il cases, the -C laid do4n its ele5ents in the case of Banco Espanol Filipino 3.
Palanca6
a. Court 4ith 7urisdiction o3er the su27ect 5atter.
2. Court 4ith 7urisdiction o3er the part8#defendant
c. Jud9e5ent rendered accordin9 to la4.
d. 1efendant 9i3en the oppotunit8 to 2e heard %re:uire5ent on notice and hearin9)
POLITICAL LAW REVIEW VOLU"E III
La52da Epsilon ;i < 1VO.EF Colle9e of La4
C$i1in() D.e P$o%ess
In cri5inal cases, the ele5ents 4ere laid do4n in Vera 3. People6
a. +ccused is infor5ed 4h8 he is proceeded a9ainst, and 4hat char9e he 5ust ans4er.
2. Jud95ent of con3iction is 2ased on e3idence that is not tainted 28 falsit8, and after
the defendant 4as heard.
If the prosecution produces the conviction based on untrue evidence, then it is
guilty of depriving the accused of due process. Thus false testimony can be questioned by
the accused regardless of the time that lapsed.
c. Jud95ent accordin9 to la4
d. *ri2unal 4ith 7urisdiction
Ad1inist$(tive D.e P$o%ess
In ad5inistrati3e proceedin9s, the ele5ents 4ere laid do4n in the case of +n9 *i2a8 3.
CI. as the =se3en cardinal pri5ar8 ri9hts= in 7usticia2le cases 2efore ad5inistrati3e tri2unals6
a. *here 5ust 2e a hearin9, 4here a part8 5a8 present e3idence in support of his case.
2. *he tri2unal 5ust consider the e3idence presented 28 a part8.
c. >hile the tri2unal has no dut8 to decide the case correctl8, its decision 5ust 2e
supported 28 e3idence.
d. *he e3idence supportin9 the decision 5ust 2e su2stantial. -u2stantial e3idence is
such rele3ant e3idence as a reasona2le 5ind 5i9ht accept as ade:uate to support a conclusion.
e. *he e3idence 5ust ha3e 2een presented at the hearin9 or at least contained in the
record and ?no4n to the parties affected.
f. *he tri2unal 5ust rel8 on its o4n independent consideration of e3idence, and not
rel8 on the reco55endation of a su2ordinate.
9. *he decision 5ust state the facts and the la4 in such a 4a8 that the parties can ?no4
the issues in3ol3ed and the reasons for the decision.
S.*st(ntive D.e P$o%ess
*anada 3. *u3era, &@$ - "( %&'A)
F6 In3o?in9 the peopleBs ri9ht to 2e infor5ed on 5atters of pu2lic concern, a ri9ht reco9nized in the
Constitution, as 4ell as the principle that la4s to 2e 3alid and enforcea2le 5ust 2e pu2lished in the O/ or
other4ise effecti3el8 pro5ul9ated, petitioners see? a 4rit of 5anda5us to co5pel respondent pu2lic
officials to pu2lish, andCor cause the pu2lication in the O/ of 3arious P1s, LOIs, 9eneral orders,
procla5ations, EOs, letters of i5ple5entation and ad5inistrati3e orders. .espondents contend, a5on9
others that pu2lication in the O/ is not a sine qua non re:uire5ent for the effecti3it8 of la4s 4here the
la4s the5sel3es pro3ide for their o4n effecti3it8 dates. It is thus su25itted that since the presidential
P+/E "
issuances in :uestion contain special pro3isions as to the date the8 are to ta?e effect, pu2lication in the O/
is indispensa2le for their effecti3it8. *he point stressed is anchored on +rt. " of ,CC.
DEL16 *he interpretation 9i3en 28 respondent is in accord 4C this CourtBs construction of said
article. In a lon9 line of decisions, this Court has ruled that pu2lication in the O/ is necessar8 in
those cases 4here the le9islation itself does not pro3ide for its effecti3it8 date## for then the date of
pu2lication is 5aterial for deter5inin9 its date of effecti3it8, 4Cc is the &th da8 follo4in9 its
pu2lication## 2ut not 4hen the la4 itself pro3ides for the date 4hen it 9oes into effect.
.espondentBs ar9u5ent, ho4e3er, is lo9icall8 correct onl8 insofar as it e:uates the
effecti3it8 of la4s 4C the fact of pu2lication. Considered in the li9ht of other statutes applica2le to
the issue at hand, the conclusion is easil8 reached that said +rt. " does not preclude the re:uire5ent
of pu2lication in the O/, e3en if the la4 itself pro3ides for the date of its effecti3it8.
EEE *he pu2lication of all presidential issuances =of a pu2lic nature= or =of 9eneral
applica2ilit8= is 5andated 28 la4. *he clear o27ect of the la4 is to 9i3e the 9eneral pu2lic
ade:uate notice of the 3arious la4s 4Cc are to re9ulate their actions and conduct as citizens. >Co
such notice and pu2lication, there 4ould 2e no 2asis for the application of the 5aEi5 ignorantia
legis non excusat. It 4ould 2e the hei9ht of in7ustice to punish or other4ise 2urden a citizen for
the trans9ression of a la4 of 4Cc he had no notice 4hatsoe3er, not e3en a constructi3e one. It is
needless to say that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general
applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be
bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. RA".
*anada 3. *u3era, &F$ - FF$ %&'A$). #otion for reconsideration. EEE G*Hhe clause =unless it is
other4ise pro3ided= refers to the date of effecti3it8 and not to the re:uire5ent of pu2lication itself,
4Cc cannot in an8 e3ent 2e o5itted. *his clause does not 5ean that the le9islature 5a8 5a?e the
la4 effecti3e i55ediatel8 upon appro3al, or on an8 other date, 4Co its pre3ious pu2lication.
Pu2lication is indispensa2le in e3er8 case, 2ut the le9islature 5a8 in its discretion pro3ide
that the usual &#da8 period shall 2e shortened or eEtended.
It is not correct to sa8 that under the disputed clause pu2lication 5a8 2e dispensed 4C
alto9ether. *he reason is that such o5ission 4ould offend due process insofar as it 4ould den8 the
pu2lic ?no4led9e of the la4s that are supposed to 9o3ern it.
Conclusive presumption of $nowledge of the law. *he conclusi3e presu5ption that
e3er8 person ?no4s the la4 presupposes that the la4 has 2een pu2lished if the presu5ption is to
ha3e an8 le9al 7ustification at all.
The term laws should refer to all la4s and not onl8 to those of 9eneral application, for
strictl8 spea?in9 all la4s relate to the people in 9eneral al2eit there are so5e that do not appl8 to
the5 directl8. +n eEa5ple is a la4 9rantin9 citizenship to a particular indi3idual, li?e a relati3e of
Pres. Marcos 4ho 4as decreed instant naturalization.
.ULE6 %ll statutes, includin9 those of local application and pri3ate la4s, shall 2e
pu2lished as a condition for their effecti3it8, 4Cc shall 2e9in & da8s after pu2lication unless a
different effecti3it8 date is fiEed 28 the le9islature.
Coverage. Co3ered 28 this rule are P1s and EOs pro5ul9ated 28 the Pres. in the
eEercise of le9islati3e po4ers. +d5inistrati3e rules and re9ulations 5ust also 2e pu2lished if their
purpose is to enforce or i5ple5ent eEistin9 la4 pursuant to a 3alid dele9ation.
Interpretati3e re9ulations and those 5erel8 internal in nature, i.e., re9ulatin9 onl8 the
personnel of the ad5inistrati3e a9enc8 and not the pu2lic, need not 2e pu2lished. ,either is
pu2lication re:uired of the so#called letters of instructions issued 28 ad5inistrati3e superiors
concernin9 the rules or 9uidelines to 2e follo4ed 28 their su2ordinates in the perfor5ance of their
duties.
&ublication must be in full or it is no pu2lication at all since its purpose is to infor5 the
pu2lic of the contents of the la4s. *he 5ere 5ention of the nu52er of the P1, the title of such
P+/E @
decree, its 4herea2outs, the supposed date of effecti3it8, and in a 5ere supple5ent of the O/
cannot satisf8 the pu2lication re:uire5ent. *his is not e3en su2stantial co5pliance. RA".
,otes6 In the ori9inal case, the -C ruled that as a 5atter of su2stanti3e due process, an8
la4 5ust 2e pu2lished 2efore the people can 2e eEpected to o2ser3e the5. But, accordin9 to a
split decision, pu2lication need not 2e 5ade in the Official /azette. It is enou9h that it 2e
pu2lished in a ne4spaper of 9eneral circulation.
+fter the E1-+ re3olution, upon the reconstitution of the -C, the ori9inal 7ud95ent
4as reconsidered, and the -C no4 ruled that pu2lication 5ust 2e 5ade in the Official
/azette, pursuant to C+ $@A and the Ci3il Code, unless a la4 =pro3ides other4ise= that is, a
different 5ode of pu2lication.
>hat 5ust 2e pu2lished are %&) all la4s of 9eneral application, and e3en those not of
9eneral application li?e %") pri3ate la4s affectin9 onl8 particular indi3iduals, e.9., le9islati3e
9rant of citizenship, %@) la4s of local application, and %F) rules and re9ulations of a su2stanti3e
character. *his 5eans not onl8 the title 2ut the entire la4. >henI 'orthwith, that is,
immediately. >hereI (nly in the (fficial )a*ette. %-ee discussion under +d5inistrati3e La4)
In his concurrin9 opinion, Justice Feliciano noted that e3en if a statute or decree states that
it shall ta?e effect =i55ediatel8 upon appro3al=, this should 2e construed to 5ean =i55ediatel8
upon pu2lication=J other4ise, a literal interpretation 4ould render the la4 unconstitutional. For
the phrase =unless other4ise pro3ided 28 la4= in +rt. " of the Ci3il Code refers not to the
necessit8 of pu2lication %4hich is constitutionall8 5andated 28 the due process clause and
therefore cannot 2e pro3ided other4ise 28 a 5ere la4) 2ut to the effecti3it8 of the la4. *he
9eneral rule is that the la4 4ill ta?e effect & da8s after its in the Official /azette %pursuant to C+
$@A and the Ci3il Code). *he la4, ho4e3er, 5a8 =pro3ide other4ise=, e.9. %i) i55ediatel8,
4hich 5eans i55ediatel8 upon pu2lication, or %ii) one 8ear after pu2lication, li?e the Fa5il8
Code.
Li?e4ise, he contended that if the la4 pro3ided for a different 5ode of pu2lication,
that is, in a ne4spaper of 9eneral circulation, then the re:uire5ents of due process 4ould ha3e
2een satisfied.
E.O. "!! too? the cue and a5ended +rt. " of the Ci3il Code6 La4s ta?e effect & da8s
after pu2lication in the Official /azette or in a ne4spaper of 9eneral circulation, unless other4ise
pro3ided 28 la4.
EEecuti3e Order ,o. "!!, June &A, &'A(
PROVIDING 3OR THE PU4LICATION O3 LAWS EITHER IN THE O33ICIAL GA5ETTE OR
IN A NEWSPAPER O3 GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AS A
RE!UIRE"ENT 3OR THEIR E33ECTIVIT6.
WHEREAS A$t. 7 o+ t'e Civi) Code &($t), &$ovides t'(t 8)(-s s'()) t(9e e++e%t (+te$ +i+teen
d(,s +o))o-in2 t'e %o1&)etion o+ t'ei$ &.*)i%(tion in t'e O++i%i() G(:ette .n)ess it is ot'e$-ise
&$ovided ;;;<8
WHEREAS t'e $e/.i$e1ent t'(t +o$ )(-s to *e e++e%tive on), ( &.*)i%(tion t'e$eo+ in t'e
O++i%i() G(:ette -i)) s.++i%e '(s ent(i)ed so1e &$o*)e1s ( &oint $e%o2ni:ed *, t'e S.&$e1e Co.$t in
T(n(d( v. T.ve$( et (). =G.R. 6>91? De%e*e$ 79 19@6A -'en it o*se$ved t'(t 8BtC'e$e is 1.%' to *e
s(id o+ t'e vie- t'(t &.*)i%(tion need not *e 1(de in t'e O++i%i() G(:ette %onside$in2 its e$$(ti%
$e)e(se (nd )i1ited $e(de$s'i&<8
P+/E F
WHEREAS it -(s )i9e-ise o*se$ved t'(t 8B.Cndo.*ted), ne-s&(&e$s o+ 2ene$()
%i$%.)(tion %o.)d *ette$ &e$+o$1 t'e +.n%tion o+ %o11.ni%(tin2 t'e )(-s to t'e &eo&)e (s s.%'
&e$iodi%()s ($e 1o$e e(si), (v(i)(*)e '(ve ( -ide$ $e(de$s'i& (nd %o1e o.t $e2.)($),<8 (nd
WHEREAS in vie- o+ t'e +o$e2oin2 &$e1ises A$t. 7 o+ t'e Civi) Code s'o.)d (%%o$din2), *e
(1ended so t'(t )(-s to *e e++e%tive 1.st *e &.*)is'ed eit'e$ in t'e O++i%i() G(:ette o$ in (
ne-s&(&e$ o+ 2ene$() %i$%.)(tion in t'e %o.nt$,<
NOW THERE3ORE I CORA5ON C. A!UINO P$esident o+ t'e P'i)i&&ines *, vi$t.e o+
t'e &o-e$s vested in 1e *, t'e Constit.tion do 'e$e*, o$de$D
Se%tion 1. L(-s s'()) t(9e e++e%t (+te$ +i+teen d(,s +o))o-in2 t'e %o1&)etion o+ t'ei$
&.*)i%(tion eit'e$ in t'e O++i%i() G(:ette o$ in ( ne-s&(&e$ o+ 2ene$() %i$%.)(tion in t'e P'i)i&&ines
.n)ess it is ot'e$-ise &$ovided.
Se%tion 7. A$t. 7 o+ t'e Re&.*)i% A%t >@6 ot'e$-ise 9no-n (s t'e 8Civi) Code o+ t'e
P'i)i&&ines8 (nd ()) ot'e$ )(-s in%onsistent -it' t'is E;e%.tive O$de$ ($e 'e$e*, $e&e()ed o$
1odi+ied (%%o$din2),.
Se%tion >. T'is E;e%.tive O$de$ s'()) t(9e e++e%t i11edi(te), (+te$ its &.*)i%(tion in t'e
O++i%i() G(:(tte.
Done in t'e Cit, o+ "(ni)( t'is 1@t' d(, o+ E.ne in t'e ,e($ o+ O.$ Lo$d nine '.nd$ed
(nd eit't,Fseven.
-o the state of the la4 at the present is as follo4s6
&. La4s 5ust 2e pu2lished as a re:uire5ent of su2stanti3e due process.
". *hese la4s include %a) la4s of 9eneral application, %2) pri3ate la4s, %c) la4s of
local application, %d) rules and re9ulations of ad5inistrati3e a9encies of a su2stanti3e
character, and %e) circulars that carr8 penalt8 for their 3iolation.
@. *he pu2lication can 2e 5ade in the Official /azette or in a ne4spaper of
9eneral circulation.
F. *he la4 shall ta?e effect & da8s after pu2lication, unless it pro3ide other4ise,
4hich could 2e an8ti5e after pu2lication %e.9. i55ediatel8, or one 8ear or an8 other ti5e).I
0not 3s. I+C, &FA -C.+ $' %&'A()
F6 PetitionersB $ cara2aos 4ere confiscated 28 the police for ha3in9 2een transported fro5 Mas2ate
to Iloilo in 3iolation of EO $"$#+. De 2rou9ht an action for reple3in, challen9in9 the consitutionalit8 of
the EO. *he trial court sustained the confiscation of the ani5als and declined to rule on the 3alidit8 of the
la4 on the 9round that it lac?ed authorit8 to do so. Its decision 4as affir5ed 28 the I+C. Dence this
petition for re3ie4.
DEL16 %&) Under the pro3ision 9rantin9 the -C 7urisdiction to =re3ie4, re3ise, re3erse, 5odif8 or
affir5 on appeal or certiorari, as the la4 or rules of court 5a8 pro3ide final 7ud95ents of lo4er
courts= in all cases in3ol3in9 the constitutionalit8 of certain 5easures, lo4er courts can pass upon
the 3alidit8 of a statute in the first instance.
%") *here is no dou2t that 28 2annin9 the slau9hter of these ani5als %eEcept 4here there at
least ( 8rs. old if 5ale and && 8rs old if fe5ale upon the issuance of the necessar8 per5it) the EO
4ill 2e conser3in9 those still fit for far5 4or? or 2reedin9 and pre3entin9 their i5pro3ident
depletion. >e do not see, ho4e3er, ho4 the prohi2ition of the interpro3incial transport of cara2aos
can pre3ent their indiscri5inate slau9hter, considerin9 that the8 can 2e ?illed an8 4here, 4C no less
P+/E
difficult8 in on pro3ince than in another. O23iousl8, retainin9 the cara2ao in one pro3ince 4ill not
pre3ent their slau9hter there, an8 5ore than 5o3in9 the5 to another pro3ince 4ill 5a?e it easier to
?ill the5 there. +s for the cara2eef, the prohi2ition is 5ade to appl8 to it as other4ise, so sa8s the
EO, it could 2e easil8 circu5s2cri2ed 28 si5pl8 ?illin9 the ani5al. Perhaps so. Do4e3er, if the
5o3e5ent of the li3e ani5als for the purpose of pre3entin9 their slau9hter cannot 2e prohi2ited, it
should follo4 that there is no reason either to prohi2it their transfer as, not to 2e flippant, dead
5eat.
%@) In the instant case, the cara2aos 4ere ar2itraril8 confiscated 28 the police station
co55ander, 4ere returned to the petitioner onl8 after he had filed a co5plaint for reco3er8 and
9i3en a supersedeas 2ond 4Cc 4as ordered confiscated upon his failure to produce the cara2aos
4hen ordered 28 the trial court. The +( defined the prohibition, convicted the petitioner and
immediately imposed punishment, w,c was carried out forthright. The measures struc$ him at
once and pounced upon the petitioner w,o giving him a chance to be heard, thus denying him
elementary fair play.
%F) It is there authorized that the seized propert8 shall =2e distri2uted to charita2le
institutions and other si5ilar institutions as the Chair5an of the ,ational Meat Inspection
Co55ission may see fit, in the case of cara2eef, and to deser3in9 far5ers throu9h dispersal as the
1irector of +ni5al Industr8 may see fit in the case of cara2aos.= *he phrase may see fit is an
eEtre5el8 9enerous and dan9erous condition, if condition it is. It is laden 4C perilous opportunities
for partialit8 and a2use, and e3en corruption. One searches in 3ain for the usual standard and the
reasona2le 9uidelines, or 2etter still, the li5itations that the said officers 5ust o2ser3e 4hen the8
5a?e their distri2ution. VV.
Monte5a8or 3. +raneta Uni3ersit8, (( -C.+ @"& %&'(()
-ac$ of .ue &rocess in Termination of +mployment Remedied by /earing in the 0-RC.
F6 Petitioner 4as a professor at the +raneta Uni3ersit8 Foundation. On (CAC(F, he 4as found 9uilt8
of 5a?in9 ho5oseEual ad3ances on one Leonardo 1e Lara 28 a facult8 in3estatin9 co55ittee. On
&&CAC(F, another co55ittee 4as appointed to in3esti9ate another char9e of a si5ilar nature a9ainst
petitioner. Petitioner, throu9h cousel, as?ed for the postpone5ent of the hearin9 set for &&C&A and &',
&'(F, 2ut the 4Cc 5otion 4as denied. *he co55itte then proceeded to hear the testi5on8 of the
co5plainants and on &"CC(F, su25itted its report reco55endin9 the separation of petitioner fro5 the
Uni3ersit8. On &"C&"C(F, the Uni3ersit8 applied 4C the ,L.C for clearance to ter5inate petitionerBs
e5plo85ent. Mean4hile, petitioner filed a co5plaint 4C the ,L.C for reinstate5ent and 2ac?4a9es.
Jud9e5ent 4as rendered in petitionerBs fa3or, 2ut on appeal to the -ec. of La2or, the latter found
petitionerBs dis5issal to 2e 7ustified. Dence, this petition for certiorari.
DEL16 *he Consti. assures to 4or?ers securit8 of tenure. In the case of petitioner, this 9uarantee
is reinforced 28 the pro3ision on acade5ic freedo5. In den8in9 petitionerBs 5otion for
postpone5ent of the hearin9, the co55ittee did not accord procedural due process to the petitioner.
*his 4as, ho4e3er, re5edied at the 5ediation conference called at the 1ept. of La2or durin9 4Cc
petitioner 4as heard on his e3idence. *here he 4as 9i3en the fullest opportunit8 to present his
case. Petition dis5issed.
Petitioner filed a MF. contendin9 that the hearin9 in the ,L.C did not confor5 to ther
re:uire5ents of due process as the 4itnesses a9ainst petitioner 4ere not called so that petitioner
could cross#eEa5ine the5.
DEL16 Pettioner did not o27ect to the presentation of the testi5on8 of the co5plainant and the
4itnesses at the school in3esti9ation and did not assert his ri9ht to cross#eEa5ine the5. Petitioner
4ai3ed his ri9ht to confront the 4itnesses, rel8in9 solel8 on the stren9th of his e3idence. ,or 4as
P+/E $
it incu52ent on resp. to present the 4itnesses in the ,L.C. PetitionerBs onl8 ri9ht is to 2e heard.
VV.
*anada 3. Phil. +to5ic Ener98 Co55ission, &F& -C.+ @!( %&'A$)
Bias as .isqualification in %dministrative Investigations
F6 Petition for prohi2ition 2rou9ht 28 taEpa8ers, :uestionin9 the co5petence of 5e52ers of the
P+EC to pass 7ud95ent on the safet8 of the Bataan Po4er Plant and char9in9 the5 4C 2ias and
pre7ud95ent, 2ased on their pu2lications statin9 that the plant 4as safe.
DEL16 %&) >here the 3alidit8 of an appoint5ent is not challen9ed in an appropriate proceedin9,
the :uestion of co5petence is not 4Cin the filed of 7udicial in:uir8. *he :uestion of co5petence is a
5atter addressed to the appointin9 po4er.
%") In these pu2lications, P+EC clearl8 indicated its pre7ud9e5ent that the nuclear plant is
safe. *he first 4as pu2lished in &'A. *he other " 4ere issued earlier, 2ut as the 5a7orit8 of the
P+EC co55issioners e3en then 4ere alread8 occup8in9 responsi2le positions in the P+EC, the8
cannot escape responsi2ilit8 for these pu2lications.
Petition 9ranted and P+EC restrained fro5 actin9 in the proceedin9s for issuance of
license. VV.
B+.LO,/+0 C+-E6
In re Letter to Mrs. Maria Coronel, "@A -C.+ $&'
F6 Benito Mapilisan 4as dis5issed 28 the -upre5e Court for dishonestr8 a5ountin9 to 9ross
5isconduct occasioned 28 the loss, 4hile in his custod8, of a re9istered 5ail letter, the contents of 4hich
4ere pilfered, as the P",!!! 2an? draft contained therein, e3entuall8 found its 4a8 for encash5ent 4ith
pa8ee 2an?, P,B. *he contentions of this MF. hin9e on the alle9ed 3iolation of procedural due process
28 clai5in9 that there 4as no for5al ad5inistrati3e co5plaint filed a9ainst hi5 28 either co5plainant
Maria Coronel or the C+ nor 4as there a for5al in3esti9ation conducted. +ccrodin9 to hi5, the letter
co5plaint of Maria Coronel failed to properl8 and for5all8 char9e the for5er since the letter co5plaint
4as neither suscri2ed nor s4orn to 28 the co5plainant.
I--UE6 >C, there 4as a 3iolation of procedural due process.
DEL16 ,O
Under -ec. $, +rt. VIII of the &'A( Constitution, the -upre5e Court shall ha3e
ad5inistrati3e super3ision o3er all courts and the personnel thereof. B8 this po4er, the -upre5e
Court can act on a su27ect co5plaint, particularl8 4here , as in this case, an in3esti9ation thereon
had alread8 2een conducted and concluded 28 the C+ prior to its referral to -C, 4ith the
reco55endation that 5o3ant 2e char9ed 4ith 9ross ne9li9ence. *he co5plaint, thou9h defecti3e
as to for5, has 2een full8 su2stantiated on the 2asis of the acco5pan8in9 independent in3esti9ation
.eport and .eco55endation su25itted to -C. +s a 5atter of fact, the Court e3en entertains
anon85ous co5plaints 4here the char9e can 2e full8 2orne out 28 the e3idence offered, or
continues proceedin9 4ith the ad5inistrati3e case despite 4ithdra4al 28 co5plainant of his
co5plaint 4here an in3esti9ation thereto has 2een 5ade 28 the +ctin9 Court +d5inistrator prior to
the filin9 of the co5plaint. *hus, 4hat is 9i3en para5ount i5portance 28 this Court in instances
4here its po4er of ad5inistrati3e super3ision o3er court e5plo8ees is in3o?ed is the su2stantiation
of the co5plaint rather than its confor5it8 4ith the for5al re:uire5ents. S.:ette.
P+/E (
B. 1ue Process and Police Po4er
Bautista 3. Juinio, &"( -C.+ @"' %&'AF)
Ban on 1se of /eavy Cars on 2ee$ends and /oliday s 3alid.
F6 LOI $A' 2anned the use of 3ehicles 4C + and ED plates on 4ee?#ends and holida8s in 3ie4 of the
ener98 crisis. It eEcepted, ho4e3er, those classified as - %-er3ice), * %*ruc?), 1PL %1iplo5atic), CC
%Consular Corps), and *C %*ourist Cars). *he resps., Min. of Pu2lic >or?s, *ransportation, issued 5e5o.
pro3idin9 penalties for 3iol. of the LOI, na5el8, fine, confiscation of 3ehicles, and cancellation of
re9istration. *he petitioners 2rou9ht suit :uestionin9 the 3alidit8 of the LOI on the 9round that it 4as
discri5inator8 and a denial of due process. *he resps. denied the petitionerBs alle9ations and ar9ued that
the suit a5ounted to a re:uest for ad3isor8 opinion.
DEL16 %&) Petitioners are o4ners of an A c8linder &'$' Buic? and of a $ c8linder >ill8Bs Kaiser
Jeep. *he enforce5ent of the LOI to the5 4ould depri3e the5 of prop. *he8, therefore, ha3e
standin9 to challen9e the 3alidit8 of the LOI.
%") But the LOI cannot 2e declared 3oid on its face. It has 2ehind it the presu5ption of
3alidit8. *he necessit8 for e3idence to re2ut such presu5ption is una3oida2le. +s underl8in9 the
:uestions of fact 5a8 condition the constitutionalit8 of le9islation the presu5ption of 3alidit8 5ust
pre3ail in the a2sence of so5e factual foundation of record o3erthro4in9 the statute. *he LOI is
an ener98 conser3ation 5easureJ it is an apporpriate response to a pro2le5.
%@) ,or does the LOI den8 e:ual protection to the petitioners. >Cin the class to 4Cc the
petitioner 2elon9s the LOI operate e:uall8 and unifor5l8. *hat the LOI does not include others
does not render it in3alid. *he 9o3t is not re:uired to adhere to a polic8 of =all or none.=
%F) *o the eEtent that the Land *ranspo. Code does not authorize the i5poundin9 of
3ehicles as a penalt8, to that eEtent the 5e5o. of the resps. 4ould 2e ultra vires. VV.
0not 3. I+C, supra.
+n9lo#Fil *radin9 Corp. 3. Lazaro, &"F -C.+ F'F %&'A@)
&roperty Rights %re !ub4ect to the +xercise of &olice &ower.

F6 *he petitioners 4ere a5on9 "@ ste3edorin9 and arrastre operators at the Mla -outh Dar2or. *heir
licenses had eEpired 2ut the8 4ere allo4ed to continue to operate on the stren9th of te5porar8 per5its.
On Ma8 F, &'($, the resp Phil Ports +uthorit8 decided to allo4 onl8 one or9. to operate the arrastre and
ste3edorin9 ser3ices. On +pril "A, &'A!, 2ased on the report and reco55endation of an e3aluation
co55ittee, the PP+ a4arded the eEclusi3e contract for ste3edorin9 ser3ices to the Ocean *er5inal
-er3ices Inc %O*-I). *he petitioners 2rou9ht suit in the CFI to annul the contract for eEclusi3e ser3ice. On
5otion, Ct issued a *.O en7oinin9 PP+ and O*-I fro5 i5ple5entin9 the eEclusi3e contract. Later, the ct
lifted the *.O pro5ptin9 the petitioners to file an action for certiorari 4ith the -C contendin9 that6 %&)
ex parte liftin9 of *.O constituted 9ra3e a2use of discretionJ %") the a4ard 4ould i5pair the petitionersB
contracts 4ith forei9n custo5ers.
DEL16 %&) Considerin9 that the pre3ious 9rant of *.O in fa3or of pets. 4as 5ade ex parte and
4Co 2ond, notice and hearin9 of the liftin9 4ere not necessar8, 5uch less 5andator8.
%") -te3edorin9 ser3ices are su27ect to re9ulation and control for the pu2lic 9ood and in
the interest of the 9eneral 4elfare. + sin9le contractor furnishin9 the ste3edorin9 re:uire5ents of a
port has in its fa3or the econo58 of scale and the 5aEi5u5 utilization of e:uip5ent and
P+/E A
5anpo4er. In return, effecti3e super3ision and control as 4ell as collection and accountin9 of the
9o3t share of re3enues are rendered easier than 4here there are "@ contractors to o3ersee. +s resp
ct found fro5 the e3idence, the 5ultiple contractor s8ste5 has 2red cut#throat co5petitions in the
port . Understanda2l8, 5ost contractors had 2een una2le to ac:uire sufficient 5odern facilities ,
o2ser3e la2or standards, 5aintain efficienc8, and pa8 PP+ dues.
*he contention of pets. that due process 4as 3iolated resultin9 in a confiscation of pri3ate
propert8 is li?e4ise 4ithout 5erit. In the first place, the pets 4ere operatin9 5erel8 on =hold
o3er=per5its. In the second place, the a4ard of O*-I 4as the result of a e3aluation of
perfor5ance of eEistin9 contractors 5ade 28 a special co55ittee created 28 the PP+. VV.
,otes6
*he polic8 adopted 28 the Philippine Ports +uthorit8 to allo4 onl8 one or9anization to
operate the arrastre and ste3edorin9 ser3ices of each port 4as upheld 28 the -C as a 3alid eEercise
of police po4er. For the =one port, one operator= rule 5a?es possi2le the 2etter super3ision,
collection, efficienc8 and i5pro3e5ent of ser3ices, and pre3ent cut#throat co5petition and
non#5aEi5al utilization of e:uip5ent and 5anpo4er. Do4e3er, in the a4ardin9 of contracts, the
procedures 5ust allo4 onl8 the capa2le operator to 9et the franchise.
In this case, a temporary restraining order 5TR(6 was issued without notice to the
other party. %s the TR( was lifted also without hearing, the person in whose favor it was
originally issued cannot complain of the lifting of the TR( without prior hearing.
Velasco 3. Ville9as, &"! -C.+ %&'A@)
(rdinance &rohibiting Barbershops from Rendering #assage !ervices 3alid.
F6 *he ordinance 4as enacted for a t4o#fold purpose6 %&) *o ena2le the Cit8 of Mla. to collect a fee
for operatin9 5assa9e clinics separatel8 fro5 those operatin9 2ar2er ships and %") *o pre3ent i55oralit8
4Cc 5i9ht pro2a2l8 arise fro5 the construction of separate roo5s.
DEL16 *he -C has 2een 5ost li2eral in sustainin9 ordinances 2ased on 9eneral 4elfare clause.
VV.
Cruz 3. Paras, &"@ -C.+ $' %&'A@)
F6 *he petitioners are operators or ni9htclu2s in Bocaue, Bulacan. the8 filed prohi2ition suits to
stop the Mun. of Bocaue fro5 enforcin9 an ordinance prohi2itin9 the operation of ni9htclu2s, ca2arets,
and dance h alls in that 5un. or the rene4al of licenses to operate the5. *he CFI upheld the 3alidit8 of
the ordinance and dis5issed the petition. Dence, this petition for certiorari.
DEL16 + 5un. corp. cannot prohi2it the operation of ni9htclu2s. ,i9htclu2s 5a8 2e re9ulated
2ut not pre3ented fro5 carr8in9 on their 2usiness. .+ '@A, as or9inall8 enacted, 9ranted
5unicipalities the po4er to re9ulate the esta2lish5ent, 5aintenance and operation of ni9htclu2s
and the li?e. >hile it is true that on C"&CF, the la4 4as a5ended 28 .+ '(' 4Cc purported to
9i3e 5unicipalities the po4er not onl8 to re9ulate 2ut li?e4ise to prohi2it the operation of
ni9htclu2s, the fact is that the title of the la4 re5ained the sa5e so that the po4er 9ranted to
5unicipalities re5ains that of re9ulation, not prohi2ition. *o construe the a5endator8 act as
9rantin9 5un. corporations the po4er to prohi2it the operation of ni9htclu2s 4ould 2e to construe
it in a 4a8 that it 3iolates the constitutional pro3ision that =e3er8 2ill shall e52race onl8 one
su27ect 4hich shall 2e eEpressed in the title thereof.= Moreo3er, the recent8l8#enacted L/C %BP
@@() spea?s si5pl8 of the po4er to re9ulate the esta2lish5ent, and operation of 2illiard pools,
theatrical perfor5ances, circuses and other for5s of entertain5ent. Certiorari 9ranted. VV.
P+/E '
C. 1ue Process and E5inent 1o5ain
*he ta?in9 28 the -tate of pri3ate propert8 in an eEpropriation proceedin9 5ust 2e6 %&)
for pu2lic use, %") 4ith 7ust co5pensation, and %@) upon o2ser3ance of due process.
A$ti%)e III Se%. 9. P$iv(te &$o&e$t, s'()) not *e t(9e +o$ &.*)i% .se -it'o.t G.st
%o1&ens(tion.
A$ti%)e #II Se%. 1@. T'e St(te 1(, in t'e inte$est o+ n(tion() -e)+($e o$ de+ense
est(*)is' (nd o&e$(te vit() ind.st$ies (nd .&on &(,1ent o+ G.st %o1&ens(tion t$(ns+e$ to
&.*)i% o-ne$s'i& .ti)ities (nd ot'e$ &$iv(te ente$&$ises to *e o&e$(ted *, t'e 2ove$n1ent.
&. *a?in9 either for pu2lic use or pu2lic purpose.
P.*)i% Use
Pu2lic use is e:ui3alent to pu2lic purpose. It is not confined 5erel8 to use 28 the pu2lic at
lar9e %e.9. roads). It is enou9h that it ser3es a pu2lic purpose, e3en if it 2enefit a lar9e 9roup of
people short of the pu2lic in 9eneral %e.9. eEpropriatin9 propert8 for the relocation of s:uatters).
Deirs of Juancho +rdona 3. .e8es &"@ -C.+ ""!
F6 *he Philippine *ouris5 +uthorit8 sou9ht the eEpropriation of "A" Da of land in Baran9a8
Malu2o9 and Ba2a9 in Ce2u Cit8. upon deposit of an a5ount e:ui3alent to &!L of the 3alue of the
propert8, the CFI authorized the P*+ to ta?e i55ediate possession of the propert8. *he charter of the P*+
authorizes it to ac:uire throu9h conde5nation proceedin9s lands for tourist zone de3elop5ent of a sports
co5pleE. *he petitioners 4ho are occupants of the lands, filed a petition for certiorari in the -C. *he8
contended that %&) the ta?in9 4as not for pu2lic useJ %") the land 4as co3ered 28 the land refor5 pro9ra5J
and %@) eEpropriation 4ould i5pair the o2li9ation of contracts.
DEL16 *he concept of pu2lic use is not li5ited to traditional purposes for the construction of
roads, 2rid9es, and the li?e. *he idea that =pu2lic use= 5eans =use 28 the pu2lic= has 2een
discarded. +s lon9 as the purpose of the ta?in9 is pu2lic, then the po4er of e5inent do5ain co5es
into pla8. It is accurate to state then that at present 4hate3er 5a8 2e 2eneficiall8 e5plo8ed for the
9eneral 4elfare satisfies the re:uire5ent of pu2lic use. *he petititioners ha3e not sho4n that the
area 2ein9 de3eloped is land refor5 area and that the affected persons ha3e 2een 9i3en
e5ancipation patents and certificates of land transfer. *he contract clause has ne3er 2een re9arded
as a 2arrier to the eEercise of the police po4er and li?e4ise e5inent do5ain. VV.
-u5ulon9 3. /uerrero &F -C.+ F$& %&'A()
F6 On 1ece52er , &'((, the ,ational Dousin9 +uthorit8 filed a co5plaint for the eEpropriation of
" hectares of land in +ntipolo, .izal pursuant to P1 &""F authorizin9 the eEpropriation of pri3ate lands
for socialized housin9. +5on9 those lands sou9ht to 2e eEpropriated are the petitionersB lands. *he8
2rou9ht this suit in the -C challen9in9 the constitutionalit8 of P1 &""F.
DEL16 Petitioners contend that socialized housin9 for the purpose of conde5nation proceedin9s is
not pu2lic use since it 4ill 2enefit onl8 a handful of people. *he =pu2lic use= re:uire5ent is an
e3ol3in9 concept influences 28 chan9in9 conditions. Ur2an rene4al or rede3elop5ent and the
construction of lo4#cost housin9 is reco9nized as a pu2lic purpose, not onl8 2ecause of the
P+/E &!
eEpanded concept of pu2lic use 2ut also 2ecause of specific pro3isions in the Constitution.
-horta9e in housin9 is a 5atter of state concern since it directl8 and si9nificantl8 affects pu2lic
health, safet8, the en3iron5ent and, in su5, the 9eneral 4elfare. Petitioners clai5 that there are
3ast areas of lands in .izal hundreds of hectares of 4hich are o4ned 28 a fe4 lando4ners onl8.
>h8 should the ,D+ pic? their s5all lotsI EEpropriation is not confined to landed estates. *he test
to 2e applied for a 3alid eEpropriation of pri3ate lands 4as the area of the land and not the nu52er
of people 4ho stood to 2e 2enefitted. *he -tate actin9 throu9h the ,D+ is 3ested 4ith 2road
discretion to desi9nate the propert8. *he propert8 o4ner 5a8 not interpose o27ections 5erel8
2ecause in their 7ud95ent so5e other propert8 4ould ha3e 2een 5ore suita2le. *he pro3isions on
7ust co5pensation found in P1 &""F, &"', and &@&@ are the sa5e pro3isions 4hich 4ere declared
unconstitutional in EPM+ 3. 1ula8 %&'A() for 2ein9 encroach5ents on 7udicial prero9ati3es. VV.
". Just co5pensation 5ust 2e 7udiciall8 deter5ined
E.st Co1&ens(tion
Just co5pensation is the fair and reasona2le e:ui3alent of the loss sustained 28 the o4ner
of the propert8 due to the ta?in9J it is the fair 5ar?et 3alue of the propert8 5easured at the ti5e
of the ta?in9, no 5atter ho4 lon9 a9o it 4as ta?en %e.9. the ti5e of the ta?in9 4as in the &'"!Bs,
the ti5e of pa85ent 4as in the &'$!Bs, in the Ministerio and +5i9a2le cases, supra), and usin9 the
con3ersion rates at the ti5e of ta?in9 %2ecause accordin9 to those cases, +rt. &"! of the Ci3il
Code applied onl8 to contractual o2li9ations).
EPM+ 3. 1ula8 &F' -C.+ @! %&'A()
F6 *he -an +ntonio 1e3elop5ent Corporation 4as the o4ner of a piece of land in Lapu#Lapu Cit8
4hich the EPM+ eEpropriated in &'('. *he co55issioners appointed 28 the trial court reco55ended that
the -an +ntonio 1e3elop5ent Corp. 2e paid P&.!! per s:uare 5eter. EPM+ filed a petition for certiorari,
ar9uin9 that under P1 &@@ the co5pensation should 2e the fair and current 5ar?et 3alue declared 28 the
o4ner or the 5ar?et 3alue deter5ined 28 the assessor, 4hiche3er is lo4er.
DEL16 *he 5ethod of ascertainin9 7ust co5pensation under P1 &@@ constitutes i5per5issi2le
encroach5ent on 7udicial prero9ati3es. +lthou9h the court technicall8 4ould still ha3e the po4er
to deter5ine the 7ust co5pensation for the propert8, follo4in9 the decree, its tas? 4ould 2e
rele9ated to si5pl8 statin9 the lo4er 3alue of the propert8 as declared either 28 the o4ner or the
assessor. Just co5pensation 5eans the 3alue of the propert8 at the ti5e of the ta?in9. It 5eans a
fair and full e:ui3alent for the loss sustained. +ll the facts as to the condition of the propert8 and
its surroundin9s, its i5pro3e5ents and capa2ilities should 2e considered. In this case, the taE
declarations used as 2asis for the 7ust co5pensation 4ere 5ade lon9 2efore the declaration of
5artial la4 4hen the land 4as 5uch cheaper. *o pe9 the 3alue of the lots on the 2asis of those
docu5ents 4hich are outdated 4ould 2e ar2itrar8 and confiscator8. VV.
Manoto? 3. ,D+ &! -C.+ A' %&'A()
F6 Petitioners are the o4ners of t4o lar9e estates ?no4n as the *a52untin9 Estate and -uno9#+po9
in *ondo, Manila, 2oth of 4hich 4ere declared eEpropriated in t4o decrees issued 28 President Marcos,
P1 &$$' and P1 &$(!. *he petitioners contend that the decrees 3iolate their constitutional ri9ht to due
process and e:ual protection since 28 their 5ere passa9e their properties 4ere auto5aticall8 eEpropriated
and the8 4ere i55ediatel8 depri3ed of the o4nership and possession thereof 4ithout 2ein9 9i3en the
chance to oppose such eEpropriation. *he 9o3ern5ent on the other hand contends that the po4er of
P+/E &&
e5inent do5ain is inherent in the -tate and 4hen the le9islature or the President throu9h his la4#5a?in9
po4ers eEercises this po4er, the pu2lic use and pu2lic necessit8 of the eEpropriation and the fiEin9 of the
7ust co5pensation 2eco5e political in nature and the courts 5ust respect the decision.
DEL16 *he challen9ed decrees are unfair in the procedures adopted and the po4ers 9i3en to the
,D+. *he *a52untin9 su2di3ision is su55aril8 proclai5ed a 2li9hted area and directl8
eEpropriated 28 decree 4ithout the sli9htest se52lance of a hearin9 or an8 proceedin9 4hatsoe3er.
*he eEpropriation is instant and auto5atic to ta?e effect i55ediatel8 upon the si9nin9 of the
decree. ,o deposit 2efore the ta?in9 is re:uired. *here is not pro3ision for an8 interest to 2e paid
upon unpaid install5ents. ,ot onl8 are the o4ners 9i3en a2solutel8 no opportunit8 to contest the
eEpropriation, or :uestion the a5ount of pa85ents fiEed 28 the decree, 2ut the decision of the ,D+
are eEpressl8 declared 2e8ond 7udicial re3ie4. P1 &$$' and &$(! are declared unconstitutional.
*eehan?ee, CJ, concurrin96 *he 7ud95ent at 2ar no4 learl8 o3erturns the 5a7orit8 rulin9 in JM
*uason 3. L*+ that the po4er of Con9ress to desi9nate the particular propert8 to 2e ta?en adn ho4
5uch 5a8 2e conde5ned thereof 5ust 2e dul8 reco9nized, lea3in9 onl8 as a 7udicial :uestion
4hether in the eEercise of such co5petence, the part8 ad3ersel8 affected is the 3icti5 of partialit8
and pre7udice. *he -C no4 rules that such sin9lin9 out of properties does not foreclose 7udicial
scrutin8 as to 4hether such eEpropriation 28 le9islati3e act trans9resses the due process and e:ual
protection and 7ust co5pensation 9uarantees of the Constitution. VV.
*uason 3. .e9ister of 1eeds &( -C.+ $&@ %&'AA)
F6 Petitioners 2ou9ht in &'$ fro5 Car5el Far5s Inc. a piece of land in Caloocan Cit8 28 3irtue of
4hich the8 4ere issued a title in their na5es and the8 too? possession of their propert8. In &'(@, President
Marcos, eEercisin9 5artial la4 po4ers, issued P1 "'@ cancellin9 the certificates of titles of Car5el Far5s
and declarin9 the lands co3ered to 2e open for disposition and sale to 5e52ers of the MalacaNan9
+ssociation Inc.
DEL16 *he 1ecree re3eals that Mr. Marcos eEercised an o23iousl8 7udicial function. -ince he 4as
ne3er 3ested 4ith 7udicial po4er ## such po4er, as e3er8one ?no4s, 2ein9 3ested in the -C and
such inferior courts as 5a8 2e esta2lished 28 la4 ## the 7udicial acts done 28 hi5 4ere under the
circu5stances alien to his office as chief eEecuti3e. VV.
-u5ulon9 3. /uerrero, &F -C.+ F$& %&'A(), supra.
@. 1ue process 5ust 2e o2ser3ed
1e Knecht 3. Bautista &!! -C.+ $$! %&'A!)
F6 *he plan to eEtend E1-+ to .oEas Boule3ard to 2e ulti5atel8 lin?ed to the Ca3ite Coastal .oad
Pro7ect, ori9inall8 called for the eEpropriation of properties alon9 Cuneta +3enue in Pasa8 Cit8. Later on,
ho4e3er, the Ministr8 of Pu2lic Di9h4a8s decided to 5a?e the proposed eEtension pass throu9h Fernando
.ein and 1el Pan -treets. Because of the protests of residents of the latter, the Co55ission on Du5an
-ettle5ents reco55ended the re3ersion to the ori9inal plan, 2ut the Ministr8 ar9ued the ne4 route 4ithh
sa3e the 9o3ern5ent P" 5illion. *he 9o3ern5ent filed eEpropriation proceedin9s a9ainst the o4ners of
Fernando .ein and 1el Pan streets, a5on9 4ho5 4as petitioner.
DEL16 *he choice of Fernando .ein and 1el Pan streets is ar2itra8r and should not recei3e
7udicial aprpo3al. *he Du5an -ettle5ents Co55ission concluded that the cost factor is so 5ini5al
that it can 2e disre9arded in 5a?in9 a choice 2et4een the t4o lines. *he factor of functionalit8
P+/E &"
stron9l8 5ilitates a9ainst the choice of Fernando .ein and 1el Pan streets, 4hile the factor of
social and econo5ic i5pact 2ears 9rie3ousl8 on the residents of Cuneta +3enue. >hile the issue
4ould see5 to 2oil do4n to a choice 2et4een people, on one hand, and pro9ress and de3elop5ent,
on the other, it is to 2e re5e52ered that pro9ress and de3elop5ent are carried out for the 2enefit of
the people. VV.
.epu2lic 3. 1e Knecht, &A" -C.+ &F" %&''!)
F6 1e Knecht 4as one of the o4ners of se3eral properties alon9 the Fernando .ein#1el Pan streets
4hich the /o3ern5ent sou9ht to eEpropriate to 9i3e 4a8 to the eEtension of E1-+ and the construction of
draina9e facilities. 1e Knecht filed a case to restrain the /o3ern5ent fro5 proceedin9 4ith the
eEpropriation. Der pra8er 4as denied 28 the lo4er court 2ut upon certiorari, the -C re3ersed the lo4er
court decision and 9ranted the relief as?ed for 28 1e Knecht rulin9 that the eEpropriation 4as ar2itrar8.
*he case 4as re5anded to the lo4er court.
,o further action 4as ta?en despite the -C decision until t4o 8ears later, in &'A@, 4hen the
/o3ern5ent 5o3ed for the dis5issal of the case on the 9round that the Le9islature has since enacted BP
@F! eEpropriatin9 the sa5e properties for the sa5e purpose. *he lo4er court denied tthe 5otion. +ppeal.
.ULI,/6 >hile it is true that said final 7ud95ent of this Curt on the su27ect 2eco5es the la4 of
the case 2et4een the parties, it is e:uall8 true that the ri9ht of petitioner to ta?e pri3ate properties
for pu2lic use upon pa85ent of 7ust co5pensation is so pro3ided in the Constitution and the la4s.
-uch eEpropriation proceedin9 5a8 2e underta?en 28 the petitioner not onl8 28 3oluntar8
ne9otiation 4ith the land o4ners 2ut also 28 ta?in9 appropriate court action or 28 le9islation.
>hen BP @F! 4as passed, it appears that it 4as 2ased on super3enin9 e3ents that occured
after the &'A! decision of the -C on the 1e Knecht case 4as rendered. *he social i5pact factor
4hich persuaded the Court to consider this eEtension to 2e ar2itrar8 had disappeared.
Moreo3er, the said decision is no o2stacle to the le9islati3e ar5 of the /o3ern5ent in
thereafter 5a?in9 its o4n independent assess5ent of the circu5stances then pra3ailin9 as to the
propriet8 of underta?in9 the eEpropriation of properties in :uestion and thereafter 28 enactin9 the
correspondin9 le9islation as it did in this case. *he Court a9rees in the 4isdo5 and necessit8 of
enactin9 BP @F!. *hus the anterior decision of the Court 5ust 8ield to the su2se:uent le9islati3e
fiat. C'($o.
,+POCO. 3. /utierrez, &'@ -C.+ & %&''&)
F6 For the construction of its "@! KV MeEico#Li5a8 trans5ission lines, ,apocorBs lines ha3e to pass
the lands 2elon9in9 to respondents. Unsuccessful 4ith its ne9otiations for the ac:uisition of the ri9ht of
4a8 ease5ents, ,apocor 4as constrained to file e5inent do5ain proceedin9s.
I--UE6 >C, petitoner should 2e 5ade to pa8 si5ple ease5ent fee or full co5pensation for the
land tra3ersed 28 its trans5issin lines.
.ULI,/6 In .P 3. PL1*, the -C ruled that =,or5all8, the po4er of e5inent do5ain results in the
ta?in9 or appropriation of the title to, and possession of, the eEpropriated propert8, 2ut no co9ent
reason appears 4h8 said po4er 5a8 not 2e a3ailed of to i5pose onl8 a 2urrden upon the o4ner of
the conde5ned propert8, 4ithout loss of title or possession. It is un:uestiona2le that real propert8
5a8, throu9h eEpropriation, 2e su27ected to an ease5ent of ri9ht of 4a8.= In this case, the ease5ent
is definitel8 a ta?in9 under the po4er of e5inent do5ain. Considerin9 the nature and effect of the
installation of the trans5ission lines, the li5itations i5posed 28 the ,PC a9ainst the use of the
land %that no plant hi9her than @ 5eters is allo4ed 2elo4 the lines) for an indefinite period
depri3es pri3ate respondents of ts ordinar8 use.
P+/E &@
For these reasons, the o4ner of the propert8 eEpropriated is entitled to a 7ust co5pensation
4hich should neither 2e 5ore nor less, 4hene3er it is possi2le to 5a?e the assess5ent, than the
5one8 e:ui3alent of said propert8. Just e:uii3alent has al4a8s 2een understood to 2e the 7ust and
co5plete e:ui3alent of the loss 4hich the o4ner of the thin9 eEpropriated has to suffer 28 reason of
the eEpropriation. *he price or 3alue of the land and its character at the ti5e of ta?in9 28 the /o3t.
are the criteria for deter5inin9 7ust c5pensation. C'($o.
1. E:ual Protection
A$t. III Se%. 1. No &e$son s'()) *e de&$ived o+ )i+e )i*e$t, o$ &$o&e$t, -it'o.t d.e
&$o%ess o+ )(- nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
A$t. #III Se%. 1. T'e Con2$ess s'()) 2ive 'i2'est &$io$it, to t'e en(%t1ent o+
1e(s.$e t'(t &$ote%t (nd en'(n%e t'e $i2't o+ ()) t'e &eo&)e to '.1(n di2nit, $ed.%e so%i()
e%ono1i% (nd &o)iti%() ine/.()ities (nd $e1ove %.)t.$() ine/.ities *, e/.it(*), di++.sin2
-e()t' (nd &o)iti%() &o-e$ +o$ t'e %o11on 2ood.
To t'is end t'e St(te s'()) $e2.)(te t'e (%/.isition o-ne$s'i& .se (nd dis&osition o+
&$o&e$t, (nd its in%$e1ents.
&. Econo5ic e:ualit8
A$t. #III Se%. 7. T'e &$o1otion o+ so%i() G.sti%e s'()) in%).de t'e %o11it1ent to
%$e(te e%ono1i% o&&o$t.nities *(sed on +$eedo1 o+ initi(tive (nd se)+F$e)i(n%e.
A$t. #III Se%. >. T'e St(te s'()) (++o$d +.)) &$ote%tion to )(*o$ )o%() (nd ove$se(s
o$2(ni:ed (nd .no$2(ni:ed (nd &$o1ote +.)) e1&)o,1ent (nd e/.()it, o+ e1&)o,1ent o&&o$F
t.nities +o$ ()).
It s'()) 2.($(ntee t'e $i2'ts o+ ()) -o$9e$s to se)+Fo$2(ni:(tion %o))e%tive *($2(inin2
(nd ne2oti(tions (nd &e(%e+.) %on%e$ted (%tivities in%).din2 t'e $i2't to st$i9e in (%%o$d(n%e
-it' )(-. T'e, s'()) *e entit)e to se%.$it, o+ ten.$e '.1(ne %onditions o+ -o$9 (nd )ivin2
-(2e. T'e, s'()) ()so &($ti%i&(te in &o)i%, (nd de%isionF1(9in2 &$o%ess (++e%tin2 t'e $i2'ts
(nd *ene+its (s 1(, *e &$ovided *, )(-.
T'e St(te s'()) &$o1ote t'e &$in%i&)e o+ s'($ed $es&onsi*i)it, *et-een -o$9e$s (nd
e1&)o,e$s (nd t'e &$e+e$enti() .se o+ vo).nt($, 1odes in sett)in2 dis&.tes in%).din2 %on%i)F
i(tion (nd s'()) en+o$%e t'ei$ 1.t.() %o1&)i(n%e t'e$e-it' to +oste$ ind.st$i() &e(%e.
T'e St(te s'()) $e2.)(te t'e $e)(tions *et-een -o$9e$s (nd e1&)o,e$s $e%o2ni:in2 t'e
$i2't o+ )(*o$ to its G.st s'($e in t'e +$.its o+ &$od.%tion (nd t'e $i2't o+ ente$&$ises to
$e(son(*)e $et.$ns on invest1ents (nd to e;&(nsion (nd 2$o-t'.

A$t. #II Se%. 10. T'e Con2$ess s'()) .&on $e%o11end(tion o+ t'e e%ono1i% (nd
&)(nnin2 (2en%, -'en t'e n(tion() inte$est di%t(tes $ese$ve to %iti:ens o+ t'e P'i)i&&ines o$ to
%o$&o$(tions o$ (sso%i(tions (t )e(st si;t, per centum o+ -'ose %(&it() is o-ned *, s.%'
%iti:ens o$ s.%' 'i2'e$ &e$%ent(2e (s Con2$ess 1(, &$es%$i*e %e$t(in ($e(s o+ invest1ents.
T'e Con2$ess s'()) en(%t 1e(s.$es t'(t -i)) en%o.$(2e t'e +o$1(tion (nd o&e$(tion
ente$&$ises -'ose %(&it() is -'o)), o-ned *, 3i)i&inos.
In t'e 2$(nt o+ $i2'ts &$ivi)e2es (nd %on%essions %ove$in2 t'e n(tion() e%ono1, (nd
&(t$i1on, t'e St(te s'()) 2ive &$e+e$en%e to /.()i+ied 3i)i&inos.
P+/E &F
T'e St(te s'()) $e2.)(te (nd e;e$%ise (.t'o$it, ove$ +o$ei2n invest1ents -it'in its
n(tion() G.$isdi%tion (nd in (%%o$d(n%e -it' its n(tion() 2o()s (nd &$io$ities.
Id. Se%. 7. ;;;
T'e St(te s'()) &$ote%t t'e n(tionHs 1($ine -e()t' in its ($%'i&e)(2i% -(te$s
te$$ito$i() se( (nd e;%).sive e%ono1i% :one (nd $ese$ve its .se (nd enGo,1ent e;%).sive), to
3i)i&ino %iti:ens.
A$t. III Se%. 11. 3$ee (%%ess to t'e %o.$ts (nd /.(siFG.di%i() *odies (nd (de/.(te
)e2() (ssist(n%e s'()) not *e denied to (n, &e$son *, $e(son o+ &ove$t,.
A$t. VIII Se%. ?. T'e S.&$e1e Co.$t s'()) '(ve t'e +o))o-in2 &o-e$sD
;;;
=?A P$o1.)2(te $.)es %on%e$nin2 t'e &$ote%tion (nd en+o$%e1ent o+ %onstit.tion()
$i2'ts &)e(din2 &$(%ti%e (nd &$o%ed.$e in ()) %o.$ts t'e (d1ission to t'e &$(%ti%e o+ )(- t'e
Inte2$(ted 4($ (nd )e2() (ssist(n%e to t'e .nde$&$ivi)e2ed. S.%' $.)es s'()) &$ovide (
si1&)i+ied (nd ine;&ensive &$o%ed.$e +o$ t'e s&eed, dis&osition o+ %(ses s'()) *e .ni+o$1 +o$
()) %o.$ts o+ t'e s(1e 2$(de (nd s'()) not di1inis' in%$e(se o$ 1odi+, s.*st(ntive $i2'ts.
Ri2'ts o+ &$o%ed.$e o+ s&e%i() %o.$ts (nd /.(siFG.di%i() *odies s'()) $e1(in e++e%tive .n)ess
dis(&&$oved *, t'e S.&$e1e Co.$t.
*here are areas of econo5ic acti3it8 4hich can 2e li5ited to Filipinos. *he Constitution
itself ac?no4led9es this in 3arious places # eEploitation of 5arine 4ealth %+rt. ;II, -ec. " par. "),
certain areas of in3est5ent %+rt. ;II, -ec. &!), to na5e a fe4.
In Ichon9 3. Dernandez, "!& Phil. && %&'@(), the -C upheld the 3alidit8 of the la4
4hich nationalized the retail trade. For the protection of the la4 can 2e o2ser3ed 28 the national
interest.
Ichon9 3. Dernandez, "!& Phil. && %&'@()
But there are areas 4here aliens cannot 2e ?ept a4a8 for the si5ple reason that the8
cannot 2e depri3ed of a co55on 5eans of li3elihood, especiall8 4hen the8 are ad5itted to the
countr8 as i55i9rants.
In Ville9as 3. Diu Chion9 Isai Po Do, A$ -C.+ "(! %&'(A), the -C in3alidated a cit8
ordinance i5posin9 a P!! per5it fee for aliens 4ho 4ish to en9a9e in the pursuit of an
occupation. *he -C noted that this 3iolated the unifor5it8 of taEation, and depri3ed aliens of the
ri9ht to earn a co55on li3elihood.
Ville9as 3. Diu Chiun9 *sai Pao Do A$ -C.+ "(! %&'(A)
F6 +n ordinance of the Cit8 of Manila prohi2ited the e5plo85ent of aliens in an8 occupation or
2usiness unless the8 first secured a per5it fro5 the Ma8or of Manila and paid a fee of P!!. .espondent,
an alien, e5plo8ed in Manila, 2rou9ht suit and o2tained 7ud95ent fro5 the CFI declarin9 the ordinance
null and 3oid.
DEL16 *he ordinance is a taE 5easure. In i5posin9 a flat rate of P!!, it failed to consider
su2stantial differences in situations a5on9 aliens and for that reason 3iolates the rule on unifor5it8
of taEation. It also la8s do4n no 9uide for 9rantin9Cden8in9 the per5it and therefore per5its the
P+/E &
ar2itrar8 eEercise of discretion 28 the Ma8or. Finall8, the ordinance denies aliens due process and
the e:ual protection of the la4s. VV.
In Vera 3. Cue3as, '! -C.+ @(' %&'('), -ec. &$' of the ,I.C re:uirin9 5anufacturers of
s?i55ed 5il? %non#fat) to put on its la2el the 4arnin9 that the 5il? is har5ful for infants, 4as
struc? do4n as unconstitutional on the 9round that it did not re:uire the sa5e la2elin9 in the case
of filled 5il? %coco#fat added)
+t that ti5e of the decision thou9ht, the la4 4as alread8 inoperati3e.
Vera 3. Cue3as '! -C.+ @(' %&'(')
F6 .espondents are en9a9ed in the 5anufacture and sale of filled 5il? products. *he8 2rou9ht an
action in the CFI for a declaration of their ri9hts in respect of section &$' of the *aE Code. *his pro3ision
re:uired that =all condensed s?i55ed 5il? in 4hate3er for5, fro5 4hich the fatt8 part has 2een re5o3ed
totall8 or in part or put on sale in the Philippines shall 2e clearl8 and le9i2l8 5ar?ed on its i55ediate
containers 4ith the 4ords6 *his 5il? is not suita2le for nourish5ent for infants less than one 8ear of a9e.
DEL16 -ec. &$' of the *aE Code has 2een repealed 28 .+ @FF. +t an8 rate, -ec. &$' applied onl8
to s?i55ed 5il? and not to filled 5il?. -ec. &$' is 2ein9 enforced onl8 a9ainst respondent
5anufacturers of filled 5il? 2ut not a9ainst 5anufacturers of s?i55ed 5il?, thus den8in9 the5 the
e:ual protection of the la4s. VV.
". Political e:ualit8

A$t. III Se%. 1@. =1A No &e$son s'()) *e det(ined so)e), *, $e(son o+ 'is &o)iti%()
*e)ie+s (nd (s&i$(tions.
A$t. I# C Se%. 10. Bona fide %(ndid(tes to &.*)i% o++i%e s'()) *e +$ee +$o1 (n, +o$1
o+ '($(ss1ent (nd dis%$i1in(tion.
In 1u5lao 3. Co5elec, ' -C.+ @'" %&'A!), the -C upheld the 3alidit8 of sec. F of Batas
Bl9. " dis:ualif8in9 retired electi3e local officials 4ho ha3e recei3ed retire5ent 2enefits and
4ould ha3e 2een $ 8ears old at the start of the ter5. It does not 3iolate e:ual protection, for it
9i3es 8oun9er 2lood the opportunit8 to run the local 9o3ern5ent.
1u5lao 3. Co5elec, ' -C.+ @'" %&'A!)
F6 -ec. F of BP " pro3ides in part that =an8 retired electi3e pro3incial, cit8 ot 5unicipal official
4ho has recei3ed pa85ent of the retire5ent 2enefits to 4hich he is entitled under the la4 and 4ho shall
ha3e 2een $ 8ears of a9e at the co55ence5ent of the ter5 of office to 4hich he see?s to 2e elected, shall
not 2e :ualified to run for the sa5e electi3e local office fro5 4hich he has retired.= Petitioner, /o3ernor
of ,ue3a Vizca8a, sued for prohi2ition to en7oin enforce5ent of the la4 on the 9round that it 4as contrar8
to the e:ual protection and due process 9uarantee of the Constitution.
DEL16 1u5lao has not 2een in7ured 28 the application of the pro3ision. ,o petition see?in9 his
dis:ualification has 2een filed a9ainst hi5. Dis petition is a 5ere re:uest for ad3isor8 opinion.
,e3ertheless, 2ecause of pu2lic interest, the :uestion should 2e resol3ed. *he purpose of the la4 is
to allo4 the e5er9ence of 8oun9er 2lood in local 9o3ern5ents and therefore, not in3alid. *he
P+/E &$
retired e5plo8ee in effect declares hi5self tired and una3aila2le for the sa5e 9o3ern5ent 4or?.
VV.
In I9ot 3. Co5elec, ' -C.+ @'" %&'A!), ho4e3er, the dis:ualification of candidates con#
3icted or si5pl8 char9ed 4ith national securit8 offenses 4as struc? do4n as unconstitutional, for
3iolatin9 the presu5ption of innocence and thus ulti5atel8 the e:ual political protection.
I9ot c. Co5elec ' -C.+ @'" %&'A!)
F6 .o5eo I9ot, as taEpa8er, 3oter and 5e52er of the 2ar, and +lfredo -alapantan Jr., as taEpa8er
and 3oter, sued for prohi2ition to en7oin enforce5ent of BP ", sec. F of 4hich pro3ides for the
dis:ualification as candidate of an8 person con3icted of su23ersion, insurrection or re2ellion or si5ilar
offenses.
DEL16 ,either petitioner has 2een con3icted nor char9ed 4ith acts of dislo8alt8 nor dis:ualified
fro5 2ein9 candidates for local electi3e positions. *he8 ha3e no personal or su2stantial interest at
sta?e and therefore no locus standi. ,either can the8 sue as taEpa8ers 2ecause the statute does not
in3ol3e dis2urse5ent of pu2lic funds. VV.
@. -ocial e:ualit8
A$t. #III Se%. 1. T'e Con2$ess s'()) 2ive 'i2'est &$io$it, to t'e en(%t1ent o+
1e(s.$e t'(t &$ote%t (nd en'(n%e t'e $i2't o+ ()) t'e &eo&)e to '.1(n di2nit, $ed.%e so%i()
e%ono1i% (nd &o)iti%() ine/.()ities (nd $e1ove %.)t.$() ine/.ities *, e/.it(*), di++.sin2
-e()t' (nd &o)iti%() &o-e$ +o$ t'e %o11on 2ood.
To t'is end t'e St(te s'()) $e2.)(te t'e (%/.isition o-ne$s'i& .se (nd dis&osition o+
&$o&e$t, (nd its in%$e1ents.
.
II. RE!UIRE"ENTS O3 3AIR PROCEDURE
+. +rrests, -earches and -eizures
A$t. III Se%. 7. T'e $i2't o+ t'e &eo&)e to *e se%.$e in t'ei$ &e$sons 'o.ses &(&e$s
(nd e++e%ts (2(inst .n$e(son(*)e se($%'es (nd sei:.$es o+ -'(teve$ n(t.$e (nd +o$ (n,
&.$&ose s'()) *e invio)(*)e (nd no se($%' -($$(nt o$ -($$(nt o+ ($$est s'()) iss.e e;%e&t
.&on &$o*(*)e %(.se to *e dete$1ined &e$son()), *, t'e G.d2e (+te$ e;(1in(tion .nde$ o(t'
o$ (++i$1(tion o+ t'e %o1&)(in(nt (nd t'e -itnesses 'e 1(, &$od.%e (nd &($ti%.)($),
des%$i*in2 t'e &)(%e to *e se($%'ed (nd t'e &e$son o$ t'in2s to *e sei:ed.
Se%. >. T'e &$iv(%, o+ %o11.ni%(tion (nd %o$$es&onden%e s'()) *e invio)(*)e e;%e&t
.&on )(-+.) o$de$ o+ t'e %o.$t o$ -'en &.*)i% s(+et, o$ o$de$ $e/.i$es ot'e$-ise (s
&$es%$i*ed *, )(-. An, eviden%e o*t(ined in vio)(tion o+ t'is o$ t'e &$e%edin2 se%tion
s'()) *e in(d1issi*)e +o$ (n, &.$&ose in (n, &$o%eedin2.
&. .e:uire5ents for -earch >arrants
P+/E &(
0ee -ue Ku8 3. +l5eda, (! Phil. &F& %&'F!)
F6 B8 3irtue of the s4orn application of +l5eda, the Chief a9ent of the +nti#Usur8 Board, a -> 4as
issued to search the store and pre5ises of the petitioner, accused of 3iolatin9 the +nti#Usur8 La4. .eceipt
2oo?s, P,s and other articles 4ere seized and retained in the possession of the +nti#Usur8 Board.
I--UE6 >Cn the re:uire5ents for the issuance of 3alid -> 4ere co5plied 4ith.
.ULI,/6 0E-. *he applicant, +l5eda, in his application, s4ore that =he 5ade his o4n personal
in3esti9ation and ascertained that petitioner is lendin9 5one8 4ithout a license, char9in9 usurious
rates.= *he 4itness he presentted testified 2efore the 7ud9e and s4ore that he ?ne4 that 0EE 4as
lendin9 4ithout a license 2ecause he personall8 in3esti9ated the 3icti5s 4ho secured loans fro5 the
petitioner. *heir affida3its 4ere sufficient for, thereunder, the8 could 2e held lia2le for per7ur8. *he
eEistence of pro2a2le cause has 2een deter5ined 28 the 7ustice of the peace 2efore issuin9 the
4arrant co5plained of, as sho4n in the 4arrant itself. C'($o.
Pasion 3da. de /arcia 3. Locsin, $ Phil. $A', %&'@A)
F6 *his is a petition for 5anda5us presented to secure the annul5ent of a search 4arrant %->) O "
orders of the resp. 7ud9e, O the restoration of certain docu5ents alle9ed to ha3e 2een ille9all8 seized 28 an
a9ent of the +nti#Usur8 Board.
+l5eda, an a9ent of the +nti#Usur8 Board, o2tained fro5 the 7ustice of the peace of *arlac,
*arlac, a ->, co55andin9 an8 officer of the la4 =to search the person, house or store of the petitioner for
certain 2oo?s, lists, chits, receipts, docu5ents O other papers relatin9 to her acti3ities as userer.=
On the sa5e date, +l5eda, acco5panied 28 a captain of the PC, 4ent to the office of the
petitioner, and after sho4in9 the -> to the petitionerBs 2oo?eeper, -alas, O 4Co the presence of the
petitioner, 4ho 4as ill and confined at that ti5e, proceeded 4C the eEecution thereof. *4o pac?a9es of
records O a loc?ed filin9 ca2inet containin9 se3eral papers and docu5ents 4ere seized 28 +l5eda and a
receipt thereof issued 28 hi5 to -alas. -eparate cri5inal cases 4ere filed a9ainst petitioner. Petitioner
de5anded the return of the docu5ents seized. Bu 5otion, pet. challen9ed the le9alit8 of the -> and the
de3olution of the docu5ents de5anded. B8 resolution, the resp. 7ud9e of CFI denied the petitionerBs
5otion for the reason that thou9h the -> 4as ille9al, there 4as a 4ai3er on the part of the petitioner.
*he resolution of &!CC@( O the order of &C@C@A are sou9ht, to9ether 4C the ->, to 2e nullified in
these proceedin9s.
DEL16 Freedo5 fro5 unreasona2le searches and seizures is declared a popular ri9ht and for a
-> to 2e 3alid, %&) it must be issued upon probable causeJ %") the probable cause must be
determined by the 4udge himself and not by the applicant or anotherJ %@) in the determination of
probable cause, the 4udge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such
witnesses as the latter may produceJ O %F) the warrant issued must particularly describe the
place to be searched and persons or things to be sei*ed.
In the instant case, the eEistence of pro2a2le cause 4as deter5ined not 28 the 7ud9e
hi5self 2ut 28 the applicant. +ll that the 7ud9e did 4as to accept as true the affida3it 5ade 28
a9ent +l5eda. It does not appear that he eEa5ined the applicant and his 4itnesses, if an8. E3en
acceptin9 the description of the prop. to 2e seized to 2e sufficient and on the assu5ption that the
receipt issued is sufficientl8 detailed 4Cin the 5eanin9 of the la4, the prop. seized 4ere not
deli3ered to the court 4Cc issued the 4arrant, as re:uired 28 la4. Instead, the8 4ere turned o3er to
the resp. pro3incial fiscal O used 28 hi5 in 2uildin9 up cases a9ainst petitioner. Considerin9 that
at the ti5e the 4arrant 4as issued, there 4as no case pendin9 a9ainst the petitioner, the a3er5ent
that the 4arrant 4as issued pri5aril8 for eEploration purposes is not 4Co 2asis.
I- *DE.E + >+IVE.I ,o eEpress 4ai3er.
P+/E &A
I- *DE.E +, IMPLIE1 >+IVE.I ,one.
*o constitute a 4ai3er of constitutional ri9ht, it 5ust appear first that %&) the ri9ht eEistsJ
%") that the person in3ol3ed had ?no4led9e, actual or constructi3e, of the eEistence of such ri9htJ
%@) that said person had an actual intention to relin:uish the ri9ht.
It is true that the petitioner did not o27ect to the le9alit8 of the search 4hen it 4as 5ade.
-he could not ha3e o27ected 2ec. she 4as sic? O 4as not present 4hen the 4arrant 4as ser3ed
upon -alas. Certainl8, the constitutional i55unit8 fro5 unreasona2le searches and seizures, 2ein9
a personal one, cannot 2e 4ai3ed 28 an8one eEcept 28 the person 4hose ri9hts are in3aded or one
4ho is eEpressl8 authorized to do so in his or her 2ehalf. *he failure on the part of the petitioner
and her 2oo??eeper to resist or o27ect to the eEecution of the 4arrant does not constitute an i5plied
4ai3er of the consti. ri9ht. It is 2ut a su25ission to the authorit8 of the la4. *he dela8 in 5a?in9
the de5and for the return of the docu5ents seized is not such as to result i5 i5plied. 4ai3er.
RA".
Bur9os 3. Chief of -taff &@@ -C.+ A!! %&'AF)
Illegal search of newspaper offices and press freedom
F6 On the 2asis of t4o 4arrants issued 28 the .*C of PC, the offices of the Metropolitan Mail and
the >e Foru5 4ere search and printin9 5achines, paraphernalia, 5otor 3ehicles and other articles used
in the printin9, pu2lication and distri2ution of the ne4spapers as 4ell as papers and other literature seized
on the 9round that the8 4ere used in the co55ission of the cri5e of su23ersion. Petitioners 2rou9ht and
action to annul the 4arrants and co5pel the return of the thin9s seized.
DEL16 PetitionersB thesis is i5pressed 4ith 5erit. Pro2a2le cause for a search is defined as such
facts and circu5stances 4hich 4ould lead a reasona2l8 discreet and prudent 5an to 2elie3e that an
offense has 2een co55itted and that the o27ects sou9ht in connection 4ith the offense are in the
place sou9ht to 2e searched. >hen addressed to a ne4spaper pu2lisher or editor, the application for
a 4arrant 5ust contain a specification statin9 4ith particularit8 the alle9ed su23ersi3e 5aterials
he has pu2lished or intendin9 to pu2lish. Broad state5ent in the application is a 5ere conclusion
of la4 and does not satisf8 the re:uire5ent of pro2a2le cause. +nother factor that 5a?es the search
4arrants constitutionall8 o27ectiona2le is that the8 are in the nature of 9eneral 4arrants. In
-tanford 3. -tate of *eEas, the U- -C declared this t8pe of 4arrant 3oid. VV.
Corro 3. Lisin9 &@( -C.+ @F& %&'A)
F6 .espondent Jud9e issued a search 4arrant for the seizure of articles alle9edl8 used 28 petitioner
in co55ittin9 the cri5e of sedition. -eized 4ere printed copies of the Philippine *i5es, ne4spaper
du55ies, t8pe4riters, 5i5eo9raphin9 5achines and tape recorders, 3ideo 5achines and tapes. *he
petitioner 5o3ed to :uash the 4arrant 2ut his 5otion 4as denied.
DEL16 *he state5ents 5ade in the affida3its are 5ere conclusions of la4 and do not satisf8 the
re:uire5ent of pro2a2le cause. *he lan9ua9e used is all e52racin9 as to include all concei3a2le
4ords and e:uip5ent of petitioner re9ardless of 4hether the8 are le9al or ille9al. *he search
4arrant under consideration 4as in the nature of a 9eneral 4arrant 4hich is o27ectiona2le. VV.
Bache O Co. %Phil.) 3. .uiz, @( -C.+ A"@ %&'(&)
P+/E &'
F6 *he Co5. of Internal .e3enue throu9h .e3. EEa5iner de Leon filed an application for a ->
a9ainst Bache O Co. and its pres., -e99er5an for 3iolation of the pro3isons of the ,I.C. +s Jud9e .uiz
4as then conductin9 a hearin9, the deposition of de Leon and his 4itness, Lo9ronio, 4as ta?en 28 the
1ep. Cler? of Court. *he deposition 4as later read to the 7ud9e 4ho as?ed the 4itness to ta?e an oath as to
the truth of his state5ents. *he 7ud9e then si9ned the -> and accordin9l8 issued the sa5e.
I--UE6 >Cn the re:uire5ents for the issuance of 3alid -> 4ere co5plied 4ith.
.ULI,/6 ,O. *he 7ud9e did not personall8 eEa5ine the co5plainant and his 4itnesses. *he 7ud9e
did not ha3e the opportunit8 to o2ser3e tthe de5eanor of the deponents and to propound initial and
follo4#up :uestions 4hich his 7udicial 5ind, on account of his trainin9, 4as in the 2est position to
concei3e. *his is i5portant in arri3in9 at a sound inference on the all#i5portatnt :uestion of 4Cn
there 4as pro2a2le cause. C'($o.
Prudente 3. 1a8rit, &A! -C.+ $' %&''!)
F6 Jud9e 1a8rit, upon applicatin of PCMa7. 1i5a95ali4, supported 28 a =1eposition of >itness,=
eEecuted 28 PCLt. +n9eles, issued a search 4arrant for the search and seizure of ar5s, a55unitions and
eEplosi3es in the pre5ises of the PUP 4hich 4ere supposed to 2e in possession of 1r. Prudente. In
enforcin9 the 4arrant, @ fra95entation 9renades 4ere found in the 2athroo5 of the office of 1r. Prudente.
I--UE6 >Cn the searrch 4arrant 4as 3alid.
.ULI,/6 ,O.
%&) *he 4arant 4as not issued on the 2asis of personal ?no4led9e of the applicant and his
4itness. *he pro2a2le cause re:uired under the Constitution for the issuance of a search 4arrant
5ust 2e in connection 4ith one specific offense, and the 7ud9e 5ust, 2efore issuin9 the 4arrant,
personall8 eEa5ine in the for5 of searchin9 :uestions and ans4ers, in 4ritin9 and under oath, the
co5plainant and an8 4itnesses he 5a8 produce, on facts personall8 ?no4n to the5 and attach to
the record their s4orn state5ents to9ether 4ith an8 affida3it su25itted. Do4e3er, in the case at
2ar, 1i5a95ali4 5erel8 stated in his application that his ?no4led9e 4as 2ased =on 9athered
infr5ation fro5 3erified sources.= *he sa5e holds true for the affida3it of +n9eles.
Moreo3er, the 7ud9e did not eEa5ine +n9eles in the for5 of searchin9 :uestions and
ans4ers. >hat appears on the record are leadin9 :uestions ans4erea2le 28 8es or no.
%") +s to the clai5 that the -> failed to particularl8 descri2e the place to 2e searched, the
-C ruled that the description of the place to 2e searched is sufficient if the officer 4ith the 4arrant
can, 4ith reasona2le effort, ascertain and identif8 the place intended to 2e searched. Dere, the ->
descri2ed the place as PUP, 4ith its address and specificall8 5entioned the offices of the =1ept. of
Militar8 -cience and *actics on the 9round floor and the Office of the President at the "nd floor
and the other roo5s in that floor.= *his is dee5ed sufficient.
%@) *here 4as also an issue as to 4Cn the -> 4as issued for one specific offense. *he
4arrrant 4as issued for 3iolation of P1 &A$$ 4hich punishes se3eral offenses. >hile there 4as
failure to state the particular pro3ision of the la4 3iolated, the 4arrant itself :ualified the
description of the offense as =ille9al possession of firear5s, etc.= *his suffices to cure the defect.
*he fact that the 4ord =etc.= 4as added to refer to a55unitions and eEplosi3es did not
3iolate the rule on sin9le offense, for not4ithstandin9 that possession of firear5s, eEplosi3es and
a55unitions are punished in different sections of the P1, the8 are treated as 2elon9in9 to a sin9le
specie. +n eEception to the rule that a 4arant shall 2e issued for a sin9le offense is 4hen eEistin9
la4s prescri2e a sin9le punish5ent for 3arious offenses. C'($o.
P+/E "!
Olaes 3. People, & -C.+ FA$ %&'A()
F6 Petitioners clai5 that the -> issued 28 resp. 7ud9e 4as in3alid. *he8 also :uestion the
eEtra7udicial confession ta?en fro5 the5 4ithout accordin9 the5 the ri9ht to assistance of a counsel. *he
articles seized 28 3irtue of the -> consistin9 of dried 5ari7uana 4ere ad5itted as e3idence for 3iolation of
.+ $F" or 1an9erous 1ru9s +ct.
.ULI,/6 >hile it is true that the caption of the -> states that it is in connection 4ith =the
3iolation of .+ $F",= it is clearl8 recited in the teEt thereof that =there is pro2a2le cause to 2elie3e
that Olaes of Olon9apo Cit8 has in his possession and control, 5ari7uana dried stal?s 4hich are
su7ect of the offense stated a2o3e.= +lthou9h the specific section of the la4 is not stated, there is no
:uestion at all that the specific offense alle9ed to ha3e 2een co55itted as 2asis for deter5inin9
pro2a2le cause is alle9ed. Further5ore, the -> specificall8 descri2ed the place to 2e searched
and the thin9s to 2e seized.
+s to the eEtra7udicial confessions of the accused, the sa5e are dee5ed inad5issi2le
a9ainst the5. In People V. /alit, the Court declared that6 = +t the ti5e the person is arrested, it
shall 2e the dut8 of the arrestin9 officer to infor5 hi5 of the reason for the arrrest and he 5ust 2e
sho4n the 4arrant of arrest, if an8J he shall 2e infor5ed of his constitutional ri9hts to re5ain silent
and to counsel, and that an8 state5ent he 5i9ht 5a?e could 2e used a9ainst hi5. *he person
arrested shall ha3e the ri9ht to co55unicate 4ith his la48er, a relati3e, or an8one he chooses 28
the 5ost eEpedient 5eans # 28 telephone if possi2le # or 28 letter or 5essen9er. It shall 2e the
responsi2ilit8 of the arrestin9 officer to see to it that this is acco5plished. ,o custodial
in3esti9ation shall 2e conducted unless it 2e in the presence of counsel en9a9ed 28 the person
arrested, 28 an8 person on his 2ehalf, or appointed 28 the court upon petition either of the detainee
hi5self or 28 an8one on his 2ehalf. *he ri9ht to counsel 5a8 2e 4ai3ed 2ut the 4ia3er shall not 2e
3alid unless 5ade 4ith the assistance of counsel. +n8 state5ent o2tained in 3iolation of the
procedure herein laid do4n, 4hether eEculpator8 or inculpator8, in 4hole or in part, shall 2e
inad5issi2le in e3idence.=
*hese re:uire5ents 4ere e3en 5ade stricter under the &'A( Constitution 4hich pro3ides
that the ri9hts of a person under custodial in3esti9ation cannot 2e 4ai3ed eEcept 4hen 5ade in
4ritin9 and in the presence of counsel. C'($o.
Presidential +nti#1ollar -altin9 *as? Force 3. C+, &(& -C.+ @FA %&'A')
F6 *he P+-*F 4as created 28 3irtue of P1 &'@$ to ser3e as the PresidentBs ar5 called upon to
co52at the 3ice of dollar saltin9 or the 2lac?5ar?etin9 and saltin9 of forei9n eEchan9e.
I--UE6 >C, the P+-*F is =such other officer as 5a8 2e authorized 28 la4= to issue 4arrants
under the &'(@ Constitition.
.ULI,/6 ,O. *he Court, in re3ie4in9 the po4ers of the P+-*F under its ena2lin9 la4, sees
nothin9 that 4ill re3eal a le9islati3e intende5ent to confer upon the 2od8, :uasi#7udicial
responsii2ilities relati3e to offenses punisha2le 28 P1 &AA@. Its underta?in9 is si5pl8 to deter5ine
4Cn pro2a2le cause eEists to 4arrant the filin9 of char9es 4ith the proper court, 5eanin9 to sa8, to
conduct an in:uir8 preli5inar8 to a 7udicial recourse, and to reco55end action of appropriate
authorities.
*he Court a9rees that P+-*F eEercises, or 4as 5eant to eEercise, prosecutorial po4ers,
and on that 9round, it cannot 2e said to 2e a neutral and detached 7ud9e to deter5ine the eEistence
of pro2a2le cause for purposes of arrest or search. Unli?e a 5a9istrate, a prosecutor is naturall8
P+/E "&
interested in the success of his case. +lthou9h his office =is to see to it that 7ustice if done and not
necessaril8 to secure the con3iction of the accused,= he stands in3aria2l8, as the accusedBs
ad3ersar8 and his accuser. *o per5it hi5 to issue 4arrrants and indeed, 4arrants of arrest, is to
5a?e hi5 2oth 7ud9e and 7ur8 in his o4n ri9ht, 4hen he is neither. *his 5a?es to our 5ind and to
that eEtent, P1 &$@$ as a5ended 28 P1 "!!", unconstitutional.
*he =responsi2le officer= referred to under the Cosntitution is one not onl8 possessin9 the
necessar8 s?ills and co5petence 2ut 5ore si9nificantl8, the neutralit8 and independence
co5para2le to the i5partialit8 presu5ed of a 7udicial officer. C'($o.
-alazar 3. +chacoso, &A@ -C.+ &F
F6 Pursuant to the po4ers 3ested 28 P1 &'"! and EO &!"", POE+ +d5inistrator +chacoso ordered
the closure of the recruit5ent a9enc8 of Dort8 -alazar, ha3in9 3erified that she had no license to operate a
recruit5ent a9enc8. De further ordered the seizure of the docu5ents and paraphernalias, 2ein9 used or
intended to 2e used as the 5eans of co55itin9 ille9al recruit5ent. *his order 4as enforced on "$
Januar8 &'AA. Petitioner filed this suit for prohi2ition.
Issue6 Ma8 the POE+ %or the -ec. of La2or) 3alidl8 issue 4arrants of serach and seizure %or arrest
) under +rt. @A of the La2or CodeI
DEL16 ,O.
*he pro3isions of P1 &'"! and EO &!"", no4 e52odied in +rt. @A of the La2or Code, are
the d8in9 3esti9es of authoritarian rule in its t4ili9hts 5o5ents. Under +rt. III, -ec " of the &'A(
Constitution, it is onl8 7ud9es and no other, 4ho 5a8 issue 4arrants of arrest and search. *he
eEception is in cases of deportation of ille9al and undesira2le aliens, 4ho5 the President of the
Co55issioner of I55i9ration 5a8 order arrested, follo4in9 a final order of deportation, for the
purpose of deportation. *he -ec. of La2or , not 2ein9 a 7ud9e. 5a8 no lon9er issue search or arrest
4arrants. Dence, the authorities 5ust 9o throu9h the 7udicial process. *o that eEtent, 4e declare
+rt. @A, par. C of the La2or Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect. S.:ette.

%not in VVBs re3ised outline)
a. EEistence of pro2a2le cause.
Pro2a2le cause is such facts and circu5stances as 4ould reasona2l8 5a?e a prudent 5an
2elie3e that a cri5e ha3e 2een co55itted and that the docu5ents or thin9s sou9ht to 2e searched
and seized are in the possession of the person a9ainst 4ho5 the 4arrant is sou9ht. >ithout
pro2a2le cause, there can 2e no 3alid search 4arrant.
-ee Pasion 3da. de /arcia 3. Locsin, $ Phil. $A', %&'@A)
In -tonehill 3. 1io?no, "! -C.+ @A %&'$(), F" search 4arrants 4ere issued for alle9ed
3iolation of Central Ban? La4s, the *ariff and Custo5s Code, the ,I.C, and the .e3ised Penal
Code. *he -C 3oided the 4arrants on the 9round that it 4as i5possi2le for the 7ud9e to ha3e found
pro2a2le cause in 3ie4 of the nu52er of la4s alle9ed to ha3e 2een 3iolated 28 the petitioner. Do4
could he e3en ?no4 4hat particular pro3ision of each la4 had 2een 3iolatedI If he did not ?no4
this, ho4 could it 2e deter5ined if the person a9ainst 4ho5 the 4arrant 4as issued 4as pro2a2l8
9uilt8 thereofI In truth, this 4as a fishin9 eEpedition, 4hich 3iolated the sanctit8 of do5icile and
pri3ac8 of co55unications. *o esta2lish the re:uire5ent of pro2a2le cause, the rule is6 One cri5e,
one 4arrant.
P+/E ""
2. +s deter5ined 28 a 7ud9e
Under the &'A( Constitution, onl8 a 7ud9e can issue a 4arrantJ the offensi3e and 5uch
a2used phrase =and other responsi2le officer as 5a8 2e authorized 28 la4= in the &'(@ Constitution
has 2een re5o3ed
In Pua Chee /an 3. 1eportation Board, ' -C.+ "( %&'$@), the -C dou2ted the po4er of
the President to issue an order of arrest, e3en assu5in9 the 9rant of such po4er under sec. @' of
the .e3. +d5i. Code since under the &'@ Constitution, the po4er to order the arrest of a person
has 2een un5ista?a2l8 a 7udicial po4er. It 4as e3en 5ore dou2tful if the President could dele9ate
such a po4er to the 1eportation Board.
*he Court noted that unli?e in the Philippine Bill of &'!" and the Jones La4 of &'&$ in
4hich the ri9ht to 2e secure is oneBs person, house, papers and effects 4as 9ranted onl8 to citizensJ
under the &'@ Constitution, it 2eca5e a popular ri9ht a3aila2le to citizens and aliens ali?e.
It 4as not until the case of Vi3a 3. Montesa, "F -C.+ & %&'$A) that the -C settled the
dou2t and ruled that the 1eportation Board could onl8 issue an order of arrest to carr8 out a
deportation order, and not, to su55on an alien in order to ans4er char9es filed a9ainst hi5, a
distinction alread8 hinted at 28 the Pua Chee /an rulin9. In other 4ords, 4hile it can issue a
4arrant for the purpose of i5ple5entin9 an order, it cannot issue a 4arrant for the purpose of
prosecution.
Under the &'(@ Constitution, the 1eportation Board 4as dee5ed included in the phrase
=other responsi2le officer authorized 28 la4.=
*he effect of the &'A( Constitution on this po4er is still uncertain, for althou9h it restores
the &'@ pro3ision, its intent see5s clearl8 to confer the po4er of issuin9 4arrants to 7ud9es alone.
c. +fter personall8 eEa5inin9 under oath or affir5ation the co5plainant
and his 4itness.
*he eEa5ination conducted 28 the 7ud9e ta?es the for5 of searchin9 :uestions.
*he re:uire5ent that the 7ud9e 5ust personall8 eEa5ine the co5plainant and his 4itnesses
5eans that the actual eEa5ination cannot 2e dele9ated to so5eone else, li?e the cler? of court.
-o said the Court in Bache and Co. %Phil) 3. .uiz, @( -C.+ A"@ %&'(&). In this case,
4hen the BI. a9ent and his 4itnesses arri3ed in court in the 5iddle of a hearin9, the 7ud9e
suspended the hearin9 and directed the 2ranch cler? to eEa5ine and ta?e the testi5on8 of the
4itnesses in his cha52ers. +fter he 4as throu9h 4ith the hearin9, he 4ent 2ac? to his cha52ers
and findin9 that the eEa5ination 4as finished, as?ed the BI. a9ent and his 4itnesses if the8
affir5ed 4hat the8 4hat the8 testified to, after 4hich he issued the search 4arrant in :uestion.
d. On the 2asis of their personal ?no4led9e of the facts that the8 are
testif8in9 to.
*he deter5ination of the reasona2leness of the 7udicial 4arrant 5ust 2e 2ased on the
affida3it of one 4ho has personal ?no4led9e of the facts to 4hich he testifies. *he testi5on8
cannot 2e 2ased on 5ere 2elief. ,either can it 2e 2ased on a report. Other4ise, the 4arrant is
3oid.
P+/E "@
*hus, in Bur9os 3. Chief of -taff, &@@ -C.+ A!! %&'AF), reiteratin9 the &'@( case of
.odri9uez 3. Villa5iel, the testi5on8 2ased on a 5ilitar8 report that the ne4spaper >e Foru5 4as
used for su23ersi3e 4ere held to 2e not a personal ?no4led9e and so 4as inad5issi2le.
Li?e4ise, in Corro 3. Lisin9, &@( -C.+ F& %&'A), the testi5on8 2ased on in3esti9ation
reports that certain ite5s in the Philippine *i5es 4ere su23ersi3e 4ere held to 2e not personal
?no4led9e, and thus the search 4arrant issued 4as not 3alid.
e. *he search 4arrant 5ust descri2e particularl8 descri2e the place to 2e
searched and the thin9s to 2e seized.
Failure to state 4ith particularit8 the place to 2e searched and ite5s to 2e seized 5a?es the
4arrant used for fishin9 e3idence %a 9eneral 4arrant) 4hich is 3oid.
In Bur9os 3. Chief of -taff, the description 4hich read =su23ersi3e docu5ents, leaflets,
papers to pro5ote the o27ecti3e of the Mo3e5ent for a Free Philippines, the Li9ht a Fire
Mo3e5ent, and the +pril $ Mo3e5ent= 4ere held not to 2e particular descriptions, thus 5a?in9 the
4arrant a 9eneral 4arrant.
In Corro 3. Lisin9, the search and seizure of =printed copies and du55ies of Philippine
*i5es, su23ersi3e docu5ents, articles, printed 5atters, hand2ills, leaflets, 2anners, and
t8pe4riters, tape recorders, etc.= 4as a9ain in3alidated for the description 4as not at all particular
or specific, thus 5a?in9 the 4arrants 9eneral 4arrants.
>hen it co5es to printed 5atters, the offensi3e 5aterial need not 2e set out in full. It is
enou9h if it specifies the issues and the title of the articles. *he instruction to seize =su23ersi3e
5aterials= is not 3alid 2ecause the deter5ination of 4hether a 5aterial is su23ersi3e or not is not
for the police officer to decideJ no unfettered discretion 5ust 2e 9ranted to hi5.
*he 5atter is different if 9oods 4ere searched and seized 2ecause of their intrinsic :ualit8
%as 4hen the8 are stolen or s5u99led), than if the 9oods 4ere searched for the ideas the8 contain
%as 4hen a =su23ersi3e ne4spaper is sou9ht). In the latter case, a 5ore detailed description of the
ph8sical features of the ite5 is re:uired to a3oid dele9atin9 the appreciation of ideas, and thus
threaten free eEpression. "i$(so) Notes.
". >hen -earch Ma8 Be Made 4ithout a >arrant
%a) 2hen search is made of moving vehicles
*he reason is the person 5a8 escape easil8 if a 4arrant has to 2e applied for the 5ean
ti5e. In the *ariff and Custo5s Code, custo5s a9ents are specificall8 authorized to search and
seize 3ehicles e3en 4ithout a 4arrant.
Chec?points are 3alid in so5e instances dependin9 on the purpose %e.9. apprehend a
suspected cri5inal) and the circu5stances %e.9. pro2a2le cause that the cri5inal is inside the car).
*here is no :uestion that 4hen a child has 2een reported ?idnapped in a co55unit8, the police can
stop all cars and chec? if the detained child is in an8 one of the5.
P+/E "F
Papa 3. Ma9o, "" -C.+ A( %&'$A)
F6 *his is an ori9. action for prohi2ition, O certiorari 4C prel. in7unction, filed 28 Papa, et. al.,
pra8in9 for the annul5ent of the order issued 28 resp. 7ud9e, 4Cc authorized the rlease under 2ond of
certain 9oods 4Cc 4ere seized O held 28 petitioners in conncection 4C the enforce5ent of the *arrif and
Custo5s Code %*CC) 2ut 4Cc 4ere clai5ed 28 resp. Ma9o, O to prohi2it resp. 7ud9e fro5 further
proceedin9 in an8 5anner 4hatsoe3er in said case. Pendin9 the deter5ination of this case, this Court
issued a 4rit of prel. in7. restrainin9 the resp. Jud9e fro5 eEecutin9, enforcin9 andCor i5ple5entin9 the
:uestioned order.
Pet. +la9ao, head of the counter#intelli9ence unit of the Mla. Police 1ept., actin9 upon a relia2le
info. as to the effect that a certain ship5ent of personal effects, alread8 5isdeclared and under3alued,
4ould 2e released the ff. da8 fro5 the custo5s zone of the port of Mla. O loaded on " truc?s, O upon
orders of petitioner Papa, chief of police of Mla., O dul8 deputized a9ent of the Bureau of Custo5s,
conducted sur3eillance at 9ate no. & of the custo5s zone. *he load of " truc?s, consistin9 of ' 2ales of
9oods, O the " truc?s, 4ere seized on instructions of the Chief of Police.
Clai5in9 to ha3e 2een pre7udiced 28 the seizure O detention of the " truc?s O their car9o, Ma9o
O Lonopa filed 4C the CFI#Mla. a petition for 5anda5us 4C restrainin9 order or prel. in7., alle9in9 a5on9
others, that the 9oods 4ere seized 28 5e52ers of the Mla. Police 1ept. 4Co -> issued 28 a co5petent
court.
DEL16 Pet. Martin +la9ao O his co5panion police5en had authorit8 to effect the seizure 4Co an8
-> issued 28 a co5petent court. *he *CC does not re:uire said -> in the instant case. *he Code
authorizes persons ha3in9 police authorit8 under -ec. "(!@ =to enter, pass throu9h or search an8
land, inclosure, 4harehouse, store or 2uildin9, not 2ein9 a d4ellin9 houseJ and also to inspect,
search and eEa5ine an8 3essel or aircraft and an8 trun?, pac?a9e, 2oE or en3elope, or an8 person
on 2oard, or stop and search and eEa5ine an8 3ehicle, 2east or person suspected of holdin9 or
con3e8in9 an8 dutia2le or prohi2ited article introduec into the Phils. contrar8 to la4, 4Co
5entionin9 the need of a ->. EEE= EEcept in the case of a search of a d4ellin9 house, persons
eEercisin9 police authorit8 under the Custo5s la4 5a8 effect search and seizure 4Co a -> in the
enforce5ent of custo5s la4.
In the instant case, 4e note that petitioner +la9ao, O his co5panion police5en did not
ha3e to 5a?e an8 search 2efore the8 seized the " truc?s and their car9o.
But e3en if there 4as a search, there is still authorit8 to the effect that no -> 4ould 2e
needed under the circu5stances o2tainin9 in the instant case.
=*he 9uarant8 of freedo5 fro5 unreasona2le searches and seizures is construed as
reco9nizin9 a necessar8 difference 2efore a search of a d4ellin9 house or other structure in respect
of 4Cc a -> 5a8 readil8 2e o2tained and a search of a ship, 5otor2oat, 4a9on or auto5o2ile for
contra2and 9oods, 4here it is not practica2le to secure the 4arrant 2ec. the 3ehicle can 2e :uic?l8
5o3ed out of the localit8 or 7urisdiction in 4Cc the 4arrant 5ust 2e sou9ht.=
=EEE >hether search of and seizure fro5 an auto5o2ile upon a hi9h4a8 or other pu2lic
place, 4Co a -> is unreasona2le is in its final ana8l8sis to 2e deter5ined as a 7udicial :uestion in
3ie4 of all the circu5stances under 4Cc it is 5ade.= %Peo. 3. Case.) RA".
People 3. Lo Do >in9, &'@ -C.+ &""
F6 Peter Lo , to9ether 4ith co#accused Li5 Chen9 Duat alias +ntonio Li5 and .e8naldo *ia, 4ere
char9ed 4ith a 3iolation of the 1an9erous 1ru9s +ct, for the transport of 5eta5pheta5ine
h8drochloride, other4ise ?no4n as =sha2u=. *he dru9 4as contained in tea 2a9s inside tin cans 4hich
4ere placed inside their lu99a9es. Upon arri3al fro5 Don9?on9, the8 2oarded the taEis at the airport
4hich 4ere apprehended 28 CI- operati3es. *heir lu99a9es 4ere su2se:uentl8 searched 4here the tea
2a9s 4ere opened and found to contain sha2u. Onl8 Lo and Li5 4ere con3icted. *ia 4as dischar9ed as a
state 4itness, 4ho turned out to 2e a = deep penetration a9ent= of the CI- in its 5ission to 2ust the dru9
s8ndicate .
P+/E "
Issue6 >C, the search and seizure 4as le9al.
DEL16 0E-
*hat search and seizure 5ust 2e supported 28 a 3alid 4arrant is not an a2solute rule. One
of the eEceptions thereto is a search of a 5o3in9 3ehicle. *he circu5stance of the case clearl8
sho4 that the serach in :uestion 4as 5ade as re9ards a 5o3in9 3ehicle. *herefore, a 3alid
4arrant 4as not necessar8 to effect the search on appellant and his co#accused.
It 4as fir5l8 esta2lished fro5 the factual findin9s of the court that the authorities had
reasona2le 9round to 2elie3e that appellant 4ould atte5pt to 2rin9 in contra2and and transport
4ithin the countr8. *he 2elief 4as 2ased on intelli9ence reports 9athered fro5 sur3eillance
acti3ities on the suspected s8ndicate, of 4hich appellant 4as touted to 2e a5e52er. +side fro5
this, the8 4ere also certain as to the eEpected date and ti5e of arri3al of the accused fro5 China
3ia Don9?on9. But such ?no4led9e 4as insufficient to ena2le the5 to fulfill the re:uire5nents for
the issuance of a search 4arrant. -till and all, the i5portant thin9 is that there 4as pro2a2le cause
to conduct the 4arrantless search, 4hich 5ust still 2e present in the case. S.:ette.
%2) 2hen search is an an incident to a valid arrest.
R.)e 176 Se%. 17. Search incident to lawful arrest.FF A &e$son )(-+.)), ($$ested 1(,
*e se($%'ed +o$ d(n2e$o.s -e(&ons o$ (n,t'in2 -'i%' 1(, *e .sed (s &$oo+ o+ t'e
%o11ission o+ (n o++ense -it'o.t ( se($%' -($$(nt. =R.)es o+ Co.$t.A
+ person arrested 5a8 2e searched for dan9erous 4eapons or an8thin9 that pro3es the
co55ission of the offense. It follo4s that the search can onl8 2e 5ade 4ithin the area of control of
the arrested person, and 4ithin the ti5e of the arrest.
In ,olasco 3. Cruz Pano, &@' -C.+ &" %&'A)J Mila9ros .o:ue and C8nthia ,olasco
4ere arrested at the intersection of Ma8on and Mar9al -treets in PC at &&6@! a.5., ha3in9 2een
4anted as hi9h officers of the CPP. +t &"6!! noon, .o:ueBs apart5ent located " 2loc?s a4a8, 4as
searched and so5e docu5ents seized. *he -C at first held that the search 4as 3alid e3en if the
4arrant issued 4as 3oid for failin9 to descri2e 4ith particularit8 the thin9s to 2e seized, 2ecause it
4as an incident of a 3alid arrest.
But after the E1-+ re3olution, the reconstituted -C 9ranted the 5otion for reconsideration
and held that 7ust 2ecause there 4as a 3alid arrest did not 5ean that the search 4as li?e4ise 3alid.
*o 2e 3alid, the search 5ust 2e =incidental= to the arrest, that is, not separated 28 ti5e or place
fro5 the arrest. If the 2asis for allo4in9 incidental searches is loo?ed into, one can see that this
situation is not one in3ol3in9 a 3alid incidental search.
*he la4 allo4s the arrestin9 officer to search a person 3alidl8 arrested %28 fris?in9 hi5 for
instance) 2ecause %a) a 4eapon held 28 the arrested person 5a8 2e turned a9ainst his captor and
%2) he 5a8 destro8 the proof of the cri5e, if the arrested officer has to first appl8 for a search
4arrant fro5 a 7ud9e.
If, in the ,olasco case, the search 4as conducted @! 5inutes after the arrest, there is no
lon9er an8 dan9er that the captured 5a8 turn a9ainst the captorJ and if the docu5ents in the
apart5ent 4ere " 2loc?s a4a8, the search 4ould no lon9er 2e 7ustified since there is no 4a8 for
.o:ue to 9o 2ac? to the apart5ent and destro8 the docu5ents, ha3in9 2een arrested alread8.
P+/E "$
,olasco 3. Cruz PaNo &@' -C.+ &" %&'A)
F6 Mila9ros +9uilar#.o:ue 4as arrested to9ether 4ith C8nthia ,olasco 28 the Consta2ular8
-ecurit8 /roup. Mila9rso had 2een 4anted as a hi9h ran?in9 officer of the CPP. *he arrest too? place at
&&6@! a.5. of +u9ust $, &'AF. +t noon of the sa5e da8, her pre5ises 4ere searched and F"A docu5ents, a
porta2le t8pe4riter and " 2oEes 4ere seized. Earlier that da8, Jud9e Cruz PaNo issued a search 4arrant for
re2ellion a9ainst Mila9ros. On the 2asis of the docu5ents seized, char9es of su23ersion and re2ellion 4ere
filed 2ut the fiscalBs office 5erel8 char9ed her and ,olasco 4ith ille9al possession of su23ersi3e 5aterials.
Mila9ros as?ed for suppression of the e3idence on the 9round that it 4as ille9all8 o2tained. *he search
4arrant descri2ed the thin9s to 2e seized as =1ocu5ents, papers and other records of the CPP, ,P+ and
,1F, EEE=.
DEL16 *he search 4arrant is 3oid 2ecause it fails to descri2e 4ith particularit8 the thin9s to 2e
seized. It does not specif8 4hat the su23ersi3e 2oo?s and instructions are and 4hat the 5anuals not
other4ise a3aila2le to the pu2lic contain to 5a?e the5 su23ersi3e. *here is a2sent a definite
9uideline as to 4hat ite5s 5i9ht la4full8 2e seized, thus 9i3in9 the officers discretion re9ardin9
4hat articles the8 should seize. It is thus in the nature of a 9eneral 4arrant. But the seizure of the
articles could 2e 7ustified as an incident of a 3alid arrest. It is a 9eneral rule that, as an incident of
an arrest, the place of pre5ises 4here the arrest 4as 5ade can also 2e searched 4ithout a search
4arrant. VV.
,olasco 3. Cruz Pano, .econsidered, &F( -C.+ !' %&'A()
&revious ruling reconsidered
F6 Petitioners 5o3ed for a reconsideration of the decision, contendin9 that Mila9ros +9uilar .o:ue
4as not la4full8 arrested, a search 4arrant could not 2e 5ade.
DEL16 Considerin9 the positions of the parties %-ol#/en offered no o27ection), the 5otion for
partial reconsideration is 9ranted.
*eehan?ee, CJ., concurrin96 *he 2etter rule is to li5it a 4arrantless search of a person 4ho is
la4full8 arrested to his person at the ti5e of and incident to his arrest and to =dan9erous 4eapons
or an8thin9 4hich 5a8 2e used as proof of the co55ission of the offense.= %.ule &"$, -ec. &")
-ince the search 4as not an incident of an arrest as it 4as in fact 5ade under a 3oid 9eneral
4arrant, the seizure of docu5ents could not 2e 7ustified as an incident of an arrest. VV.
%c) 2hen things sei*ed are within plain view of a searching party
.oan 3. /onzales, &F -C.+ $A( %&'A$)
F6 *he challen9ed -> 4as issued 28 the resp. 7ud9e on C&!CAF. *he petitionerBs house 4as
searched " da8s later 2ut none of the articles listed in the 4arrant 4as disco3ered. *he officers conductin9
the search found & colt Ma9nu5 re3ol3er O &A li3e 2ullets 4Cc the8 confiscated. *he8 are no4 the 2ases
of the char9e a9ainst the petitioner.
.ULI,/6 -earch 4arrant issued 28 resp. 7ud9e is here28 declared null and 3oid and accordin9l8
set aside.
P+/E "(
*he petitioner clai5s that no depositions 4ere ta?en 28 the resp. 7ud9e in accordance 4C
.ule &"$, -ec. F of the .OC, 2ut this is not entirel8 true. 1epositions 4ere ta?en of the
co5plainantBs " 4itnesses in addition to the affida3it eEecuted 28 the5. It is correct to sa8,
ho4e3er, that the co5plainant hi5self 4as not su27ected to a si5ilar interro9ation.
B8 his o4n accounts, all that resp. 7ud9e did 4as :uestion Capt. Puillosa on the contents
of his affida3it onl8 =to ascertain a5on9 others, if he ?ne4 and understood the sa5e,= and onl8 2ec.
=the application 4as not 8et su2scri2ed and s4orn to.= *he su99estion is that he 4ould not ha3e
as?ed an8 :uestions at all if the affida3it had alread8 2een co5pleted 4hen it 4as su25itted to hi5.
In an8 case, he did not as? his o4n searchin9 :uestions. De li5ited hi5self to the contents of the
affida3it. De did not ta?e the applicantBs deposition in 4ritin9 and attach the5 to the record,
to9ether 4C the affida3it presented to hi5. -uch 4ritten deposition is necessar8 in order that the
Jud9e 5a8 2e a2le to properl8 deter5ine the eEistence or non#eEistence of the pro2a2le cause, to
hold lia2le for per7ur8 the person 9i3in9 it if it 4ill 2e found later that his declarations are false.
%Mata 3. Ba8ona.)
*he applicant 4as as?in9 for the issuance of the -> on the 2asis of 5ere hearsa8 and not
of info. personall8 ?no4n to hi5. Dis application, standin9 alone, 4as insufficient to 7ustif8 the
issuance of the 4arrant sou9ht. It 4as, therefore, necessar8 for the 4itnesses the5sel3es, 28 their
o4n personal info., to esta2lish the applicantBs clai5s.
E3en assu5in9 then that it 4ould ha3e suffied to ta?e the deposition onl8 of the 4itnesses
and not of the applicant hi5self, there is still the :uestion of the sufficienc8 of their depositions.
+ stud8 of the deposition ta?en fro5 4itnesess Es5ael Morada and Jesus *ohilida, 4ho
2oth clai5ed to 2e =intelli9ence infor5ers,= sho4s that the8 4ere in the 5ain a 5ere restate5ent of
their alle9ations in their affida3its, eEcept that the8 4ere 5ade in the for5 of ans4ers to the
:uestions put to the5 28 the resp. 7ud9e.
One 5a8 4ell 4onder 4h8 it did not occur to the resp. 7ud9e to as? ho4 the 4itness could
2e so certain e3en as to the cali2er of the 9uns, or ho4 far he 4as fro5 the 4indo4, or 4hether it
4as on the first floor or second floor, or 4h8 his presence 4as not noticed at all, or if the acts
related 4ere reall8 done openl8, in the full 3ie4 of the 4itnesses, considerin9 that these acts 4ere
a9ainst the la4. *hese 4ould ha3e 2een 7udicious :uestions 2ut the8 4ere in7udiciousl8 o5itted.
Instead, the declaration of the 4itnesses 4ere readil8 accepted and the 4arrant sou9ht 4as issued
forth4ith.
-OL#/E, +./UE- *D+* *DE PE*I*IO,E. >+IVE1 >D+*EVE. 1EFEC* >DE, *DE
PE*I*IO,E. VOLU,*+.IL0 -UBMI**E1 *O *DE -E+.CD +,1 M+,IFE-*E1 DI-
CO,FO.MI*0 I, >.I*I,/.
>e do not a9ree. >hat 4e see here is pressure eEerted 28 the 5ilitar8 authorities, 4ho
practicall8 coerced the petitioner to si9n the supposed 4ai3er as 9uarant8 a9ainst a possi2le
challen9e later to the 3alidit8 of the search the8 4ere conductin9.
#alum &rohibitum. It does not follo4 that 2ec. an offense is malum prohibitum, the
su27ect thereof is necessaril8 ille9al per se. Moti3e is i55aterial in mala prohibita, 2ut the
su27ects of this ?ind of offense 5a8 not 2e su55aril8 seized si5pl8 2ec. the8 are prohi2ited. +
-> is still necessar8.
#otion to 7uash. Petitioner should ha3e, 2efore co5in9 to the -C, filed a 5otion to
:uash the search 4arrant 28 the resp. 7ud9e. But as 4e said and did in Bur9os, =this procedural
fla4 not4ithstandin9, 4e ta?e co9nizance of this petition in 3ie4 of the seriousness and ur9enc8 of
the consitutional issues raised.= RA".
People 3. +sio, &(( -C.+ "! %&'A')
P+/E "A
F6 +dio 4as char9ed 4ith 3iolation of the 1an9erous 1ru9s +ct of &'(" for ha3in9 atte5pted to
sell, deli3er, dispatch in transit or transport @,!! 9ra5s of dried 5ari7uana to +"FC Cartel durin9 a 2u8#
2ust operation. *hou9h he pleaded not 9uilt8, court found the accused 9uilt8 of the cri5e char9ed.
Issue6 >C, the 5ari7uana lea3es 4ere o2tained in 3iolation of -ec. ", +rt. III of the &'A(
Constitution
DEK16 ,O
*he rule that a search and seizure 5ust 2e supported 28 a 3alid 4arrant is not an a2solute
one. *here are reco9nized eEceptions to the rule a5on9 the5 %&) a search incidental to an arrestJ
%") a search of a 5o3in9 3ehicleJ and %@) the seizure of e3idence in plain 3ie4. + search and
seizure 4ithout a 4arrant is allo4ed in 2u8#2ust operations, the circu5stances 2ein9 a5on9 those
4hich can 2e considered eEceptional.
*he accused, in this case, 4as cau9ht red#handed 4hile pushin9 5ari7uana. Dence, he
could 2e la4full8 arrested and searhed. S.:ette.
Pita 3. C+, &(A -C.+ @$" %&'A')
F6 Pursuant to the +nti#-5ut Ca5pai9n of Ma8or .a5on Ba9atsn9, police5en seized and
confiscated fro5 dealers, distri2utors, ne4sstand o4ners and peddlers alon9 Manila side4al?s,
5a9azines, pu2lications and other readin9 5aterials 2elie3ed to 2e o2scene, porno9raphic, and indecent
and later 2urned the seized 5aterials in pu2lic. +5on9 the pu2lications seized and later 2urned 4as
=Pino8 Pla82o8= 5a9azines pu2lished and co#edited 28 plaintiff Leo Pita. +fter his in7uncti3e relief 4as
dis5issed 28 the .*C and his appeal re7ected 28 C+, he see?s re3ie4 4ith -C, in3o?in9 the 9uarant8
a9ainst unreasona2le searches and seizure.
Issue6 >C, the search and seizure 4as ille9al
DEL16 0E-.
It is 2asic that searches and seizure 5a8 2e done onl8 throu9h a 7udicial 4arrant ,
other4ise, the8 2eco5e unreasona2le and su27ect to challen9e. In Bur9os 3 Chief of -taff %&@@
-C.+ A!!) , the -C counter5anded the orders of the .*C authorizin9 the serach of the pre5ises
>E Foru5 and Metropolitan Mail, t4o Metro Manila 1ailies, 28 reason of a defecti3e 4arrant.
*here is a 9reater reason in this case to repro2ate the :uestioned raid, in the co5plete a2sence of a
4arrant, 3alid or in3alid. *he fact that the instant case in3ol3es an o2scenit8 rap 5a?es it no
different fro5 Bur9os, a political case, 2ecause speech is speech, 4hether political or =o2scene=.
*he authorities 5ust appl8 for the issuance of the a search 4arrant fro5 the 7ud9e , if in
their opinion, an o2scenit8 rap is in order. *he8 5ust con3ince the court that the 5aterials sou9ht
to 2e seized are =o2scene= and pose a clear and present dan9er of an e3il su2stanti3e enou9h to
4arrant -tate interference and action. *he 7ud9e 5ust deter5ine >O, the sa5e are indeed
=o2scene=6 the :uestion is to 2e resol3ed on a case#to#case 2asis and on the 7ud9eBs sound
discretion. If pro2a2le cause eEist, a search 4arrant 4ill issue. S.:ette.
%d) !top and 'ris$
Posadas 3. C+, &AA -C.+ "AA %&''!)
F6 Patrol5ans Un9a2 and U5par, 2oth 5e52ers of the I,P of the 1a3ao Metrodisco5 assi9ned 4C
the Intelli9ence *as? Force, 4ere conductin9 a sur3eillance alon9 Ma9allanes, -t., 1a3ao Cit8. >hile
the8 4ere 4Cin the pre5ises of the .izal Me5orial Colle9es, the8 spotted petitioner carr8in9 a =2uri= 2a9
O the8 noticed hi5 to 2e actin9 suspiciousl8. *he8 approached the petitioner and identified the5sel3es as
5e52ers of the I,P. Petitioner atte5pted to flee 2ut 4as stopped 28 the ". *he8 then chec?ed the =2uri=
2a9 of the petitioner 4here the8 found & cali2er .@A -5ith O >esson re3ol3er, 4C " rounds of li3e
P+/E "'
a55unition for a .@A cal. 9un, a s5o?e 9renade, O " li3e a55unition for a ."" cal. 9un. Petitioner 4as
2rou9ht to the police station for further in3esti9ation. De 4as prosecuted for ille9al possession of firear5s
and a55unitions in the .*C of 1a3ao Cit8 4herein after a plea of not 9uilt8, and trial on the 5erits, a
decision 4as rendered findin9 petitioner 9uilt8. *he C+ affir5ed the appealed decision in toto.
Dence, the petition for re3ie4, the 5ain thrust of 4Cc is that there 2ein9 no la4ful arrest or search
and seizure, the ite5s 4Cc 4ere confiscated fro5 the possession of the petitioner are inad5issi2le in
e3idence a9ainst hi5.
*he -ol#/en ar9ues that under -ec. &", . &@$ of .OC, a person la4full8 arrested 5a8 2e
searched for dan9erous 4eapons or an8thin9 %4Cc 5a8 2e) used as proof of a co55ission of an offense,
4Co a ->.
DEL16 Fro5 -ec. , . &&@, .OC, it is clear that an arrest 4Co a 4arrant 5a8 2e effected 28 a
peace officer or pri3ate person, a5on9 others, 4hen in his presence the person to 2e arrested has
co55itted, is actuall8 co55ittin9, or is atte5ptin9 to co55it an offense, or 4hen an offense has in
fact, 7ust 2een co55itted, O he has personal ?no4led9e of the facts indicatin9 that the person
arrested has co55itted it.
+t the ti5e the peace officers identified the5sel3es and apprehended the petitioner as he
atte5pted to flee, the8 did not ?no4 that he had co55itted, or 4as actuall8 co55ittin9, the
offense. *he8 7ust suspected that he 4as hidin9 so5ethin9 in the 2uri 2a9. *he8 did not ?no4
4hat its contents 4ere. *he said circu5stances did not 7ustif8 an arrest 4Co a 4arrant.
Do4e3er, there are 5an8 instances 4here a 4arrant O seizure can 2e effected 4Co
necessaril8 2ein9 preceded 28 an arrest, fore5ost of 4Cc is the Bstop O searchB 4Co a -> at 5ilitar8
or police chec?points, the constitutionalit8 of 4Cc has 2een upheld 28 this Court in Val5onte 3. de
Villa.
+s 2et. a 4arrantless search and seizure %- O -) conducted at 5ilitar8 or police
chec?points and the search thereof in the case at 2ar, there is no :uestion that, indeed, the latter is
5ore reasona2le considerin9 that, unli?e in the for5er, it 4as effected on the 2asis of a pro2a2le
cause. *he pro2a2le cause is that 4hen the petitioner acted suspiciousl8 and atte5pted to flee 4C
the 2uri 2a9, there 4as a pro2a2le cause that he 4as concealin9 so5ethin9 ille9al in the 2a9 and it
4as the ri9ht and dut8 of the police officers to inspect the sa5e.
It is too 5uch indeed to re:uire the police officers to search the 2a9 in the possession of the
petitioner onl8 after the8 shall ha3e o2tained a -> for the purpose. -uch an eEercise 5a8 pro3e to
2e useless, futile and 5uch too late.
+s the -ol#/en said6
=*he assailed - O - 5a8 still 2e 7ustified as a?in to a Bstop and fris?B situation
4hose o27ect is either to deter5ine the identit8 of suspicious indi3iduals or to 5aintain
the status :uo 5o5entaril8 4hile the police officers see?s to o2tain 5ore info. ... *he
U- -C held in *err8 3. Ohio that =a police officer 5a8 in appropriate circu5stances O in
an appropriate 5anner approach a person for the purpose of in3esti9atin9 possi2le
cri5inal 2eha3iour e3en thou9h there is no pro2a2le cause to 5a?e an arrest.= In such a
situation, it is reasona2le for an officer rather than si5pl8 to shru9 his shoulder and
allo4 a cri5e to occur, to stop a suspicious indi3idual 2riefl8 in order to deter5ine his
identit8 or 5aintain9 the status :uo 4hile o2tainin9 5ore info.=
PE*I*IO, 1E,IE1. RA".
%e) 2hen there is a valid express waiver made voluntarily and
intelligently.
P+/E @!
>ai3er cannot 2e i5plied fro5 the fact that the person consented or did not o27ect to the
search, for it 5an8 happen that he did so onl8 out of respect for the authorities. *he 4ai3er 5ust
2e eEpressl8 5ade.
B+.LO,/+0 C+-E6
People 3. 1e lara
F6 +fter a sur3eillance conducted, a 2u8#2ust operation 4as conducted 28 the police, as a
conse:uence of 4hich, accused 4as arrested. *he accused alread8 poc?eted the 5ar?ed 5one8 and
handed t4o foils to the police 4hen he sensed the presence of police operati3es. De tried to retrie3e the
t4o foils 2ut he 4as pre3ented fro5 doin9 so. De tried to escape 28 runnin9 inside his house. *he police
pursued hi5 and 4ere a2le to su2due hi5. *he accused ad5itted that he ?ept prohi2ited dru9s in his
house. De e3en sho4ed the arrestin9 officers a 2lue plastic 2a9 containin9 prohi2ited dru9s. *he tea5,
to9ether 4ith the accused, proceeded to >P1 head:uarters for in3esti9ation. 1urin9 the in3esti9ation,
accused 4as apprised of his constitutional ri9hts to re5ain silent and to ha3e the assistance of counsel.
>hen appellant 4as as?ed to 9i3e a 4ritten state5ent, he refused to do so pendin9 arri3al of his la48er.
+ccused contends that his arrest and the seizure of the 2a9 containin9 prohi2ited dru9s 4as null and 3oid.
De also contends that he 4as not assisted 28 counsel durin9 custodial in3esti9ation, 4here he 4as forced
to si9n the photocop8 of the 5ar?ed 5one8, the .eceipt of Propert8 -eized, and the Boo?in9 and
Infor5ation -heet.
I--UE6 >hether or not the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the plastic 2a9 4ere 3alid.
.ULI,/6 0E-. *he accused 4as cau9ht in flagrante as a result of a 2u8#2ust operation. *here
4as no need for a 4arrant. *he police5en 4ere not onl8 authorized 2ut 4ere also under o2li9ation
to apprehend the dru9 pusher e3en 4ithout a 4arrant. *he police5enQs entr8 into the house of the
accused 4ithout a search 4arrant 4as in hot#pursuit of a person cau9ht co55ittin9 an offense in
fla9rante. *he arrest that follo4ed the hot#pursuit 4as 3alid. *he seizure of the plastic 2a9 4as
the result of the accusedQs arrest inside the house. + conte5poraneous search 5a8 2e conducted
upon the person of the arrestee and the i55ediate 3icinit8 4here the arrest 4as 5ade.
I--UE6 >hether the docu5ents si9ned 28 the accused durin9 the in3esti9ation 4ere ad5issi2le in
e3idence.
.ULI,/6 ,O. *here 4as no sho4in9 that accused 4as then assisted 28 counsel nor his 4ai3er
thereto put into 4ritin9. %*he re7ection of these e3idence 4ould not affect the con3iction of the
accused in 3ie4 of the a2undance of other e3idence esta2lishin9 his 9uilt.) 4(1.
People 3. de /racia, "@@ -C.+ (&$ %Jul8 $, &''F)
F6 *he incidents in3ol3ed in this case too? place at the hei9ht of the coup dBetat sta9ed in 1ece52er,
&'A'. +ccused#appellant .olando de /racia 4as char9ed in t4o separate infor5ations for ille9al
possession of a55unition and eEplosi3es in furtherance of re2ellion, and for atte5pted ho5icide.
+ppellant 4as con3icted for ille9al possession of firear5s in furtherance of re2ellion, 2ut 4as ac:uitted of
atte5pted ho5icide.
-ur3eillance 4as underta?en 28 the 5ilitar8 alon9 E1-+ 2ecause of intelli9ence reports
a2out a coup. Me52ers of the tea5 4ere en9a9ed 28 re2els in 9unfire ?illin9 one 5e52er of the tea5.
+ searchin9 tea5 raided the Eurocar -ales Office. *he8 4ere a2le to find and confiscate siE cartons of M#
&$ a55unition, fi3e 2undles of C#F d8na5ites, M#shells of different cali2ers, and =5oloto3= 2o52s inside
one of the roo5s 2elon9in9 to a certain Col. Matillano. 1e /racia 4as seen inside the office of Col.
Matillano, holdin9 a C#F and suspiciousl8 peepin9 throu9h a door. *he tea5 arrested appellant. *he8 4ere
then 5ade to si9n an in3entor8, 4ritten in *a9alo9, of the eEplosi3es and a55unition confiscated 28 the
P+/E @&
raidin9 tea5. ,o search 4arrant 4as secured 28 the raidin9 tea5. +ccused 4as found 9uilt8 of ille9al
possession of firear5s.
*hat 7ud95ent of con3iction is no4 challen9ed 2efore us in this appeal.
Issue6 >hether or not there 4as a 3alid search and seizure in this case.
.ulin96 0E-
It is ad5itted that the 5ilitar8 operati3es 4ho raided the Eurocar -ales Office 4ere not
ar5ed 4ith a search 4arrant at that ti5e. *he raid 4as actuall8 precipitated 28 intelli9ence reports
that said office 4as 2ein9 used as head:uarters 28 the .+M. Prior to the raid, there 4as a
sur3eillance conducted on the pre5ises 4herein the sur3eillance tea5 4as fired at 28 a 9roup of
5en co5in9 fro5 the Eurocar 2uildin9. >hen the 5ilitar8 operati3es raided the place, the
occupants thereof refused to open the door despite re:uests for the5 to do so, there28 co5pellin9
the for5er to 2rea? into the office. *he Eurocar -ales Office is o23iousl8 not a 9un store and it is
definitel8 not an ar5or8 or arsenal 4hich are the usual depositories for eEplosi3es and a55unition.
It is pri5aril8 and solel8 en9a9ed in the sale of auto5o2iles. *he presence of an unusual :uantit8
of hi9h#po4ered firear5s and eEplosi3es could not 2e 7ustifia2l8 or e3en colora2l8 eEplained. In
addition, there 4as 9eneral chaos and disorder at that ti5e 2ecause of si5ultaneous and intense
firin9 4ithin the 3icinit8 of the office and in the near28 Ca5p +9uinaldo 4hich 4as under attac?
28 re2el forces. *he courts in the surroundin9 areas 4ere o23iousl8 closed and, for that 5atter, the
2uildin9 and houses therein 4ere deserted.
Under the fore9oin9 circu5stances, it is our considered opinion that the instant case falls
under one of the eEceptions to the prohi2ition a9ainst a 4arrantless search. In the first place, the
5ilitar8 operati3es, ta?in9 into account the facts o2tainin9 in this case, had reasona2le 9round to
2elie3e that a cri5e 4as 2ein9 co55itted. *here 4as conse:uentl8 5ore than sufficient pro2a2le
cause to 4arrant their action. Further5ore, under the situation then pre3ailin9, the raidin9 tea5
had no opportunit8 to appl8 for and secure a search 4arrant fro5 the courts. Under such ur9enc8
and eEi9enc8 of the 5o5ent, a search 4arrant could la4full8 2e dispensed 4ith.
*here are t4o separate statutes penalizin9 different offenses 4ith discrete penalties. *he
.e3ised Penal Code treats re2ellion as a cri5e apart fro5 5urder, ho5icide, arson, or other
offenses, such as ille9al possession of firear5s, that 5i9ht concei3a2l8 2e co55itted in the course
of a re2ellion. Presidential 1ecree ,o. &A$$ defines and punishes, as a specific offense, the cri5e
of ille9al possession of firear5s co55itted in the course or as part of a re2ellion.
-u27ect to the presence of the re:uisite ele5ents in each case, unla4ful possession of an
unlicensed firear5 in furtherance of re2ellion 5a8 9i3e rise to separate prosecutions for a 3iolation
of -ection & of Presidential 1ecree ,o. &A$$, and also a 3iolation of +rticles &@F and &@ of the
.e3ised Penal Code on re2ellion. 1ou2le 7eopard8 in this case cannot 2e in3o?ed 2ecause the first
is an offense punished 28 a special la4 4hile the second is a felon8 punished 28 the .e3ised Penal
Code, "F 4ith 3ariant ele5ents.
Presidential 1ecree ,o. &A$$ i5poses the death penalt8 4here the ille9al possession of
firear5s and a55unition is co55itted in furtherance of re2ellion. +t the ti5e the offense char9ed
in this case 4as co55itted under the 9o3ernance of that la4, the i5position of the death penalt8
4as proscri2ed 28 the Constitution. Conse:uentl8, appellant 1e /racia could onl8 2e sentenced to
ser3e the penalt8 of reclusion perpetua 4hich 4as correctl8 5eted out 28 the trial court, al2eit
4ith an erroneous reco55endation in connection there4ith. G),nd(.
@. Constitutionalit8 of chec?points and =areal tar9et zonin9s.=
Val5onte 3. 1e Villa, &(! -C.+ "$ %&'A')
P+/E @"
F6 On &C"!CA(, the ,C.1C 4as acti3ated 4C the 5ission of conductin9 securit8 operations 4Cin its
area or responsi2ilit8 and peripheral areas, for the purpose of esta2lishin9 an effecti3e territorial defense,
5aintainin9 peace and order, and pro3idin9 an at5osphere conduci3e to the social, econo5ic and political
de3Bt of the ,C.. +s part of its dut8 to 5aitain peace and order, the ,C.1C installed chec?points in
3arious parts of Valenzuela and MM.
Petitioners a3er that, 2ec. of the institution of said chec?points, the Valenzuela residents are
4orried of 2ein9 harassed and of their saret8 2ein9 placed at the ar2itrar8, capricious and 4hi5sical
disposition of the 5ilitar8 5annin9 the chec?points, considerin9 that their cars and 3ehicles are 2ein9
su27ected to re9ular searches and chec?#ups, especiall8 at ni9ht or at da4n, 4Co a -> andC or court order.
*heir alle9ed fear for their safet8 increased 4hen Ben7a5in Parpon, 4as 9aunned do4n alle9edl8 in cold
2lood 28 5e52ers of the ,C.1C for i9norin9 andC or continuin9 to speed off inspite of 4arnin9 shots
fired in the air.
DEL16 PetitionerBs concern for their safet8 and apprehension at 2ein9 harassed 28 the 5ilitar8
5annin9 the chec?points are not sufficient 9rounds to declare the chec?points per se, ille9al. ,o
proof has 2een presented 2efore the Court to sho4 that, in the course of their routine chec?s, the
5ilitar8, indeed, co55itted specific 3iolations of petitionersB ri9hts a9ainst unla4ful search and
seizure of other ri9hts.
*he constitutional ri9ht a9ainst unreasona2le searches and seizures is a personal ri9ht
in3oca2le onl8 28 those 4hose ri9hts ha3e 2een infrin9ed, or threatened to 2e infrin9ed.
,ot all searches and seizures are prohi2ited. *hose 4Cc are reasona2le are not for2idden.
*he settin9 up of the :uestioned chec?points 5a8 2e considered as a securit8 5easure to
ena2le the ,C.1C to pursue its 5ission of esta2lishin9 effecti3e territorial defense and
5aintainin9 peace and order for the 2enfit of the pu2lic. Chec?points 5a8 not also 2e re9arded as
5easures to th4art plots to desta2ilize the 9o3t, in the interest of pu2lic securit8.
Bet4een the inherent ri9ht of the state to protect its eEistence and pro5ote pu2lic 4elfare
and an indi3idualBs ri9ht a9ainst a 4arrantless search 4Cc is, ho4e3er, reasona2l8 conducted, the
for5er should pre3ail.
*rue, the 5annin9 of chec?points 28 the 5ilitar8 is suscepti2le of a2use 28 the 5ilitar8 in
the sa5e 5anner that all 9o3ern5ental po4er is suscepti2le of a2use. But, at the cost of
occasional incon3eninece, disco5fort and e3en irritation to the citizen, the chec?points durin9 these
a2nor5al ti5es, 4hen conducted 4Cin reasona2le li5its, are part of the price 4e pa8 for an orderl8
societ8 and a peaceful co55unit8. RA".
/uazon 3. 1e Villa, &A& -C.+ $"@ %&''!)
F6 *his is a petition for prohi2ition 4C prel. in7. to prohi2it the 5ilitar8 and police officers
represented 28 pu2lic respondents fro5 conductin9 =areal tar9et zonin9s= or =saturation dri3es= in MM.
*he F& petitioners state that the8 are all of le9al a9e, bona fide residents of MM and *aEpa8ers
and leaders in their respecti3e co55unities.
+ccd9. to the petitioners, the =areal tar9et zonin9s= or =saturation dri3es= are in critical areas
pinpointed 28 the 5ilitar8 and police as places 4here the su23ersi3es are hidin9. Petitioners clai5 that
the saturation dri3es follo4 a co55on pattern of hu5an ri9hts a2uses.
.espondents stress " points. First, the resps. ha3e le9al authorit8 to conduct saturation dri3es.
+nd, second, the8 alle9e that the accusations of the petitioners a2out a deli2erate disre9ard for hu5an
ri9hts, are total lies.
.esps. cite +rt. VII, -ec. &( of the Const.6=*he Pres. shall ha3e control of all the eEecuti3e
depart5ents, 2ureaus and offices. /e shall ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. =
*he8 also cite sec. &A.6=*he Pres. shall 2e the Co55ander#in#chief of all +FP and 4hene3er it
2eco5es necessar8, he 5a8 call out such ar5ed forces to pre3ent or suppress la4less 3iolence, in3asion or
re2ellion. EEE

DEL16 *he Court 2elie3es it is hi9hl8 pro2a2le that so5e 3iolations 4ere actuall8 co55itted.
*his is so inspite of the alle9ed pleas of 2aran9a8 officials for the thousands of residents=to su25it
P+/E @@
the5sel3es 3oluntaril8 for character and personal 3erification.= Do4e3er, the re5ed8 is not to stop
all police actions, including the essential and legitimate ones. >e see nothin9 4ron9 in police
5a?in9 their presence 3isi2l8 felt in trou2led areas. Police cannot respond to riots or 3iolent
de5onstration if the8 do not 5o3e in sufficient nu52ers. + sho4 of force is so5eti5es necesar8 as
long as the rights of the people are protected and not violated. + 2lan?et prohi2ition such as that
sou9ht 28 the petitioners 4ould li5it all police actions to one on one confrontation 4here search
4arrants and 4arrants of arrest a9ainst specific indi3iduals are easil8 procured. +narch8 5a8
rei9n if the 5ilitar8 and the police decide to sit do4n in their offices 2ec. all concerted dri3es 4here
a sho4 of force is present are totall8 prohi2ited.
*he re5ed8 is not an ori9inal action for prohi2ition 2rou9ht throu9h a *PBs suit. >here
not one 3icti5 co5plains, and not one 3iolator is properl8 char9ed, the problem is not initially for
the !C. It is basically one for the executive departments and for the trial courts.
Under the circu5stances of this *PBs suit, there is no errin9 soldier or police5an 4ho5 4e
can order prosecuted. In the a2sence of clear facts ascertained throu9h an orderl8 procedure, no
per5anent relief can 2e 9i3en at this ti5e. Further in3esti9ation of the petitionersB char9es and a
hard loo? 28 ad5in. officials at the polic8 i5plications of the pra8ed for 2lan?et prohi2ition are
also 4arranted.
In the 5eanti5e, and in the face of a prima facie sho4in9 that so5e a2uses 4ere pro2a2l8
co55itted and could 2e co55itted durin9 future police actions, 4e ha3e to te5poraril8 restrain the
alle9ed 2anin9 on 4alls, the ?ic?in9 in of doors, the herdin9 of half#na?ed 5en to asse52l8 areas
for eEa5ination of tattoo 5ar?s, the 3iolation of residences e3en if these are hu52le shanties of
s:uatters, and other alle9ed acts 4Cc are shoc?in9 to the conscience. RA".
F. >ire *appin9
.epu2lic +ct ,o. F"!!
I. U,L+>FUL +C*-
+. +n8 person 4ho, 4ithout authorit8 fro5 all the parties to the pri3ate co55unication
or spo?en 4ord, does an8 of the follo4in9 acts6 G-ec. &, par. &H
&. to tap an8 4ire or ca2leJ or
". to secretl8 o3erhear or intercept such co55unication or spo?en 4ord 28 usin9
an8 other de3ice or arran95entJ or
@. to record such pri3ate co55unication or spo?en 4ord 28 usin9 a de3ice
co55onl8 ?no4n as dictaphone or dicta9raph or detectaphone or 4al?ie#tal?ie or tape
recorder, or ho4e3er other4ise descri2ed.
B. +n8 person, 4hether participant or not in the a2o3e penalized acts, 4ho6 G-ec. &, par.
"H
&. ?no4in9l8 posseses an8 tape record, 4ire, record, disc record or an8 other such
record, or copies thereof, of an8 co55unication or spo?en 4ord secured either 2efore or
after the effecti3e date of this +ct in the 5anner prohi2ited 28 la4J or
". to repla8 the sa5e for an8 other person or personsJ or
@. to co55unicate the contents thereof, either 3er2all8 or in 4ritin9J or
F. to furnish transcriptions thereof, 4hether co5plete or partial, to an8 other
person.
C. +n8 person 4ho shall aid, per5it, or cause to 2e done an8 of the acts declared to 2e
unla4ful6 G-ec. "H
P+/E @F
1. +n8 person 4ho shall 3iolate the pro3isions of -ec. B or the eEe5pted acts 2elo4 or of
an order issued thereunder, or aids, per5its, or causes such 3iolation6 G-ec. "H
II. E;EMP*E1 +C*-
+. Use of such record or an8 copies thereof as e3idence in an8 ci3il, cri5inal in3esti9ation
or trial of offenses 5entioned 2elo46 G-ecs. &, par. "H
B. +n8 peace officer, 4ho is authorized 28 the 4ritten order of the Court %.*C 4ithin
4hose territorial 7urisdiction the acts for 4hich auhtorit8 is applied for are to 2e eEecuted), to
eEecute an8 of the acts declared to 2e unla4ful in cases in3ol3in9 the cri5es of6 G-ec. @, par. &H
&. treason
". espiona9e
@. pro3o?in9 4ar and dislo8alt8 in case of 4ar
F. pirac8
. 5utin8 in the hi9h seas
$. re2ellion
(. conspirac8 and proposal to co55it re2ellion
A. incitin9 re2ellion
'. sedition
&!. conspirac8 to co55it sedition
&&. incitin9 to sedition
&". ?idnappin9 as defined 28 the .PC
&@. 3iolations of C+ $&$, punishin9 espiona9e and
other offenses a9ainst national securit8
*he >.I**E, O.1E. shall onl8 2e issued or 9ranted upon 4ritten application 4ith the
eEa5ination under oath or affir5ation of the applicant and the 4itnesses he 5a8 produce and 5ust
sho46
a) that there are reasona2le 9rounds to 2elie3e that an8 of the cri5es enu5erated herein
has 2een co55itted or is 2ein9 co55itted pro3ided, that in cases in3ol3in9 the offenses of
re2ellion, conspirac8 and proposal to co55it re2ellion, incitin9 to re2ellion, sedition, conspirac8 to
co55it sedition, such authorit8 shall 2e 9ranted onl8 upon prior proof that a re2ellion or acts of
sedition, as the case 5a8 2e, ha3e actuall8 2een or are 2ein9 co55ittedJ
2) that there are reasona2le 9rounds to 2elie3e that e3idence 5a8 2e o2tained essential to
the con3iction of an8 person for, or to the solution of, or to the pre3ention of, an8 of such cri5esJ
c) that there are no other 5eans readil8 a3aila2le for o2tainin9 such e3idence.
Contents8 &. the identit8 of the person or persons 4hose co55unications, con3ersations,
discussions, or spo?en 4ords are to 2e o3erheard, intercepted, or recorded and, in the case of
tele9raphic or telephonic co55unications, the tele9raph line and the telephone nu52er in3ol3ed
and its locationJ
". the identit8 of the peace officer authorized to o3erhear, intercept, or record the
co55unications, con3ersations, discussions, or spo?en 4ordsJ
@. the offense or offenses sou9ht to 2e co55itted or pre3entedJ and
F. the period of the authorization.
P+/E @
+ffectivity8 *he authorization shall 2e effecti3e for the period specified in the order 4hich shall not
eEceed $! da8s fro5 the date of issuance of the order, unless eEtended or rene4ed 28 the court
upon 2ein9 satisfied that such eEtension or rene4al is in the pu2lic interest.
&rocedure8 +ll recordin9s 5ade under court authorization 4ithin FA hours after the eEpiration of
the period fiEed in the order6
&. shall 2e deposited 4ith the court in a sealed en3elope or sealed pac?a9eJ
". shall 2e acco5panied 28 an affida3it of the peace officer 9ranted such authorit8 statin9
the nu52er of recordin9s 5ade, the dates and ti5es co3ered 28 each recordin9, the nu52er of
tapes, discs, or records included in the deposit and certif8in9 that no duplicates or copies are
included in the en3elope or pac?a9e deposited 4ith the courtJ
@. shall not 2e opened, or the recordin9s repla8ed, or used in e3idence or their contents
re3ealed, eEcept upon order of the court, 4hich shall not 2e 9ranted eEcept upon 5otion, 4ith due
notice and opportunit8 to 2e heard to the person or persons 4hose con3ersations or
co55unications ha3e 2een recorded.
III. PE,+L*0
+n8 person 4ho 3iolates the pro3isions of this +ct, shall, upon con3iction, 2e punished 286
+. i5prison5ent for not less than $ 5onths or 5ore than $ 8earsJ and
B. 4ith the accessor8 penalt8 of perpetual a2solute dis:ualification fro5 pu2lic office if
the offender 2e a pu2lic official at the ti5e of the co55ission of the offenseJ and
C. if the offender is an alien, he shall 2e su27ect to deportation proceedin9s.
IV. +1MI--IBILI*0
+n8 co55unication or spo?en 4ord, or the eEistence contents, su2stance, purport, effect
or 5eanin9 of the sa5e or an8 part thereof, or an8 infor5ation therein contained, o2tained or
secured 28 an8 person in 3iolation of this +ct shall not 2e ad5issi2le in e3idence in an8 7udicial,
:uasi#7udicial, or ad5inistrati3e hearin9 or in3esti9ation. S'i$)e, A)ine( Notes.
/aanan 3. I+C, &F -C.+ &&" %&'A$)
F6 Co5plainant +tt8. Pintor and Monte2on offered to 4ithdra4 the co5plaint for direct assault the8
filed a9ainst Laconico after de5andin9 PA,!!! fro5 hi5. *his de5and 4as heard 28 +tt8. /aanan
throu9h a telephone eEtension as re:uested 28 Laconico so as to personall8 hear the proposed conditions
for the settle5ent. +tt8. Pintor 4as su2se:uentl8 arrested in an entrap5ent operation upon receipt of the
5one8. -ince +tt8. /aanan listened to the telephone con3ersation 4ithout co5plainantBs consent,
co5plainant char9ed /aanan and Laconico 4ith 3iolation of the +nti# >iretappin9 +ct %.+ F"!!).
I--UE6 >C, an eEtension telephone is a5on9 the prohi2ited de3ices in -ec. & of .+ F"!! such
that iuts use to o3erhear a pri3ate con3ersation 4ould constitute an unla4ful interception of
co55unication 2et4een " parties usin9 a telephone line.
DEL16 ,O
+n eEtension tel. cannot 2e placed in the sa5e cate9or8 as a dictaphone, dicta9raph, or
other de3ices enu5erated in -ec. & of the la4 as the use thereof cannot 2e considered as =tappin9=
the 4ire or ca2le of a telephone line. *his section refers to instru5ents 4hose installation or
presence cannot 2e presu5ed 28 the part8 or parties 2ein9 o3erheard 2ecause, 28 their 3er8 nature,
the8 are not of co55on usa9e and their purpose is precisel8 for tappin9, interceptin9, or recordin9
P+/E @$
a tel. con3ersation. *he tel. eEtension in this case 4as not installed for that purpose. It 7ust
happened to 2e there for ordinar8 office use.
Further5ore, it is a 9eneral rule that penal statutes 5ust 2e construed strictl8 in fa3or of
the accused. *hus in the case of dou2t as in this case, on >O, an eEtension tel. is included in the
phrase =de3ice or arran9e5ent= the penal statute 5ust 2e construed as not includin9 an eEtension
tel.
+ perusal of the -enate Con9ressional .ecord sho4s that our la45a?ers intended to
discoura9e, throu9h punish5ent, persons such7 as 9o3ern5ent authorities or representati3es of
or9anized 9roups fro5 installin9 de3ices in order to 9ather e3idence for use in court or to
inti5idate, 2lac?5ail or 9ain so5e un4arranted ad3anta9e o3er the tel. users. Conse:uentl8, the
5ere act of listenin9 , in order to 2e punisha2le 5ust stricl8 2e 4ith the use of the enu5erated
de3ices in .+ F"!! or others of si5ilar nature. S.:ette.
. >hat 5a8 2e seized
R.)e 176 se%. 7. Personal property to be seized.FF A se($%' -($$(nt 1(, *e iss.ed +o$
t'e se($%' (nd sei:.$e o+ t'e +o))o-in2 &e$son() &$o&e$t,D
=(A S.*Ge%t 1(tte$ o+ t'e o++ense<
=*A Sto)en o$ e1*e::)ed (nd ot'e$ &$o%eeds o$ +$.its o+ t'e o++ense< (nd
=%A Used o$ intended to *e .sed (s ( 1e(ns o+ %o11ittin2 (n o++ense. =R.)es o+
Co.$t.A
$. EEclusionar8 .ule
A$t. III Se%. >. ;;;
=7A An, eviden%e o*t(ined in vio)(tion o+ t'is =&$iv(%, o+ %o11.ni%(tion (nd
%o$$es&onden%eA o$ t'e &$e%edin2 se%tion =.n$e(son(*)e se($%'es (nd sei:.$esA s'()) *e
in(d1issi*)e +o$ (n, &.$&ose in (n, &$o%eedin2.
One of the re5edies of one 4ho 4as 3icti5ized 28 an ille9al search is to as? for the
suppression of the thin9s seized and the e3idence ille9all8 ta?en.
*he eEclusionar8 rule prohi2its the use of an8 e3idence o2tained in 3iolation of secs. " and
@ %&) of +rt. III for =an8 purpose= and in =an8 proceedin9=. *he e3idence is a2solutel8 useless.
*his has not al4a8s 2een the case.
In Moncado 3. PeopleBs Court %&'FA), the -C, follo4in9 the U.-. case of >olf V.
Colorado, rules that e3idence ille9all8 o2tained is not necessaril8 eEcluded if is other4ise
ad5issi2le under the rules of e3idence. In such case, the e3idence ad5itted, 4ithout pre7udice to
an8 cri5inal, ci3il or ad5inistrati3e lia2ilit8 of the officer 4ho ille9all8 seized it. In other 4ords,
the ad5issi2ilit8 of the e3idence is not effected 28 the ille9alit8 of the 5eans 28 4hich it 4as
ac:uired.
It 4as in -tonehill 3. 1io?no, supra, follo4in9 the U.-. case of Maop 3. Ohio &'$', 4hen
the eEclusionar8 rule 4as first adopted in the Philippines, the -C notin9 that the total suppression
of the thin9 seized is the onl8 effecti3e 5eans of ensurin9 the constitutional ri9ht 4hich it see?s to
preser3e. *he Court noted, the insufficienc8 of the other re5edies %e.9. action for da5a9es,
cri5inal punish5ent, resistance), especiall8 in the Philippines 4here 3iolations 4ere co55itted 28
those in po4er and 4ere thus e:uipped 4ith the pardonin9 po4er to 4ater do4n the 9ra3it8 of the
other penalties i5posed to 3iolators of those constitutional ri9hts.
P+/E @(
*he 3icti5 5a8 or 5a8 not 9et 2ac? the thin9 seized, dependin9 on 4hether it is
contra2and or not. It the thin9 is contra2and, it 4ould not 2e returned, and onl8 its suppression
can 2e as?ed for. But if the thin9 is le9al, the part8 can as? for its return, e3en if no cri5inal
prosecution has 8et 2een filed, as in the -tonehill case.
-tonehill 3. 1io?no, "! -C.+ @A@ %&'$()
F6 Upon application of the officers of the 9o3t %resp. prosecutors), se3eral 7ud9es %resp. 7ud9es)
issued a total of F" search 4arrants a9ainst petitioners OC or the corporations of 4Cc the8 4ere officers,
directed to an8 peace officer, to search the perons na5ed andC or the pre5ises of their offices, 4arehouses,
andC or residences, and to seize se3eral personal prop. as the =su27ect of the offenseJ stolen or e52ezelled
or the fruits of the offense,= or =used or intended to 2e used as the 5eans of co55ittin9 the offense= as
3iolation of CB La4s, *ariff and Custo5s La4s %*CC), ,I.C and the .PC.=
+lle9in9 that the afore5entioned search 4arrants are null O 3oid, said petitioners filed 4C the -C
this ori9. action for certiorari, prohi2ition, 5anda5us O in7unction. *he 4rit 4as partiall8 lifted or
dissol3ed, insofar as the papers, docu5ents, and thin9s seized fro5 the officers of the corporationsJ 2ut the
in7unction 4as 5aintained as re9ards those found O seized in the residences of petitioners.
I--UE-6 %&) >ith respect to those found O seized in the offices of the corporations, 4Cn
petitioners ha3e cause of action to assail the 3alidit8 of the contested 4arrants.
%") In connection 4C those found O seized in the residences of petitioners, 4Cn the
search 4arrants in :uestion and the searches and seizures 5ade under the authorit8 thereof are
3alid.
%@) If the ans4er in no. " is no, 4Cn said docu5ents, papers and thin9s 5a8 2e used in
e3idence a9ainst petitioners.
DEL16 %&) ,o. Petitioners ha3e no cause of action to assail the le9alit8 of the contested 4arrants
and the seizure 5ade in pursuance thereof 2ec. said corporations ha3e their respecti3e
personalities, separate and distinct fro5 the personalit8 of petitioners. *he le9alit8 of a seizure can
2e contested only 28 the part8 4hose ri9hts ha3e 2een i5paired there28 and that the o27ection to an
unla4ful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot 2e a3alied of 28 @rd parties.
%") ,o. *4o points 5ust 2e stressed in connection 4C +rt. III, -ec. " of the Consti6 %a)
that no 4arrant shall issue 2ut upon probable cause to 2e deter5ined 28 the 7ud9e in the 5anner
set forth thereinJ O %2) that the 4arrant shall particularl8 descri2e the thin9s to 2e seized.
,one of these re:uire5ents has 2een co5plied 4C. It 4as stated that the natural and
7uridical persons has co55itted a 3iolation of CB la4s, *CC, ,I.C O .PC. ,o specific offense
had 2een alle9ed in said applications. *he a3er5ents thereof 4C respect to the offense co55itted
4ere abstract. +s a conse:uence, it 4as impossible for the 7ud9es 4ho issued the 4arrants to ha3e
found the eEistence of a pro2a2le cause, for the sa5e presupposes the introduction of co5petent
proof that the part8 a9ainst 4ho5 it is sou9ht has perfor5ed particular acts, or co55itted specific
o5issions, 3iolatin9 a 9i3en pro3ision of our cri5inal la4s.
/eneral search 4arrants are outla4ed 2ec. the8 place the sanctit8 of the do5icile and the
pri3ac8 of co55unication and correspondence at the 5erc8 of the 4hi5s, caprice or passion of
peace officers.
*he 4arrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the afore5entioned
corporations, 4hate3er their nature, thus openl8 contra3enin9 the eEplicit co55and of our Bill of
.i9hts## that the thin9s to 2e seized 2e particularl8 descri2ed## as 4ell as tendin9 to defeat its
5a7or o27ecti3e6 the eli5ination of general warrants. RA".
(. Ci3il +ction for 1a5a9es
P+/E @A
+ ci3il case for da5a9es can also 2e filed pursuant to +rticle @" of the Ci3il Code.
In +2erca 3. Ver, the -C held that e3en if the pri3ile9e of the 4rit is suspended, the court
can ne3ertheless entertain an action not onl8 a9ainst the tas? force 2ut e3en a9ainst the top ran?in9
officials 4ho ordered the seizure, to reco3er da5a9es for the ille9al searches and seizures 5ade in a
despotic 5anner. B8 so doin9, one can indirectl8 in:uire into the 3alidit8 of the suspension of the
pri3ile9e.
+2erca 3. Ver, &$! -C.+ '! %&'AA)
!uspension of privilege of /abeas Corpus not a bar to a damage suit
F6 Petitioners 2rou9ht suit alle9in9 that /eneral Fa2ian Ver had ordered the *as? Force Ma?a2ansa
of the +FP to conduct =pree5pti3e stri?es a9ainst ?no4n co55unist terroristsB under9round houses= in
Metro Manila. *he *FM raided so5e places usin9 defecti3e 4arrantsJ the8 seized personal 2elon9in9s of
petitionersJ the8 had 2een interro9ated in 3iolation of their ri9ht to silence and to counselJ the8 had 2een
tortured and inti5idated. Petitioners as?ed for pa85ent of da5a9es for 3iolations of their constitutional
ri9hts.
DEL16 *he suspension of the pri3ile9e of the 4rit of ha2eas corpus does not destro8 petitionersB
ri9ht and cause of action for da5a9es for ille9al arrest and detention. VV.
For2es 3. Chuoco *iaco, &$ Phil. @F %&'&!)
For2es 3. Chuoco *iaco, +ffir5ed, F! Phil. &&"" %&'&@)

A. -earch and -eizure 28 Pri3ate Persons
People 3. Marti, &'@ -C.+ ( %&''&)
F6 Before deli3er8 of appellantBs 2oE to the Bureau of Custo5s andC or Bureau of Posts, Mr. Jo2
.e8es %proprietor) O hus2and of +nita .e8es, follo4in9 standard operatin9 procedure, opened the 2oEes
for final inspection. >hen he opened appellantBs 2oE, a peculiar order e5itted therefro5. Dis curiosit8
aroused, he s:ueezed one of the 2undles alle9edl8 containin9 9lo3es and felt dried lea3es inside. Openin9
one of the 2undles, he pulled out a cellophane 4rapper protrudin9 fro5 the openin9 of one of the 9lo3es.
De 5ade an openin9 on one of the cellophane 4rappers and too? se3eral 9ra5s of the contents thereof.
Jo2 .e8es reported the incident to the ,BI and re:uested a la2orator8 eEa5ination of the sa5ples
he eEtracted fro5 the cellophane 4rapper.
It turned out that the dried lea3es 4ere 5ari7uana flo4erin9 tops as certified 28 the forensic
che5ist of the ,arcotics -ection of the ,BI.
*hereafter, an infor5ation 4as filed a9ainst appellant for 3iolation of .+ $F".
+PPEL+,* CO,*E,1- that the e3idence su27ect of the i5puted offense had 2een o2tained in 3iolation
of his consti. ri9hts a9ainst unreasona2le searches and seizures and pri3ac8 of co55unication and
therefore ar9ues that the sa5e should 2e held inad5issi2le in e3idence.
*he case at 2ar assu5es a peculiar character since the e3idence sou9ht to 2e eEcluded 4as
pri5aril8 disco3ered and o2tained 28 a pri3ate person, actin9 in a pri3ate capacit8 and 4Co the
inter3ention and participation of state authorities.

P+/E @'
I--UE6 Ma8 an act of a pri3ate indi3idual, alle9edl8 in 3iolation of appellantBs constitutional
ri9hts, 2e in3o?ed a9ainst the stateI
DEL16 >e hold in the ne9ati3e. In the a2sence of 9o3ern5ental interference, the li2erties
9uaranteed 28 the Consti. cannot 2e in3o?ed a9ainst the -tate. *his constitutional ri9ht refers to
the i55unit8 of oneBs person, 4hether citizen or alien, fro5 interference 28 9o3t. EEE %Villanue3a
3. Pueru2in.)
*he contra2and in the case at 2ar ha3in9 co5e into possession of the 9o3t 4Co the latter
trans9ressin9 appellantBs ri9hts a9ainst unreasona2le searches and seizures %- O -), the Court sees
no co9ent reason 4h8 the sa5e should not 2e ad5itted a9ainst hi5.
+ppellant, ho4e3er, 4ould li?e this Court to 2elie3e that ,BI a9ents 5ade an ille9al
search and seizure of the e3idence later on used in prosecutin9 the case. *he ar9u5ents of
appellant stands to fall on its o4n 4ei9ht, or the lac? of it.
'irst, the factual considerations of the case at 2ar readil8 foreclose the proposition that
,BI a9ents conducted an ille9al - O - of the prohi2ited 5erchandise. .ecords of the case clearl8
indicate that it 4as Mr. Jo2 .e8es, the proprietor of the for4ardin9 a9enc8, 4ho 5ade the searchC
inspection. -uch inspection 4as reasona2le and a -OP on the part of Mr. .e8es as a precautionar8
5easure 2ef. deli3er8 of pac?a9es to the Bureau of Custo5s or Bureau of Posts.
!econd, the 5ere presence of the ,BI a9ents did not con3ert the reasona2le search effected
28 .e8es into a 4arrantless - O - proscri2ed 28 the Consti. Merel8 to o2ser3e and loo? at that
4Cc is plain si9ht is not search. Da3in9 o2ser3ed that 4Cc is open, 4here no trespass has 2een
co55itted in aid thereof, is not search.
*hat the Bill of .i9hts e52odied in the Consti. is not 5eant to 2e in3o?ed a9ainst acts of
pri3ate indi3iduals finds support in the deli2erations of the Con Co5.6 = EEE *he Bill of .i9hts
9o3erns the relationship 2et4een the indi3idual and the state. Its concern is not the relation
2et4een indi3iduals, 2et4een a pri3ate indi3idual and other indi3iduals. EEE= %-ponsorship speech
of Co55issioner Bernas.)
*he constitutional proscription a9ainst unla4ful - O - therefore applies as a restraint
directed onl8 a9ainst the 9o3t and its a9encies tas?ed 4C the enforce5ent of the la4. *hus, it could
onl8 2e in3o?ed a9ainst the -tate to 4ho5 the restraint a9ainst ar2itrar8 and unreasona2le eEercise
of po4er is i5posed.
It the search is 5ade at the 2ehest or inititiation of the proprietor of a pri3ate esta2lish5ent
for its o4n and pri3ate purposes, as in the case at 2ar, and 4Co the inter3ention of police
authorities, the ri9ht a9ainst unreasona2le - O - cannot 2e in3o?ed for onl8 the act of pri3ate
indi3iduals, not la4 enforcers, is in3ol3ed. In su5, the protection a9ainst unreasona2le - O -
cannot 2e eEtended to acts co55itted 28 pri3ate indi3iduals so as to 2rin9 it 4Cin the a52it of
alle9ed unla4ful intrusion 28 the 9o3t. RA".

'. In the issuance of 4arrants of +..E-*, as distin9uished fro5 -E+.CD
4arrants, the 7ud9e 5a8 rel8 si5pl8 on fiscalBs certification as to pro2a2le cause
Co5pare .ule &&", -ec. $ %on warrants of arrest) 4ith .ule &"$, -ec. F %on search warrants.)
R.)e 117 Se%. 6. When warrant of arrest may issue.-- =(A By the Regional Trial
ourt.-- U&on t'e +i)in2 o+ (n in+o$1(tion t'e Re2ion() T$i() Co.$t 1(, iss.e ( -($$(nt +o$
t'e ($$est o+ t'e (%%.sed.
=*A By the !unicipal Trial ourt.-- I+ t'e 1.ni%i&() t$i() G.d2e %ond.%tin2 t'e
&$e)i1in($, investi2(tion is s(tis+ied (+te$ (n e;(1in(tion in -$itin2 (nd .nde$ o(t' o+ t'e
%o1&)(in(nt (nd 'is -itnesses in t'e +o$1 o+ se($%'in2 /.estions (nd (ns-e$s t'(t ( &$o*(*)e
%(.se e;ists (nd t'(t t'e$e is ( ne%essit, o+ &)(%in2 t'e $es&ondent .nde$ i11edi(te %.stod, in
o$de$ not to +$.st$(te t'e ends o+ G.sti%e 'e s'()) iss.e ( -($$(nt o+ ($$est. =R.)es o+ Co.$t.A
P+/E F!
R.)e 176 Se%. I. "#amination of complainant$ record.-- T'e G.d2e 1.st *e+o$e
iss.in2 t'e -($$(nt &e$son()), e;(1ine in t'e +o$1 o+ se($%'in2 /.estions (nd (ns-e$s in
-$itin2 (nd .nde$ o(t' t'e %o1&)(in(nt (nd (n, -itnesses 'e 1(, &$od.%e on +(%ts &e$son()),
9no-n to t'e1 (nd (tt(%' to t'e $e%o$ds t'ei$ s-o$n st(te1ents to2et'e$ -it' (n, (++id(vits
s.*1itted.
*he re:uire5ent in the case of 4arrants of arrest is relaEed in that the 7ud9e can rel8 on the
certification of the fiscal that the latter has conducted the preli5inar8 in3esti9ation and has found
pro2a2le cause on the part of the accused. *he 7ud9e can issue the 4arrant on the 2asis of the
infor5ation filed 28 the fiscal and the certification of pro2a2le cause.
*he -C has allo4ed this practice in +5ar9a 3. +22as, 'A Phil. (@' %&'$), notin9 that it
has 2een practice lon9 settled and that a 7ud9e can issue an order to arrest on the 2asis of the
certificate.
Of course, if the 7ud9e is in dou2t, he can al4a8s as? the fiscal to su25it the records of the
preli5inar8 in3esti9ation, so he could deter5ine for hi5self if, on the 2asis of the affida3its, there
eEists pro2a2le cause. It he is satisfied 4ith the affida3its, he need not su55on the affiants.
+5ar9a 3. +22as, 'A Phil. (@' %&'$)
F6 Municipal Jud9e -a5ulde conducted a preli5inar8 in3esti9ation %PI) of +ran9ale upon a
co5plaint for ro22er8 filed 28 co5plainant Ma92anua, alle9in9 that +ran9ale har3ested pala8 fro5 a
portion of her land directl8 ad7oinin9 +ran9aleQs land. +fter the PI, -a5ulde trans5itted the records of
the case to Pro3incial Fiscal -al3ani 4ith his findin9 that Rthere is pri5a facie e3idence of ro22er8 as
char9ed in the co5plaintS. Fiscal -al3ani returned the records to Jud9e -a5ulde on the 9round that the
trans5ittal of the records 4as Rpre5atureS 2ecause Jud9e -a5ulde failed to include the 4arrant of arrest
%>+) a9ainst the accused. Jud9e -a5ulde sent the records 2ac? to Fiscal -al3ani statin9 that althou9h he
found that a pro2a2le cause eEisted, he did not 2elie3e that +ran9ale should 2e arrested.
Fiscal -al3ani filed a 5anda5us case a9ainst Jud9e -a5ulde to co5pel hi5 to issue a >+. .*C
dis5issed the petition on the 9round that the fiscal had not sho4n that he has a clear, le9al ri9ht to the
perfor5ance of the act to 2e re:uired of the 7ud9e and that the latter had an i5perati3e dut8 to perfor5 it.
,e3erhteless, Jud9e -a5ulde 4as ordered to issue a >+ in accordance 4ith -ec. , .ule &&" of the &'A
.ules of Court.
I--UE6 >hether it is 5andator8 for the in3esti9atin9 7ud9e to issue a >+ of the accused in 3ie4
of his findin9, after conductin9 a PI, that there eEists pri5a facie e3idence that the accused
co55ited the cri5e char9ed.
DEL16 *DE PU.PO-E OF + P.ELIMI,+.0 I,VE-*I/+*IO, 1OE- ,O*
CO,*EMPL+*E *DE I--U+,CE OF + >+ B0 *DE I,VE-*I/+*I,/ JU1/E O.
OFFICE..
Under .ule &&" of the &'A .OC, a PI is conducted on the 2asis of affida3its to deter5ine
4hether or not there is sufficient 9round to hold the accused for trial. *o deter5ine 4hether a >+
should issue, the in3esti9atin9 7ud9e 5ust ha3e eEa5ined in 4ritin9 and under oath the co5plainant
and his 4irtnesses 28 searchin9 :uestions and ans4ersJ he 5ust 2e satisfied that a pro2a2le cause
eEistsJ and there 5ust 2e a need to place the accused under i55ediate custod8 in order not to
frustrate the ends of 7ustice. It is not o2li9ator8, 2ut 5erel8 discretionar8, upon the in3esti9atin9
P+/E F&
7ud9e to issue a >+, for the deter5ination of 4hether it is necessar8 to arrest the accused in order
not to frustrate the ends of 7ustice, is left to his sound 7ud95ent or discretion.
*he fiscal should, instead, ha3e filed an infor5ation i55ediatel8 so that the .*C 5a8
issue a 4arrant for the arrest of the accused. 4(1.
Beltran 3. Ma?asiar, &$( -C.+ @'@ %&'AA)
F6 *he Pres. of the Phils. filed a co5plaint for li2el a9ainst the petitioners, 4ho 4ere pu2lisher and
colu5nist of the Philippine -tar, 2ased on the follo4in9 state5ent in BeltranBs colu5n of Oct. &", &'A(
entitled =*he ,er3ous Officials of the +:uino +d5inistration6= =If 8ou 4ill recall, durin9 the +u9. "'
coup atte5pt, the Pres. hid under her 2ed, 4hile the firin9 4as 9oin9 on## perhaps the first Co55ander#
in#Chief of the +FP to ha3e to do so.=
Instead of su25ittin9 his counter#affida3it, Beltran 5o3ed to dis5iss the co5plaint. *he fiscal
deniend his 5otion after findin9 a pri5a facie case a9ainst the petitioners and filed the case in court 4Cc
thereafter issued 4arrants of arrest a9ainst the petitioners. *he petitioners filed a petition for certiorari
and prohi2ition.
DEL16 *he addition of the 4ord =personall8= after the 4ord =deter5ined= %+rt. III, -ec. ") and
the deletion of the 9rant of authorit8 28 the &'(@ Consti. to issue 4arrants to =other responsi2le
officer as 5a8 2e authorized 28 la4,= has apparentl8 con3inced petitioner Beltran that the Consti.
no4 re:uires the 7ud9e to personall8 eEa5ine the co5plainant and his 4itnesses in his
deter5ination of pro2a2le cause for the issuance of 4arrants of arrest. *his is not an accurate
interpretation. >hat the Consti. underscores is the eEclusi3e and personal responsi2ilit8 of the
issuin9 7ud9e to satisf8 hi5self of the eEistence of pro2a2le cause. In satisf8in9 hi5self of the
eEistence of pro2a2le cause for the issuance of a 4arrant of arrest, the 7ud9e is not re:uired to
personall8 eEa5ine the co5plainant and his 4itnesses. Follo4in9 esta2lished doctrine and
procedure, he shall6 %&) personall8 e3aluate the report and the supportin9 docu5ents su25itted 28
the fiscal re9ardin9 the eEistence of pro2a2le cause and, on the 2asis thereof, issue a 4arrant of
arrestJ or %") if on the 2asis thereof he finds no pro2a2le cause, he 5a8 disre9ard the fiscalBs report
and re:uire the su25ission of supportin9 affida3its of 4itnesses to aid hi5 in arri3in9 at a
conclusion as to the eEistence of pro2a2le cause. -ound polic8 dictates this procedure, other4ise
7ud9es 4ould 2e undul8 laden 4C the preli5inar8 eEa5ination and in3esti9ation of cri5inal
co5plaints instead of concentratin9 on hearin9 and decidin9 cases filed 2efore their courts.
EEE VV.
-a5ulde 3. -al3ani, &$ -C.+ (@F %&'AA)
F6 Municipal Jud9e -a5ulde conducted a preli5inar8 in3esti9ation %PI) of +ran9ale upon a
co5plaint for ro22er8 filed 28 co5plainant Ma92anua, alle9in9 that +ran9ale har3ested pala8 fro5 a
portion of her land directl8 ad7oinin9 +ran9aleQs land. +fter the PI, -a5ulde trans5itted the records of
the case to Pro3incial Fiscal -al3ani 4ith his findin9 that Rthere is pri5a facie e3idence of ro22er8 as
char9ed in the co5plaintS. Fiscal -al3ani returned the records to Jud9e -a5ulde on the 9round that the
trans5ittal of the records 4as Rpre5atureS 2ecause Jud9e -a5ulde failed to include the 4arrant of arrest
%>+) a9ainst the accused. Jud9e -a5ulde sent the records 2ac? to Fiscal -al3ani statin9 that althou9h he
found that a pro2a2le cause eEisted, he did not 2elie3e that +ran9ale should 2e arrested.
Fiscal -al3ani filed a 5anda5us case a9ainst Jud9e -a5ulde to co5pel hi5 to issue a >+. .*C
dis5issed the petition on the 9round that the fiscal had not sho4n that he has a clear, le9al ri9ht to the
perfor5ance of the act to 2e re:uired of the 7ud9e and that the latter had an i5perati3e dut8 to perfor5 it.
,e3erhteless, Jud9e -a5ulde 4as ordered to issue a >+ in accordance 4ith -ec. , .ule &&" of the &'A
.ules of Court.
P+/E F"
I--UE6 >hether it is 5andator8 for the in3esti9atin9 7ud9e to issue a >+ of the accused in 3ie4
of his findin9, after conductin9 a PI, that there eEists pri5a facie e3idence that the accused
co55ited the cri5e char9ed.
DEL16 *DE PU.PO-E OF + P.ELIMI,+.0 I,VE-*I/+*IO, 1OE- ,O*
CO,*EMPL+*E *DE I--U+,CE OF + >+ B0 *DE I,VE-*I/+*I,/ JU1/E O.
OFFICE..
Under .ule &&" of the &'A .OC, a PI is conducted on the 2asis of affida3its to deter5ine
4hether or not there is sufficient 9round to hold the accused for trial. *o deter5ine 4hether a >+
should issue, the in3esti9atin9 7ud9e 5ust ha3e eEa5ined in 4ritin9 and under oath the co5plainant
and his 4itnesses 28 searchin9 :uestions and ans4ersJ he 5ust 2e satisfied that a pro2a2le cause
eEistsJ and there 5ust 2e a need to place the accused under i55ediate custod8 in order not to
frustrate the ends of 7ustice. It is not o2li9ator8, 2ut 5erel8 discretionar8, upon the in3esti9atin9
7ud9e to issue a >+, for the deter5ination of 4hether it is necessar8 to arrest the accused in order
not to frustrate the ends of 7ustice, is left to his sound 7ud95ent or discretion.
*he fiscal should, instead, ha3e filed an infor5ation i55ediatel8 so that the .*C 5a8
issue a 4arrant for the arrest of the accused. 4(1.
&!. >hen arrest 5a8 2e 5ade 4ithout a 4arrant
R.)e 11> Se%. ?. A$$est -it'o.t -($$(nt< -'en )(-+.).FF A &e(%e o++i%e$ o$ ( &$iv(te
&e$son 1(, -it'o.t ( -($$(nt ($$est ( &e$sonD
=(A W'en in 'is &$esen%e t'e &e$son to *e ($$ested '(s %o11itted is (%t.()),
%o11ittin2 o$ is (tte1&tin2 to %o11it (n o++ense<
=*A W'en (n o++ense '(s in +(%t G.st *een %o11itted (nd 'e '(s &e$son() 9no-)ed2e
o+ +(%ts indi%(tin2 t'(t t'e &e$son to *e ($$ested '(s %o11itted it<
=%A W'en t'e &e$son to *e ($$ested is ( &$isone$ -'o '(s es%(&ed +$o1 ( &en()
est(*)is'1ent o+ &)(%e -'e$e 'e is se$vin2 +in() G.d21ent o$ te1&o$($i), %on+ined -'i)e 'is
%(se is &endin2 o$ '(s es%(&ed -'i)e *ein2 t$(ns+e$$ed +$o1 one %on+ine1ent to (not'e$.
In %(ses +())in2 .nde$ &($(2$(&'s =(A (nd =*A 'e$eo+ t'e &e$son ($$ested -it'o.t (
-($$(nt s'()) *e +o$t'-it' de)ive$ed to t'e ne($est &o)i%e st(tion o$ G(i) (nd 'e s'()) *e
&$o%eeded (2(inst in (%%o$d(n%e -it' R.)e 117 Se%tion. J. =R.)es o+ Co.$t.A
.ule &&@, sec. tal?s of =citizen arrests=, cases 4here an arrest can 2e 5ade either 28 the
peace officer or a pri3ate person 4ithout need of a 4arrant.
*he ?e8 ele5ent in the first case is that the offense 4as co55itted =in his presence=. *he
?e8 ele5ent in the second case is that he has =personal ?no4led9e=.
*hus, in People 3. Bur9os, &FF -C.+ & %&'A$), the arrest 5ade 28 the consta2ular8
4ithout a 4arrant of a far5er on the 2asis of infor5ation that he 4as a su23ersi3e 4as held
unconstitutional, since there 4as no personal ?no4led9e of the offense itself.
*he 9un and su23ersi3e docu5ents found 28 the officer and ad5itted 28 the for5er to 2e
his 4ere li?e4ise held inad5issi2le 2ecause the ad5ission 3iolated the Miranda rule.
a. -trict enforce5ent of rule
People 3. Bur9os, &FF -C.+ & %&'A$)
P+/E F@
F6 On the 2asis of info. 9i3en 28 Cesar Masa5lo?, the appellant 4as arrested 4hile plo4in9 his
far5 in *i9u5an, 1a3ao del -ur, on Ma8 &@, &'A", on char9es of ille9al possession of firear5 in
furtherance of su23ersion. + .@A cali2er re3ol3er 4as found 2uried under his house. -u23ersi3e
docu5ents 4ere also seized fro5 a place near his house. *4o arrestin9 officers testified that the appellant
had readil8 ad5itted o4nership of the 9un and the docu5ents. *he appellant 4as found 9uilt8 of the
char9e and sentenced to "! 8ears of reclusion temporal, as 5ini5u5, to reclusion perpetua, as 5aEi5u5,
and the 9un and docu5ents 4ere ordered confiscated.

DEL16 %&) Under . &&@, -ec. %a), the arrestin9 officer 5ust ha3e personal ?no4led9e that the
cri5e has 2een co55itted, is 2ein9 co55itted, or is a2out to 2e co55itted, in order to 7ustif8 an
arrest 4Co a 4arrant. *he offense 5ust also 2e co55itted in his presence or 4Cin his 3ie4. *here
is no such personal ?no4led9e in this case. Dence the arrest of the appellant 4as ille9al.
%") Conse:uentl8, the incidental search and seizure 4ere li?e4ise ille9al and the firear5
and docu5ent are inad5issi2le in e3idence.
%@) *he prosecution ar9ues that the appellant ad5itted o4nership of the 9un and clai5s
that it 4as he 4ho pointed to the place 4here the su23ersi3e docu5ents 4ere hidden. Do4e3er, as
the appellant 4as not infor5ed of his constitutional ri9hts at that ti5e, his ad5ission is
inad5issi2le under G+rt. III, -ec. &" %&).H It is true that $ da8s later he eEecuted a confession
2efore the fiscal 4C the assistance of counsel, 2ut it 4as then alread8 too late.
%F) +s the re5ainin9 e3idence a9ainst the appellant is the testi5on8 of Cesar M. and it is
uncorro2orated and unrelia2le, the appellant should 2e ac:uitted, 2ut the 9un and the su23ersi3e
docu5ents 5ust 2e confiscated. VV.
/o 3. C+, "!$ -C.+ &@A %&''")
B+.LO,/+0 C+-E6
People 3. Manlulu, "@& -C.+ (!&
F6 +lfaro, a ,+.COM a9ent, 4as sta22ed and shot in a drin?in9 spree. Dis drin?in9 co5panions,
Manlulu and -a5son 4ere arrested nineteen hours after the incident. Patrol5an Perez arrested Manlulu
on the infor5ation 9i3en 28 Manlapaz, 4ho 4as also drin?in9 4ith the accused and the 3icti5.
Patrol5an Perez seized fro5 Manlulu the .F cal. Pistol and Casio 4rist4atch said to 2elon9 to +lfaro,
4ithout a 4arrant and 4ithout infor5in9 Manlulu of his ri9ht to counsel.
I--UE6 >hether or not the arrest and seizure of the 9un and the 4atch 4as 3alid.
DEL16 *he 4arrantless arrest 4as in3alid. *he ?illin9 too? place at one oQcloc? in the 5ornin9.
*he arrest and the conse:uent search and seizure ca5e at around se3en oQcloc? that e3enin9, so5e
nineteen hours later. *his instance cannot co5e 4ithin the pur3ie4 of a 3alid 4arrantless arrest.
Para9raph %2) -ec. , .ule &&@ of the &'A .ules on Cri5inal Procedure pro3ides that the
arrestin9 officer 5ust ha3e Rpersonal ?no4led9eS nor 4as the offense Rin fact 7ust 2een
co55itted.S >hile Pat. Perez 5a8 ha3e personall8 9athered the infor5ation 4hich led to the
arrest of Manlulu, that is not enou9h. *he la4 re:uires Rpersonal ?no4led9eS. O23iousl8,
Rpersonal 9atherin9 of infor5ationS is different fro5 personal ?no4led9e. *he rule re:uires that
the arrest i55ediatel8 follo4s the co55ission of the offense, not so5e nineteen hours later.
Do4e3er, the fla4, fatal as it 5a8 2e, 2eco5es 5oot in 3ie4 of the e8e4itness account of
Manlapaz 4hich the Court found credi2le. In spite of the nullification of the arrest of accused
Manlulu, and the eEclusion of real e3idence, as 4ell as his eEtra#7udicial confession 4hich 4as
ta?en in 3iolation of the Constitution, still the prosecution 4as a2le to pro3e the 9uilt of the
accused 2e8ond reasona2le dou2t. 4(1.
P+/E FF
People 3. .odri9uez, "@" -C.+ F'A %+pril ", &'A')
F6 Pat. Mar3in Pa7ilan recei3ed a phone call fro5 the des? officer of -u2#-tation I, na5el8, Michael
Or2eta, 4ho infor5ed hi5 that a person na5ed B+l8as +llanB 4as sellin9 5ari7uana at ,o. A&''
Constancia -t., Ma?ati, Metro Manila and re:uested that said person 2e apprehended. +ctin9 on this
phone call of des? officer Michael Or2eta, a tea5 of police5en posted the5sel3es a2out &! to & 5eters
fro5 the house located at A&'' Constancia -t., Ma?ati. *he8 sa4 a tric8cle 4ith @ persons on 2oard, a
dri3er and " passen9ers, stop in front of the house at A&'' Constancia -t. *he8 also sa4 a 5ale person
co5e out of the said house and approach and tal? to the dri3er of the tric8cle. +fter a 4hile the8 sa4 the
5ale person 9o 2ac? to the house and a little later co5e 2ac? and hand to the tric8cle dri3er Ba suspicious
stuff of a ci9arette, a 5ari7uana ci9aretteB, the8 further sa4 the tric8cle dri3er in turn 9i3e so5ethin9 to the
5ale person. Pat. Pa7ilan to9ether 4ith his co5panions approached the 5ale person and the tric8cle dri3er
and after introducin9 the5sel3es as police officers, the8 as?ed the 5ale person, the tric8cle dri3er and his
" passen9ers to 2rin9 out the contents of their poc?ets, 4hich the 5ale person, the dri3er and the
passen9ers of the tric8cle did. *he 5ale person 2rou9ht out fro5 his poc?ets " s5all plastic 2a9s
containin9 suspected 5ari7uana lea3es. *he tric8cle dri3er 2rou9ht out fro5 his ri9ht front poc?et @ stic?s
of suspected 5ari7uana ci9arettes. ,othin9 ille9al 4as found in the poc?ets of the " passen9ers of the
tric8cle.
*he appellant contends that the police officers had no personal ?no4led9e that he 4as indeed
handin9 5ari7uana to Enrico Bacod as the8 4ere &!#& 5eters a4a8 fro5 the alle9ed sale transaction. *he
arrest therefore 4as not 3alid as the re:uire5ents for a 4arrantless arrest 4ere not co5plied 4ith.
Issue6 >as the 4arantless arrest 3alidI
.ulin96 0E-.
*he 4arrantless arrest 5ade 28 the la4 enforcers 4as 3alid since it falls under the
pro3isions of .ule &&@, -ec. %a) of the .ules of Court 4hich pro3ides6
-ec. . +rrest 4ithout 4arrantJ 4hen la4ful. + peace officer or a pri3ate person 5a8,
4ithout a 4arrant, arrest a person6
%a) >hen, in his presence, the person to 2e arrested has co55itted, is actuall8 co55ittin9,
or is atte5ptin9 to co55it an offenseJ
Da3in9 cau9ht the appellant in flagrante as a result of the 2u8#2ust operation, the
police5en 4ere not onl8 authorized 2ut 4ere also under o2li9ation to apprehend the dru9 pusher
e3en 4ithout a 4arrant of arrest. *he police officers 4ere tipped off 28 an infor5er a2out the
ille9al trade of the accused. *he eEact location 4here this tradin9 in dru9s 4as ta?in9 place 4as
9i3en to the5. *he Bsuspicious stuffB ta?en fro5 the accused 4ere confir5ed to 2e 5ari7uana after
tests 4ere conducted on the5. *he attendant circu5stances ta?in9 place 2efore their e8es led the
police officers to reasona2l8 conclude that an offense 4as actuall8 2ein9 co55itted. G),nd(.
2. EEceptions to strict enforce5ent
%&) =Continuous= cri5es of su23ersion
U5il 3. .a5os, &A( -C.+ @&& %&''!)
PE. CU.I+M
*hese are A petitions for habeas corpus 5/C6 filed 2ef. the Court. *he Court finds that
the persons detained ha3e not 2een ille9all8 arrested nor ar2itraril8 depri3ed of their constitutional
ri9ht to li2ert8 and that the circu5stances attendin9 these cases do not 4arrant their release on /C.
P+/E F
+n arrest 4Co a 4arrant, under -ec. , pars. %a) and %2) of .ule &&@, .OC, as a5ended is
7ustified 4hen the person arrested is cau9ht in flagrante delicto, 3iz., in the act of co55ittin9 an
offenseJ or 4hen an offense has 7ust 2een co55itted and the person 5a?in9 the arrest has personal
?no4led9e of the facts indicatin9 that the person arrested has co55itted it.
*he persons in 4hose 2ehalf these petitions for /C ha3e 2een filed had freshl8 co55itted
or 4ere actuall8 co55ittin9 an offense, 4hen apprehended, so that their arrests, 4Co 4arrant 4ere
clearl8 7ustified, and that the8 are, further detained 28 3irtue of 3alid infor5ations filed a9ainst
the5 in court.
I
In U5il 3. .a5os, .IOU#C+PCOM recei3ed confidential info. a2out a 5e52er of the
,P+#-parro4 unit 2ein9 treated for a 9unshot 4ound at the -t. +9nes Dospital in .oose3elt +3e.,
P.C. It 4as found that the 4ounded person, 4ho 4as listed in the hospital records as .onnie
Ja3elon, is actuall8 .olando 1ural, a 5e52er of the ,P+ li:uidation s:uad, responsi2le for the
?illin9 of " C+PCOM soldiers the da8 2efore. 1ural 4as then transferred to the .e9ional Medical
-er3ices of the C+PCOM.
Upon positi3e identification 28 an e8e4itness, 1ural 4as referred to the Caloocan Cit8
Fiscal 4ho conducted an in:uest and thereafter filed 4C the .*C#Caloocan Cit8 an info. char9in9
1ural 4C the cri5e of =1ou2le Murder 4C +ssault upon a9ents of persons in authorit8.=
*he petition for /C, insofar as U5il O Villanue3a are concerned, is no4 5oot and
acade5ic and is accordin9l8 dis5issed, since the 4rit does not lie in fa3or of an accused in a cri5.
case, 4ho has 2een released on 2ail.
+s to 1ural, he 4as not arrested 4hile in the act of shootin9 the " soldiers. ,or 4as he
arrested after the co55ission of said offense for his arrest ca5e a day after the shootin9 incident.
Do4e3er, 1ural 4as arrested for 2ein9 a 5e52er of the ,P+, an outla4ed su23ersi3e
or9anization. -u23ersion 2ein9 a continuing offense, the arrest of 1ural 4Co 4arrant is 7ustified as
it can 2e said that he 4as co55ittin9 an offense 4hen arrested.
*he arrest of persons in3ol3ed in re2ellion 4hether as its fi9htin9 ar5ed ele5ents, or for
co55ittin9 non#3iolent acts 2ut in furtherance of re2ellion, is 5ore an act of capturin9 the5 in the
course of an ar5ed conflict, to :uell the re2ellion, than for the purpose of i55ediatel8 prosecutin9
the5 in court for a statutor8 offense. *he arrest, therefore, need not follo4 the usual procedure in
the prosecution of offenses 4Cc re:uires the deter5ination 28 a 7ud9e of the eEistence of pro2a2le
cause 2ef. the issuance of a 7udicial 4arrant and the 9rantin9 of 2ail if the offense is 2aila2le.
O23iousl8, the a2sence of a 7udicial 4arrant is no le9al i5pedi5ent to arrestin9 or capturin9
persons co55ittin9 o3ert acts of 3iolence a9ainst 9o3t forces, or an8 other 5ilder acts 2ut e:uall8
in pursuance of the re2ellious 5o3e5ent. EEE %/arcia#Padilla 3. Enrile.)
1ural 4as found 9uilt8 of the char9e and is no4 ser3in9 the sentence i5posed upon hi5 28
the trial court. *hus, the 4rit of /C is no lon9er a3aila2le
II
*he arrest of +5elia .o:ue and >ilfredo Buenao2ra, 4Co 4arrant is also 7ustified.
In 3ie4 of the re3elations 5ade 28 .o9elio .a5os, a for5er ,P+, the Constantino house
in Mari?ina Dei9hts 4as placed under 5ilitar8 sur3eillance and on AC&"CAA, pursuant to a search
4arrant , a search of the house 4as conducted at PM 28 CI-C#,C1 O C-/. In the course of
the search 4ere found se3eral firear5s, re9ular po4er suppl8, antennae, spea?er and su23ersi3e
docu5ents.
>hen confronted, .. Constantino %.C) could not produce an8 per5it or authorit8 to
possess the firear5s, a55unition, radio, etc. De 4as 2rou9ht to CI- DP for in3esti9ation. >hen
P+/E F$
:uestioned, he refused to 9i3e a 4ritten state5ent, althou9h he ad5itted that he 4as a staff 5e52er
of the eEecuti3e of the ,UFC and a ran?in9 5e52er of the International 1ept. of the CPP.
+t a2out A PM, sa5e da8, Buenao2ra arri3ed at .CBs house. >hen arrested, he readil8
su25itted to the 5ilitar8 a9ents that he is a re9ular 5e52er of the CPPC ,P+ and that he 4ent to
the place to deli3er letters to =Ka Mon9,= referrin9 to .C and other 5e52ers of the re2el 9roup.
+lso found in Buenao2raBs possession 4as a piece of paper containin9 the 7u52led tel. no. of
Florida .o:ue, sister of +5elia .o:ue, a?a. =Ka ,elia.= *he8 4ent to the address on AC&@CAA and
arri3ed at the place a2out && +M. +fter identif8in9 the5sel3es as 5ilitar8 a9ents and after see?in9
per5ission to search the place, 4Cc 4as 9ranted, the 5ilitar8 a9ents conducted a search in the
presence of the occupants of the house and the 2aran9a8 captain of the place.
*he 5ilitar8 found the place to 2e another safehouse of the ,UFCC CPP. *he8 found
firear5s, su23ersi3e docu5ents, led9ers, 7ournals, 3ouchers, a5on9 others. +5elia ad5itted
o4nership of the docu5ents seized.
.o:ue 4as 2rou9ht to the Caloocan Cit8 Fiscal for in:uest after 4Cc an info. char9in9 her
4C 3iol. of P1 &A$$ 4as filed. +nother info. for 3iol. of the +nti#-u23ersion +ct 4as filed a9ainst
.o:ue and also to Buenao2ra.
+ petition for /C 4as filed 2ef. this Court on 2ehalf of .o:ue and Buenao2ra. +t the
hearin9, Buenao2ra 5anifested his desire to sta8 in the PC#I,P stoc?ade at Ca5p Cra5e, P.C.
+ccordin9l8, the petition for /C on his 2ehalf is no4 5oot and acade5ic.

III
+nonue3o 3. .a5os.
*he arrest of 1o5in9o +nonue3o %+) and .a5on Casiple %C) 4Co 4arrant is 7ustified.
+t a2out (6@! PM on AC&@CAA, + and C arri3ed at the house of .C 4Cc 4as still under
sur3eillance. *he 5ilitar8 noticed 2ul9in9 o27ects on their 4aist lines. >hen fris?ed, the a9ents
found the5 to 2e loaded 9uns. *he8 4ere as?ed to sho4 their per5it or license to possess or carr8
firear5s and a55unitions 2ut the8 could not produce an8. Dence, the8 4ere 2rou9ht to PC DP
for in3esti9ation.
+t the PC stoc?ade, + 4as identified as =Ka *ed,= and C as =Ka *oto8= of the CPP 28 their
for5er co5rades.
On AC&CAA, an info. char9in9 the5 4C 3iol. of P1 &A$$ 4as filed 2ef. .*C#Pasi9. On
AC"FCAA, a petition for /C 4as filed 2ef. this Court.
DEL16 *he petitionerBs clai5 that the8 4ere unla4full8 arrested 2ec. there 4as no pre3ious
4arrant, is 4Co 5erit. *he records sho4 that the8 4ere carr8in9 unlicensed firear5s and
a55unitions in their person 4hen apprehended.
*here is also no 5erit in the contention that the info. filed a9ainst the5 are null and 3oid
for 4ant of prel. in3. *he filin9 of an info., 4Co a prel. in3., ha3in9 2een first conducted, is
sanctioned 28 .ule &&", -ec. (, .OC.
Petitioners refused to si9n a 4ai3er of the pro3isions of +rt. &", .PC. ,or did petitioners
as? for prel. in3. after the infor5ations had 2een filed a9ainst the5 in court.
IV
Oca8a 3. +9uirre.
On C&"CAA, a9ents of the PC Intelli9ence and In3esti9ation 1i3ision of .izal PC#I,P
Co55and, ar5ed 4C a search 4arrant, conducted a search of a house located at Mari?ina /reen
Dei9hts, 2elie3ed to 2e occupied 28 Benito *ia5son, head of the CPP#,P+. In the course of the
search, Oca8a arri3ed in a car dri3en 28 1ann8 .i3era. -u23ersi3e docu5ents and se3eral rounds
P+/E F(
of a55unitions for a .F cal. pistol 4ere found in Vic?8 Oca8aBs car. *he8 4ere 2rou9ht to the PC
DP for in3esti9ation, 4hen O. could not produce an8 per5it or authorization to possess the
a55unition, an info. char9in9 her 4C 3iol. of P1 &A$$ 4as filed 4C .*C#Pasi9. .i3era 4as
released fro5 custod8.
On C&(CAA, a petition for /C 4as filed on 2ehalf of these ".
DEL16 Vic?8 O. 4as arrested in flagrante delicto so that her arrest 4Co 4arrant is 7ustified. ,o.
prel. in3. 4as conducted 2ec. she 4as arrested 4Co a 4arrant and she refused to 4ai3e the
pro3isions of +rt. &" of the .PC, pursuant to .&&", -ec. (, .OC.
V
*he petitioners Oca8a, +nonue3o, Casiple and .o:ue clai5 that the firear5s, a55unitions
and su23ersi3e docu5ents alle9ed to ha3e 2een found in their possession, 4hen arrested, did not
2elon9 to the5, 2ut 4ere planted 28 the 5ilitar8 to 7ustif8 their ille9al arrest.
*he petitioners, ho4e3er, ha3e not introduced an8 e3idence to support their clai5. On the
other hand, no e3il 5oti3e or ill 4ill on the part of the arrestin9 officers that could cause the said
officers in these cases to accuse the petitioners falsel8, has 2een sho4n.
+s pointed out 28 the -ol#/en, the arrest of the petitioners is not a product of a 4itch hunt
or a fishin9 eEpedition, 2ut the result of an in#depth sur3eillance of ,P+ safehouses pointed no less
than 28 for5er co5rades of the petitioners.
VI
Espiritu 3. Li5.
1eo9racias Espititu is the /en. -ec. of PI-*O,. Petitioner clai5s that at a2out +M of
&&C"@CAA, 4hile he 4as sleepin9 in his ho5e located at -ta. Mesa, Mla., he 4as a4a?ened 28 his
sister 4ho told hi5 that a 9roup of persons 4anted to hire his 7eepne8. >hen he 4ent do4n to tal?
to the5, he 4as i55ediatel8 put under arrest. >hen he as?ed for the 4arrant, the 5en 2odil8
lifted hi5 and placed hi5 in their o4ner t8pe 7eepne8. De de5anded that his sister 2e allo4ed to
acco5pan8 hi5, 2ut the 5en did not accede to his re:uest.
+n info. char9in9 hi5 4C 3iol. of +rt. &F", .PC %Incitin9 to sedition) 4as filed a9ainst
hi5.
In the afternoon of &&C""CAA, durin9 a press#con at the ,PC =1eo9racias E. throu9h tri#
5edia 4as heard ur9in9 all dri3ers and operators to 9o on nation4ide stri?e on &&C"@CAA EEE.=
Police5en 4aited for petitioners outside the ,PC in order to in3esti9ate hi5, 2ut he 9a3e
the la45en his slip. De 4as neEt seen at a2out PM at a 9atherin9 of dri3ers and s85pathizers,
4here he 4as heard as sa8in9,
=Bu?as tulo8 and 4el9a natin ... han99an9 sa 5a9?a9ulo na.=
-ince the arrest of the petitioner 4Co 4arrant 4as in accordance 4C the pro3isions of .
&&@, -ec. %2), .OC, and the petitioner is detained 28 3irtue of a 3alid info. filed 4C the co5petent
court, he 5a8 not 2e released on /C.

VII
,azareno 3. -tation Co55ander.
+t a2out A6@! +M of &"C&FCAA, one .o5ulo Bun8e II 4as ?illed 28 a 9roup of 5en in
+la2an9, Muntin9lupa, MM. One of the suspects in the ?illin9 4as .a5il .e9ala 4ho 4as
arrested 28 the police on &"C"ACAA. Upon :uestionin9, .e9ala pointed to ,azareno as one of his
co5panions in the ?illin9 of Bun8e II. In 3ie4 thereof, the officers, 4Co 4arrant, pic?ed up
,azareno and 2rou9ht hi5 to the police DP for :uestionin9.
P+/E FA
EEE
On "C&CA', the presidin9 7ud9e of the .*C#Binan, La9una, issued a resolution den8in9 the
petition for /C, it appearin9 that said ,arciso ,azareno is in the custod8 of the respondents 28
reason of an info. filed a9ainst hi5 4C the .*C#M?ti., MM.
DEL16 *he arrest of ,azareno 4as effected 28 the police 4Co 4arrant pursuant to -ec. %2), .
&&@, .OC, after he 4as positi3el8 i5plicated 28 his co#accusedJ and after in3esti9ation 28 the
police.
*he o2li9ation of an a9ent of authorit8 to 5a?e an arrest 28 reason of a cri5e, does not
presuppose as a necessar8 re:uisite for the fulfill5ent thereof, the indu2ita2le eEistence of a cri5e.
For the detention to 2e perfectl8 le9al, it is sufficient that the a9ent or person in authorit8 5a?in9
the arrest has reasona2l8 sufficient 9rounds to 2elie3e the eEistence of an act ha3in9 the
characteristic of a cri5e and that the sa5e 9rounds eEist to 2elei3e that the person sou9ht to 2e
detained participated therein.= %Peo. 3. +ncheta.)
VIII
In all the petitions here considered, cri5inal char9es ha3e 2een filed in the proper courts
a9ainst the petitioners. *he rule is that if a person alle9ed to 2e restrained of his li2ert8 is in the
custod8 of an officer under process issued 28 a court or 7ud9e, and that the court or 7ud9e had
7urisdiction to issue the process or 5a?e the order, or if such person is charged before any court,
the 4rit of /C 4ill not 2e allo4ed. %-ec. F, . &!", .OC.)
On the Ila9an 1octrine.
+s the Court sees it, re#eEa5ination or re#appraisal, 4C a 3ie4 to its a2andon5ent, of the
Ila9an case doctrine is not the ans4er. *he ans4er and the 2etter practice 4ould 2e, not to li5it the
function of DC to a 5ere in:uir8 as to 4Cn the court 4Cc issued the process, 7ud9e5ent or order of
co55it5ent, or 2ef. 4ho5 the detained person is char9ed, had 7urisdiction or not to issue the
process, 7ud95ent or order or to ta?e co9nizance of the case, 2ut rahter, as the court itself stated in
Morales, Jr. 3. Enrile, in all petitions for DC, the court 5ust in:uire into e3er8 phase and aspect of
petitionerBs detention## =fro5 the 5o5ent petitioner was ta$en into custody up to the moment the
court passes upon the merits of the petitionJ= and =onl8 after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy
itself that the due process clause of our Constitution in fact has been satisfied.= RA".
U5il 3. .a5os, "!" -C.+ "&
PE*I*IO, -EEKI,/ -EP+.+*E MO*IO,- FO. .ECO,-I1E.+*IO, F.OM *DE
COU.*B- 1ECI-IO, P.OMUL/+*E1 O, ' JUL0 &''!
*he decision %on Jul8 ', &''!) did not rule that 5ere suspicion that one is a CPP or ,P+ is
a 3alid 9round for his arrest 4Co 4arrant.
>e find no 5erit in the 5otions for reconsideration.
Rolando .ural.## Dis arrest 4Co 4arrant is 7ustified as it can 2e said that, 4Cin the
conte5plation of -ec. %a), . &&@, .OC, he 4as co55ittin9 an offense, 4hen arrested, 2ec. 1ural
4as arrested for 2ein9 a 5e52er of the ,P+, an outla4ed or9., 4here 5e52ership is penalized,
and for su23ersion 4Cc, li?e re2ellion is, under /arcia 3. Padilla, a continuing crime.
1ural did not cease to 2e, or 2eco5e less of a su23ersi3e, FO. PU.PO-E- OF +..E-*,
si5pl8 2ec. he 4as, at the ti5e of arrest, confined in the -t. +9nes Dospital. 1ural 4as identified
P+/E F'
as one of se3eral persons 4ho, the da8 2efore his arrest, 4Co 4arrant, had shot " C+PCOM
police5en in their patrol car. 1ural, 9i3en another opportunit8, 4ould ha3e shot or 4ould shoot
other police5en, an84here as a9ents or representati3e of an or9anized 9o3t. It is in this sense that
su23ersion and re2ellion are anchored on an ideolo9ical 2ase 4Cc co5pels the repetition of the
sa5e acts of la4lessness and 3iolence until the o3erridin9 o27ecti3e of o3erthro4in9 or9anized 9o3t
is attained.
Dis arrest 4as 2ased on =pro2a2le cause.=
-ec. , . &&@, .OC, re:uires " conditions for a 3alid arrest 4Co 4arrant6 %&) the person
to 2e arrested has 7ust co55itted an offense and %") the person arrestin9 has personal ?no4led9e
of facts indicatin9 that the person to 2e arrested is the one 4ho co55itted the offense.
It has been ruled that personal %nowledge of facts in arrests w,o warrant must be based
upon probable cause, w,c means on actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
*he 9rounds of suspicion are reasona2le 4hen, in the a2sence of actual 2elief of the
arrestin9 officers, the suspicion that the person to 2e arrested is pro2a2l8 9uilt8 of co55ittin9 the
offense, is 2ased on actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. + reasonable
suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause, coupled w, good faith on the part of the
peace officers ma$ing the arrest.
-aid confidential info. recei3ed 28 the arrestin9 officers, to the effect that an ,P+ 4as
2ein9 treated for a 9unshot 4ound 4as 2ased on actual facts and supported 28 circu5stances
sufficientl8 to en9ender a 2elief that an ,P+ 5e52er 4as trul8 in said hospital. *he actual facts
supported 28 circu5stances are6 %&) the da8 2ef., or on &C@&CAA, " C+PCOM soldiers 4ere
actuall8 ?illed in Ba9on9 Bo., Caloocan Cit8 28 =sparro4s= includin9 1uralJ %") a 4ounded
person listed in the hospital records as =.onnie Ja3elon= 4as actuall8 then 2ein9 treated in said
hospital for for a 9unshot 4oundJ %@) =.onnie Ja3elon= and his address entered in the hospital
records 4ere fictitious and the 4ounded 5an 4as in realit8 1ural.
(n good faith.## *he peace officers 4ho arrested 1ural are dee5ed to ha3e conducted the
sa5e in 9ood faith, considerin9 that la4 enforcers are presu5ed to re9ularl8 perfor5 their official
duties.
+ fe4 da8s after 1uralBs arrest, an info. char9in9 hi5 4C 1ou2le 5urder 4C assault a9ainst
a9ents of persons in authorit8 4as filed in .*C#Caloocan Cit8. De 4as placed under 7udicial
custod8. On AC@&CAA, he 4as con3icted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua.
+s to %. Roque., 2. Buenaobra, .. %nonuevo, R.. Casiple 9 3. (caya, their arrests, 4Co
4arrant, are also 7ustified. *he8 4ere searched pursuant to a 4arrant issued 28 a court of la4 and
4ere found 4C unlicensed firear5s, eEplosi3es andC or a55unitions on their persons. *he8 4ere,
therefore, cau9ht in flagrante delicto 4Cc 7ustified their outri9ht arrest 4Co 4arrant under -ec.
%a), .&&@, .OC. + fe4 da8s after their arrests, infor5ations 4ere filed in court a9ainst said
petitioners placin9 the5 4Cin 7udicial custod8 and disposition. Buenao2raBs petition is 5oot 2ec. he
had chosen to re5ain in detention.
*he reason 4hich co5pelled the 5ilitar8 a9ents to 5a?e the arrests 4Co 4arrant 4as the
info. 9i3en to the 5ilitar8 that " safehouses %one occupied 28 .C and the other 28 Benito *ia5son)
4ere 2ein9 used 28 the CPPC ,P+ for their operations, 4C info. as to their eEact location and the
na5es of .C and B* as residents and occupants thereof.
+nd at the ti5e of the actual arrests, the follo4in9 circu5stances surrounded said arrests
%of .o:ue, Buenao2ra, +nonue3o and Casiple), 4Cc confir5ed the 2elief of the 5ilitar8 that the
info. the8 had recei3ed 4as true and the persons to 2e arrested 4ere pro2a2l8 9uilt8 of the
co55ission of certain cri5es6 first, the search 4arrant 4as dul8 issued to effect the search of the
Constantino safehouseJ second, found in the safehouse 4as a person na5ed .C, 4ho ad5itted that
he 4as a ran?in9 5e52er of the CPP, and found in his possession 4ere unlicensed firear5s and
co55unist e:uip5entJ third, at the ti5e of their arrests, in their possession 4ere unlicensed
P+/E !
firear5s, a55unitions, andC or su23ersi3e docu5ents, and the8 ad5itted o4nership thereof as 4ell
as their 5e52ership in the CPPC ,P+. +nd then short8l8 after their arrests, the8 4ere positi3el8
identified 28 their for5er co5rades as CPPC ,P+ 5e52ers.
+n arrest is in the nature of an ad5inistrati3e 5easure. *he po4er to arrest 4Co 4arrant is
4Co li5itation as lon9 as the re:uire5ents of -ec. , . &&@ are 5et. *his rule is founded on an
o3er4hel5in9 pu2lic interest in peace and order in our co55unit8.
=EEE *he le9alit8 of the detention does not depend upon the fact of the cri5e, 2ut EEE
upon the nature of the deed, 4herefro5 such characterization 5a8 reasona2l8 2e inferred 28 the
officer or functionar8 to 4ho5 the la4 at the 5o5ent lea3es the decision for the ur9ent purpose of
suspendin9 the li2ert8 of the citizen.= %U- 3. -anchez.)
E-PI.I*U 4as arrested 4Co 4arrant, not for su23ersi3e or an8 =continuin9 offense,= 2ut
for utterin9 the 4ords =Bu?as tulo8 an9 4el9a natin EEE han99an9 sa 5a9?a9ulo na= 4Cc in the
perception of the arrestin9 officers, 4as inciting to sedition.
Man8 persons differ as to the 3alidit8 of such perception and re9ard the lan9ua9e as fallin9
4Cin free speech 9uaranteed 28 the Consti. But, the authorit8 of the peace officers to 5a?e the
arrest, 4Co 4arrant, at the ti5e the 4ords 4ere uttered, or soon thereafter, is still another thin9. In
the 2alancin9 of authorit8 and freedo5, 4Co o23iousl8 2eco5es difficult at ti5es, the court, has in
this case, tilted the scale in fa3or of authorit8 but only for purposes of the arrest %not con3iction.)
-uper3enin9 e3ents 5ade this case 5oot and acade5ic. for E. had 2ef. arrai9n5ent as?ed
the court a quo for re#in3esti9ation, the peace officers did not appear. Case a9ainst E. has 2een
pro3isionall8 dis5issed and his 2ail cancelled.

0%:%R+0(;! %RR+!T. +lthou9h the ?illin9 of Bun8e II occured on &"C&FCAA, 4hile
,azarenoBs arrest 4Co 4arrant 4as 5ade onl8 on &"C"ACAA or &F da8s later, teh arrest falls under
-ec. %2), .&&@, since it 4as onl8 on &"C"ACAA that the police authorities ca5e to ?no4 that
,azareno 4as pro2a2l8 one of those 9uilt8 in the ?illin9 of Bun8e II and the arrest had to 2e 5ade
pro5ptl8, e3en 4Co a 4arrant %after the police 4ere alerted) and despite the lapse of &F da8s to
pre3ent possi2le fli9ht.
,azareno has since 2een con3icted 28 the court a quo for 5urder and sentenced to
reclusion perpetua.
%.#I!!IB-IT< (' +=TR%>1.ICI%- %.#I!!I(0.
*hese ad5issions stren9then the CourtBs perception that trul8 the 9rounds upon 4Cc the
arrestin9 officers 2ased their arrests 4Co 4arrant, are supported 28 pro2a2le cause, i.e., that the
persons arrested 4ere pro2a2l8 9uilt8 of the co55ission of certain offenses, in co5pliance 4C -ec.
, . &&@, .OC. *o note these ad5issions, on the other hand, is not to rule that the persons
arrested are alread8 9uilt8 of the offenses upon 4Cc their 4arrantless arrests 4ere predicated. *he
tas? of deter5inin9 the 9uilt or innocence of persons arrested 4Co 4arrant is not proper in a
petition for /C. It pertains to the trial of the case on the 5erits.
)%RCI%&%.I--% 3. +0RI-+ and I-%)%0 3. +0RI-+8
*his Court finds no co5pellin9 reason at this ti5e to distur2 the sa5e, particularl8 in the
li9ht of pre3ailin9 conditions 4here national securit8 and sta2ilit8 are still directl8 challen9ed
perhaps, 4C 9reater 3i9or fro5 the co55unist re2els. >hat is i5portant is that e3er8 arrest 4Co
4arrant 2e tested as to its le9alit8 3ia habeas corpus proceedin9s. RA".
%") Ille9al Possession of 9uns or dru9s
P+/E &
People 3. Linsan9an, &' -C.+ (AF
F6 +ccused Linsan9an 4as arrested after a R2u8#2ustS operation. *he t4o 5ar?ed ten#peso 2ill 4ere
retrie3ed fro5 hi5. De 4as as?ed to si9n his na5e on the t4o 5ar?ed 2ills. *he ten handrolled ci9arette
stic?s confiscated fro5 the accused 4ere su25itted for eEa5ination. +fter findin9 these positi3e for
5ari7uana, a case 4as filed for 3iolation of the 1an9erous 1ru9s La4. Linsan9an denied the char9e. *he
trial court found Linsan9an 9uilt8. Upon appeal, one of the assertions of Linsan9an 4as that the trial
court erred in not holdin9 that 4hen the police5en re:uired hi5 to initial the 5ar?ed 2ills, the8 3iolated
his constitutional ri9ht to counsel, to re5ain silent, and not to incri5inate hi5self 4hile under custodial
in3esti9ation.
I--UE6 >DE*DE. O. ,O* *DE.E >+- + VIOL+*IO, OF *DE +CCU-E1Q-
CO,-*I*U*IO,+L .I/D*- >DE, DE >+- M+1E *O -I/, *DE M+.KE1 BILL-.
DEL16 +lthou9h the accused 4as not assisted 28 counsel 4hen he initialed the P&!#2ills that the
police found tuc?ed in his 4aist, his ri9ht a9ainst self#incri5ination 4as not 3iolated for his
possession of the 5ar?ed 2ills did not constitute a cri5eJ the su27ect of the prosecution 4as his act
of sellin9 5ari7uana ci9arettes. Dis con3iction 4as not 2ased on the presence of his initials on the
5ar?ed 2ills, 2ut on the fact that the trial court 2elie3ed the testi5on8 of the police5en that the8
arrested hi5 4hile he 4as actuall8 en9a9ed in the sellin9 5ari7uana ci9arettes to a 5e52er of the
arrestin9 part8. *he trial court 9a3e 5ore credence to their cate9orical declarations than to the
appellantQs denials. *hat is as it should 2e for as la4 enforcers, the8 are presu5ed to ha3e
perfor5ed their official duties in a re9ular 5anner. *heir tas? of apprehendin9 persons en9a9ed in
the deadl8 dru9 trade is difficult enou9h 4ithout le9al and procedural technicalities to 5a?e it
dou2l8 so. 4(1.
&&. I55unit8 fro5 arrest of 5e52ers of Con9ress
A$t. VI Se%. 11. A Sen(to$ o$ "e1*e$ o+ t'e Ho.se s'()) in ()) o++enses &.nis'(*)e
*, not 1o$e t'(n si; =6A ,e($s i1&$ison1ent =prision correcionalA *e &$ivi)e2ed +$o1 ($$est
-'i)e Con2$ess is in session. ;;;
B. .i9hts of Persons under custodial interro9ation
A$t. III Se%. 17. =1A An, &e$son .nde$ %.stodi() investi2(tion +o$ t'e %o11ission o+
(n o++ense s'()) '(ve t'e $i2't to *e in+o$1ed o+ 'is $i2't to $e1(in si)ent (nd to '(ve
%o1&etent (nd inde&endent %o.nse) &$e+e$(*), o+ 'is o-n %'oi%e. I+ t'e &e$son %(nnot (++o$d
t'e se$vi%es o+ %o.nse) 'e 1.st *e &$ovided -it' one. T'ese $i2'ts %(nnot *e -(ived e;%e&t
in -$itin2 (nd in t'e &$esen%e o+ %o.nse).
=7A No to$t.$e +o$%e vio)en%e t'$e(t inti1id(tion o$ (n, ot'e$ 1e(ns -'i%' viti(te
t'e +$ee -i)) s'()) *e .sed (2(inst 'i1. Se%$et detention &)(%es so)it($, incommunicado o$
ot'e$ si1i)($ +o$1s o+ detention ($e &$o'i*ited.
=>A An, %on+ession o$ (d1ission o*t(ined in vio)(tion o+ t'is o$ se%. 1J 'e$eo+ s'()) *e
in(d1issi*)e in eviden%e (2(inst 'i1.
=IA T'e )(- s'()) &$ovide +o$ &en() (nd %ivi) s(n%tions +o$ vio)(tions o+ t'is se%tion (s
-e)) (s %o1&ens(tion to (nd $e'(*i)it(tion o+ vi%ti1s o+ to$t.$e o$ si1i)($ &$(%ti%es (nd t'ei$
+(1i)ies.
P+/E "
.ep. +ct ,o. (F@A
AN ACT DE3INING CERTAIN RIGHTS O3 PERSON ARRESTED DETAINED OR UNDER
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES O3 THE ARRESTING
DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING O33ICERS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES 3OR
VIOLATIONS THEREO3.
Be it enacted by the !enate and /ouse of Representatives of the &hilippines in Congress
assembled8
Se%tion 1. Statement of Policy. ### It is the polic8 of the -tate to 3alue the di9nit8 of
e3er8 hu5an 2ein9 and 9uarantee full respect for hu5an ri9hts.
Se%. 7. Rights of Persons &rrested' (etained' or under ustodial )n*estigation$
(uties of Public +fficers. ### %a) +n8 person arrested, detained or under custodial in3esti9ation
shall at all ti5es 2e assisted 28 counsel.
%2) +n8 pu2lic officer or e5plo8ee, or an8one actin9 under his order or in his place, 4ho
arrests, detains or in3esti9ates an8 person for the co55ission of an offense shall infor5 the latter,
in a lan9ua9e ?no4n to and understood 28 hi5, of his ri9hts to re5ain silent and to ha3e co5petent
and independent counsel, prefera2l8 of his o4n choice, 4ho shall at all ti5es 2e allo4ed to confer
pri3atel8 4ith the person arrested, detained or under custodial in3esti9ation. If such person cannot
afford the ser3ices of his o4n counsel, he 5ust 2e pro3ided 4ith a co5petent and independent
counsel 28 the in3esti9atin9 officer.
%c) *he custodial in3esti9ation report shall 2e reduced to 4ritin9 28 the in3esti9atin9
officer, pro3ided that 2efore such report is si9ned, or thu525ar?ed if the person arrested or
detained does not ?no4 ho4 to read and 4rite, it shall 2e read and ade:uatel8 eEplained to hi5 28
his counsel or 28 the assistin9 counsel pro3ided 28 the in3esti9atin9 officer in the lan9ua9e or
dialect ?no4n to such arrested or detained person, other4ise, such in3esti9ation report shall 2e null
and 3oid and of no effect 4hatsoe3er.
%d) +n8 eEtra7udicial confession 5ade 28 a person arrested, detained or under custodial
in3esti9ation shall 2e in 4ritin9 and si9ned 28 such persons in the presence of his counsel or in the
latterBs a2sence, upon a 3alid 4ai3er, and in the presence of an8 of the parents, elder 2rothers and
sisters, his spouse, the 5unicipal 5a8or, the 5unicipal 7ud9e, district school super3isor, or priest or
5inister of the 9ospel as chosen 28 hi5J other4ise, such eEtra7udicial confession shall 2e
inad5issi2le in e3idence in an8 proceedin9.
%e) +n8 4ai3er 28 a person arrested or detained under the pro3isions of +rt. &" of the
.PC, or under custodial in3esti9ation, shall 2e in 4ritin9 and si9ned 28 such person in the presence
of his counselJ other4ise such 4ai3er shall 2e null and 3oid and of no effect.
%f) +n8 person arrested or detained or under custodial in3esti9ation shall 2e allo4ed 3isits
28 or conferences 4ith an8 5e52er of his i55ediate fa5il8, or an8 5edical doctor or priest or
reli9ious 5inister chosen 28 hi5 or 28 an8 5e52er of his i55ediate fa5il8 or 28 his counsel, or
28 an8 national ,/O dul8 accredited 28 the CD. or 28 an8 international ,/O dul8 accredited 28
the Office of the President. *he personBs =i55ediate fa5il8= shall include his or her spouse, fiance
or fiancee, parent or child, 2rother or sister, 9randparent or 9randchild, uncle or aunt, nephe4 or
niece, and 9uardian or 4ard.
+s used in this +ct, =custodial in3esti9ation= shall include the practice of issuin9 an
=in3itation= to a person 4ho is under in3esti9ation in connection 4ith an offense he is supected to
ha3e co55itted, 4ithout pre7udice to the lia2ilit8 of the =in3itin9= officer for an8 3iolation of la4.
P+/E @
Se%. >. &ssisting ounsel. ### +ssistin9 counsel is an8 la48er, eEcept those directl8
affected 28 the case, those char9ed 4ith conductin9 preli5inar8 in3esti9ation or those char9ed 4ith
the prosecution of cri5es.
*he assistin9 counsel other than the 9o3ern5ent la48ers shall 2e entitled to the follo4in9
fees6
%a) *he a5ount of P&!.!! if the suspected person is char9ea2le 4ith li9ht feloniesJ
%2) *he a5ount of P"!.!! if the suspected person is char9ea2le 4ith less 9ra3e or 9ra3e
feloniesJ
%c) *he a5ount of P@!.!! if the suspect is char9ea2le 4ith a capital offense.
*he fee for the assistin9 counsel shall 2e paid 28 the cit8 or 5unicipalit8 4here the
custodial in3esti9ation is conducted, pro3ided that if the 5unicipalit8 or cit8 cannot pa8 such fee,
the pro3ince co5prisin9 such 5unicipalit8 or cit8 shall pa8 the fee6 &rovided, *hat the Municipal
or Cit8 *reasurer 5ust certif8 that no funds are a3aila2le to pa8 the fees of assistin9 counsel 2efore
the pro3ince pa8s said fees. In the a2sence of an8 la48er, no custodial in3esti9ation shall 2e
conducted and the suspected person can onl8 2e detained 28 the in3esti9atin9 officer in accordance
4ith the pro3ision of +rt. &" of the .PC.
Se%. I. Penalty lause. ### %a) +n8 arrestin9 pu2lic officer or e5plo8ee, or an8
in3esti9atin9 officer 4ho fails to infor5 an8 person arrested, detained or under custodial
in3esti9ation of his ri9ht to re5ain silent and to ha3e co5petent and independent counsel prefera2l8
of his o4n choice, shall suffer a fine of P$,!!!.!! or a penalt8 of i5prison5ent of not less than A
8ears 2ut not 5ore than &! 8ears, or 2oth. *he penalt8 of perpetual a2solute dis:ualification shall
also 2e i5posed upon the in3esti9atin9 officer 4ho has 2een pre3iousl8 con3icted of a si5ilar
offense.
*he sa5e penalties shall 2e i5posed upon a pu2lic officer or e5plo8ee, or an8one actin9
upon orders of such in3esti9atin9 officer or in his place, 4ho fails to pro3ide a co5petent and
independent counsel to a person arrested, detained or under custodial ine3sti9ation for the
co55ission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the ser3ices of his o4n counsel.
%2) +n8 person 4ho o2structs, pre3ents or prohi2its an8 la48er, an8 5e52er of the
i55dediate fa5il8 of a person arrested, detained or under custodial in3esti9ation, or an8 5edical
doctor or priest or reli9ious 5inister or 28 his counsel, fro5 3isitin9 and conferrin9 pri3atel8
chosen 28 hi5 or 28 an8 5e52er of his i55ediate fa5il8 4ith hi5, or fro5 eEa5inin9 and treatin9
hi5, or fro5 5initerin9 to his sppiritual needs, at an8 hour of the da8 or, in ur9ent cases, of the
ni9ht shall suffer the penalt8 of i5prison5ent of not less than F 8ears nor 5ore than $ 8ears, and a
fine of PF,!!!.!!.
*he pro3isions of the a2o3e -ection not4ithstandin9, an8 securit8 officer 4ith custodial
responsi2ilit8 o3er an8 detainee or prisoner 5a8 underta?e such reasona2le 5easures as 5a8 2e
necessar8 to secure his safet8 and pre3ent his escape.
Se%. ?. Repealing lause. ### .+ A(, as a5ended, is here28 repealed. Other la4s,
P1s, EOs or rules and re9ulations, or parts thereof inconsistent 4ith the pro3isions of this +ct are
repealed or 5odified accordin9l8.
Se%. 6. "ffecti*ity. ### *his +ct shall ta?e effect & da8s follo4in9 its pu2lication in the
O/ or in an8 dail8 ne4spaper of 9eneral circulation in the Philippines.
+ppro3ed, +pril "(, &''".
-ource6 Miranda 3. +rizona, @AF U.-. F@$ %&'$$)
P+/E F
+ccordin9 to Chief Justice >arren, 4hen a defendant is thrust into an unfa5iliar
at5osphere and run throu9h 5enacin9 police interro9ation procedures, 4here co5pulsion is
forcefull8 potential and his 4ill is li?el8 to 2e su27u9ated, the officers 5ust underta?e to afford
proper safe9uards 28 the readin9 of the =Miranda ri9hts= at the outset of the in3esti9ation to ensure
that the state5ents 5ade are trul8 the product of free choice.
+n8 person under custodial or police in3esti9ation has the ri9ht to 2e infor5ed of the
follo4in9 ri9hts6
&. .i9ht to re5ain silent
a) *o 5a?e hi5 a4are of it.
2) *o o3erco5e the inherent pressure of the interro9atin9 at5osphere
c) *o sho4 the indi3idual that his interro9ators are prepared to reco9nize his pri3ile9e
should he choose to in3o?e his ri9ht.
". .i9ht to 2e re5inded that if he 4ai3es his ri9ht to re5ain silent, an8thin9 he sa8s can and 4ill
2e used a9ainst hi5.
a) *o 4arn hi5 of the conse:uences of 4ai3in9 his ri9ht to re5ain silent.
2) *o 5a?e hi5 a4are that this is an ad3ersar8 s8ste5, and that the police are not actin9
in his interest.
@. .i9ht to counsel 2efore and durin9 the interro9ation
a) *o 5iti9ate the dan9ers of untrust4orthiness in his testi5on8, since the inherent
pressures initiall8 o3erco5e 28 the ri9ht to re5ain silent 5a8 a9ain run unless coupled 4ith the
ri9ht to counsel.
2) *o lessen the possi2ilit8 of coercion 28 the police.
F. .i9ht to 2e re5inded that if he cannot afford counsel, then one 4ill 2e pro3ided for hi5 28 the
state.
a) *o infor5 hi5 that if he does not ha3e counsel or cannot afford one, he does not ha3e to
defend hi5self alone.
2) *o infor5 hi5 that his po3ert8 is no reason 4h8 he should lose his ri9ht to counsel.
%*he readin9 of these ri9hts is no less indispensa2le e3en if the person arrested is a
pro5inent Constitutional la48er. +lthou9h he 5a8 alread8 ?no4 these ri9hts, the purpose is not so
5uch to infor5 hi5, as to assure hi5 that his interro9ators are 4illin9 to respect his ri9hts a5idst
the pressure of custodial in3esti9ation.)
*he readin9 of these ri9hts is re:uired durin9 =custodial in3esti9ation=.
+ police in3esti9ation consists of " sta9es6
&) =/eneral eEplorator8 in3esti9ation= # 4hen the in3esti9ation consists 5erel8 of 9eneral
:uestions to find out 4ho 5i9ht 2e the culprit, 2ut 4ithout 2ein9 directed at an8oneBs 9uilt in
particular. +t this sta9e, the Miranda rule is not 8et applica2leJ other4ise, people 4ho could
other4ise eEplain their innocence 4ould 2e arrested.
P+/E
") =Custodial in3esti9ation= # 4hen the in3esti9ation no4 focuses on the 9uilt of a person
such that he is no lon9er allo4ed to lea3e the pre5ise. It is at this sta9e that the Miranda rulin9 is
necessar8, since the purpose of the interro9ation is to e3ince e3idence that can 2e used to prosecute
the person.
For instance, 4hen +, a police5an, sees ; runnin9 4ith a stained ?nife a4a8 fro5 an
apparentl8 dead 5an, he can run9 after ; and ha3in9 9ra22ed hi5, as? hi5 for an eEplanation as
to 4hat he sa4 4ithout readin9 his Miranda ri9hts. But once + arrests ; and starts interro9atin9
hi5 in the police precinct, then his ri9hts 5ust no4 2e read, for there can onl8 2e one purpose to
the :uestionin9, and that is to elicit e3idence to 2e used to prosecute hi5.
Mendoza, The Right to Counsel .uring Custodial Investigations, " La4 .e3. ,o. &!, " %&'AA)J
$& Phil. LJ F!'
I. .I/D* *O COU,-EL >+- 1EVELOPE1 +- P+.* OF P.O*EC*IO, +/+I,-*
I,VOLU,*+.0 CO,FE--IO,-.
-ince the introduction of the +5erican accusatorial s8ste5 of cri5inal procedure in the
Phils., the rule has 2een that in3oluntar8 confessions are inad5issi2le in e3idence a9ainst the
accused.
*he :uestion is on 4ho5 the 2urden of proof is placed. *he earl8 rule placed the 2urden
of pro3in9 that the confession 4as 3oluntar8 and, therefore, ad5issi2le in e3idence, on the
prosecution. %-ec. F, +ct ,o. $&'.) It 4as held that a confession not sho4n to ha3e 2een
3oluntaril8 9i3en could 2e o27ected to at an8 sta9e of the proceedin9s, e3en for the first ti5e on
appeal in the -C.
+ct ,o. $&' 4as later repealed 28 the +d5in. code of &'&$, 4Cc placed the 2urden of
proof on the accused to sho4 that his confession 4as in3oluntar8. Under the ne4 rule, it 4as
sufficient that the confession 4as 9i3en under conditions 4Cc accredit prima facie its ad5issi2ilit8.
In &'@, a further chan9e too? place 4hen the -C held in Peo. 3. de los -antos that =+
confession, to 2e repudiated, 5ust not onl8 2e pro3ed to ha3e 2een o2tained 28 force and 3iolence,
2ut also that it is false or untrue, for the la4 re7ects the confession 4hen, 28 force or 3iolence or
inti5idation, the accused is co5pelled a9ainst his 4ill to tell a falsehood, not e3en 4hen such force
and 3iolence he is co5pelled to tell the truth. In the later case of Peo. 3. Villanue3a, the Court
stated =the ad5issi2ilit8 of that ?ind of e3idence depends not on the supposed ille9al 5anner in 4Cc
it is o2tained 2ut on the truth or falsit8 of the facts or ad5ission contained therein.
*he ille9alit8 of the 5eans used in o2tainin9 e3idence does not affect its ad5issi2ilit8
%Moncado 3. PeopleBs Court.)
*DE EFFEC* OF *DE E;CLU-IO,+.0 .ULE I, -E+.CD +,1 -EIMU.E C+-E-
*he adoption in &'$( of the eEclusionar8 rule in search and seizure cases %-tonehill 3.
1io?no) 4or?ed a parallel in the la4 of confession. >Co eEpressl8 o3errulin9 its decision in de los
-antos and Villanue3a, the Court, in Peo. 3. Urro, 4ent 2ac? to the for5er rule that in3oluntar8 or
coerced confessions, re9ardless of their truth, are null and 3oid. EEE In3oluntar8 or coerced
confessions o2tained 28 la4, 4Cc proscri2es the use of such cruel and inhu5an 5ethods to secure
confessions. EEE
Indeed, in the U-, it is said that an =unconstitutional coercion 4ill render inad5issi2le e3en
the 5ost un:uestiona2l8 true inculpator8 state5ents.= EEE *his is not 2ec. such confessions are
unli?el8 to 2e true 2ut 2ec. the 5ethods used to eEtract the5 offend an underl8in9 principle in the
enforce5ent of our cri5inal la46 that ours is an accusatorial and not an in:uisitorial s8ste5 ## a
s8ste5 in 4Cc the -tate 5ust esta2lish 9uilt 28 e3idence independentl8 and freel8 secured and not
P+/E $
28 coercion pro3e its char9e a9ainst an accused out of his o4n 5outh EEE.= %.o9ers 3. .ich5ond,
J. Fran?furter.)
*DE MI.+,1+ .ULE
*he prosecution 5a8 not use state5ents, 4hether eEculpator8 or inculpator8, ste55in9
fro5 custodial interro9ation of the def. unless it de5onstrates the use of procedural safe9uards
effecti3e to secure the pri3ile9e a9ainst self#incri5ination. B8 custodial interrogation, 4e 5ean
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been ta$en to custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. xxx
II. I, *U.,, MI.+,1+ >+.,I,/- >E.E 1EVI-E1 +- ME+,- OF -ECU.I,/ *DE
.I/D* *O COU,-EL.
Miranda 3. +rizona re:uires certain 4arnin9s to 2e 9i3en 28 police interro9ators 2ef. a
person in custod8 5a8 2e interro9ated, 4Cc ha3e 2een adopted 28 the Phil. -C6
&. *he person in custod8 5ust 2e infor5ed in clear and une:ui3ocal ter5s that he has a
ri9ht to re5ain silent. *he purpose is to apprise hi5 of his pri3ile9e not to 2e co5pelled to
incri5inate hi5self, to o3erco5e the inherent pressures of the interro9ation at5osphere, and to
assure the indi3idual that his interro9ators are prepared to reco9nize his pri3ile9e, should he choose
to eEercise it.
". *he person in custod8 5ust 2e 4arned that an8thin9 he 4ill sa8 can and 4ilol 2e used
a9ainst hi5. *his 4arnin9 is intended to 5a?e hi5 a4are not onl8 of the pri3ile9e 2ut also of the
conse:uences of fore9oin9 it.
@. -ince the circu5stances surroundin9 in#custod8 interro9ation can operate 3er8 :uic?l8
to o3er2ear the 4ill of one 5erel8 5ade a4are of his pri3ile9e 28 his interro9ators, it is
indispensa2le that he has the assistance of counsel.
*DE CU-*O1I+L PD+-E OF I,*E..O/+*IO,
+t 4hat sta9e of the police interro9ation 5ust the 4arnin9s 2e 9i3enI *he Consti. does
not state at 4hat sta9e of the interro9ation process the8 5ust 2e 5ade. 2ut in Miranda, the court
specified that it is onl8 at the custodial phase of the interro9ation that its rulin9 applied. +s the
Court indicated in Esco2edo 3. Illinois, it is onl8 after the in3esti9ation ceases to 2e a 9eneral
in:uir8 into an unsol3ed cri5e and 2e9ins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is ta?en into
custod8, and the police carries out a process of interro9ation that leads itself to elicitin9
incri5inatin9 state5ents that the rule 2e9ins to operate.
In /a52oa 3. Cruz, the accused 4as arrested, 4Co a 4arrant, for 3a9ranc8. De 4as ta?en
to police precint no. " in Mla. *he neEt da8, he 4as included in a police line#up of detainees and
4as pointed to 28 the co5plainant as a co5planion of the 5ain suspect on the 2asis of 4Cc the
accused 4as ordered to sta8 and sit in front of the co5plainant, 4hile the latter 4as interro9ated.
*he accused 4as then char9ed 4C ro22er8. *he accused 5o3ed to dis5iss the case a9ainst hi5 on
the 9round that he had 2een denied the assistance of counsel durin9 the line#up. Dis 5otion 4as
denied. Dence, this petition for certiorari.
DEL16 *he ri9ht to counsel attaches onl8 upon the start of an interro9ation, 4hen the police
officer starts to as? :uestions desi9ned to elicit info. andC or confessions or ad5issions fro5 the
accused. +s the police line#up in this case 4as not part of the custodial in:uest, the petitioner 4as
not entitled to counsel EEE.
P+/E (
0+P, J., dissenting6 *he in3esti9ation had co55enced the 5o5ent the accused 4as ta?en fro5 the
police line#up and 5ade to sit in front of the co5plainant, 4hile the latter 5ade a state5ent to the
police. *he ri9ht to counsel 5ust 2e afforded the accused the 5o5ent he is under custodial
in3esti9ation and not onl8 4hen a confession is 2ein9 eEacted fro5 hi5.
-+.MIE,*O, J 4C /+,C+0CO, dissenting8 *he accused 4as in custod8 so that his
confrontation 4C the co5plainant 2eca5e ad3ersarial and not infor5ational. >hile a police line#up
is not per se critical, 2ec. in 5ost cases, it is 5erel8 part of e3idence#9atherin9 process, in this
case, the fact that he stood char9ed 4C an offense %3a9ranc8) and had 2een detained 5ade the case
different.
C.UM, dissenting6 De pointed out the lac? of sho4in9 that i5proper su99estions had 2een 5ade
28 the police to influence the 4itness in the identit8 of the accused.
III. >+IVE. OF .I/D*-.
It is i5portant to distin9uish 2et. the 4ai3er of ri9hts and the 4ai3er of 4arnin9s. *he first
can 2e 5ade pro3ided that the 4ai3er is =3oluntar8, ?no4in9 and intelli9ent= 2ut the second cannot.
+s the 4arnin9s are the 5eans of insurin9 that the suspect is apprised of his ri9hts so that an8
su2se:uent 4ai3er of his ri9hts can 2e =3oluntar8, ?no4in9 and intelli9ent,= it is o23ious that there
can 2e no 3alid 4ai3er of the 4arnin9s. + 4ai3er of ri9hts 4ill not 2e presu5ed.
&. >ith respect to confessions o2tained 2ef. Jan. &(, &'(@, the rule that the suspect 5ust
2e 4arned that he has a ri9ht to re5ain silent and to ha3e the assistance of counsel does not appl8.
such confessions, e3en thou9h presented in e3idence in a trial after the effecti3it8 of the &'(@
Consti., are ad5issi2le, pro3ided the8 are 3oluntar8, usin9 the traditional test of 3oluntariness.
". >ith respect to confessions o2tained after Jan. &(, &'(@, 2ut 2efore March "!, &'A,
4hen the decision of Peo. 3. /alit 4as handed do4n, the rule is that the 3oluntariness of a 4ai3er
of the ri9hts to silence and to counsel 5ust 2e deter5ined on a case#to#case 2asis, ta?in9 into
account the circu5stances under 4Cc the 4ai3er 4as 5ade.
@. >ith re9ard to confessions o2tained after March "!, &'A 2ut 2efore Fe2. ", &'A(,
4hen the present Consti. too? effect, the rule is that a 4ai3er of the ri9hts to re5ain silent and to
the assistance of counsel, to 2e 3alid, 5ust 2e 5ade 4C the assistance of counsel.
F. >ith re9ard to confessions 9i3en after Fe2. ", &'A(, the present Consti. re:uires that
the 4ai3er to 2e 3alid, 5ust 2e in 4ritin9 and 4C the assistance of counsel.
I;. *DE E;LU-IO,+.0 .ULE.
+n8 confession or ad5ission o2tained in 3iolation of this or -ec. &( hereof shall 2e
inad5issi2le in e3idence a9ainst hi5, the Consti. sa8s. ,o distinction is 5ade 2et. confession or
ad5ission. +lthou9h the pre3ious Consti. spo?e of confessions onl8, I ha3e ar9ued that it 4as not
so li5ited 2ut that it also e52raced uncounselled state5ents. For =if a state5ent 5ade 4ore in fact
eEculpator8, it could ... ne3er 2e used 28 the prosecution, in fact, state5ents 5erel8 intended to 2e
eEculpator8 28 the defendant are often used to i5peach his testi5on8 at trial or to de5onstrate
untruths in the state5ent 9i3en under interro9ation and thus to pro3e 9uilt 28 i5plication.=
E;CEP*IO,- *O *DE E;CLU-IO,+.0 .ULE
*he phrase =for an8 purpose in an8 proceedin9= con3e8s the idea that the rule eEcludin9
e3idence ille9all8 o2tained is a2solute. ,o si5ilar phraseolo98 is used in the eEclusionar8 rule
P+/E A
i5ple5entin9 the Miranda rule. 1oes this 5ean there can 2e instances, 4here uncounselled
state5ents 5a8 ne3ertheless 2e ad5issi2le in e3idence, al2eit, for a li5ited purposeI
In Darris 3. U-, it 4as held that althou9h a confession o2tained 4Co co5pl8in9 4C the
Miranda rule 4as inad5issi2le for the purpose of esta2lishin9 in chief the confessorBs 9uilt, it 5a8
ne3ertheless 2e presented in e3idence to i5peach his credit. Petitioner, as a def., in a prosecution
for sellin9 heroin, clai5ed that 4hat he had sold to a police officer 4as 2a?in9 po4der, as part of
the sche5e to defraud the purchaser EEE *he shiled pro3ided 28 Miranda cannot 2e per3erted into
a license to use per7ur8 28 4a8 of a defense, free fro5 the ris? of confrontation 4C prior
inconsistent utterance
In ,e4 0or? 3. Puarles, the -C created a =pu2lic safet8= eEception to the Miranda rule.
EEE. =*here is pu2lic safet8 eEception to the re:uire5ent that Miranda 4arnin9s 2e 9i3en 2efore a
suspectBs ans4ers 5a8 2e ad5itted in e3idence.= It held that the 4arnin9s 4ere not the5sel3es
Constitutional ri9hts 2ut 5erel8 =proph8lactic= 5easures to insure the ri9ht a9ainst self#
incri5ination. *he Court noted the cost i5posed on the pu2lic 28 the rule, na5el8, that the 9i3in9
of 4arnin9s 5i9ht deter suspects fro5 ans4erin9 :uestions and this 5i9ht lead in turn to fe4er
con3ictions. It then ruled that the social cost is hi9her 4hen the 9i3in9 of 4arnin9s 5i9ht deter
suspects fro5 ans4erin9 :uestions than are necessar8 to a3ert an i55ediate threat to pu2lic safet8.
>hen ans4ers are not actuall8 coerced, this social cost out4ei9hts the need for Miranda
safe9uards. In such eEi9ent circu5stances, police officers 5ust not 2e 5ade to choose 2et. 9i3in9
the 4arnin9s at the ris? that pu2lic safet8 4ill 2e endan9ered and 4ithholdin9 the 4arnin9s at the
ris? that pro2ati3e e3idence 4ill 2e eEcluded.
V. .E*.O+C*IVI*0 OF *DE ,E> .ULE.
In Ma9toto 3. Man9uera, the Court held +rt. IV, -ec. "! of the &'(@ Consti. inapplica2le
to confessions 9i3en 2efore its effecti3it8 on Jan. &(, &'(@ on the 9round that the ri9ht to counsel
and to 2e infor5ed of such ri9ht 4as ne4 and that to 5a?e it retroacti3e =4ould ha3e a 9reat
unsettlin9 effect on the ad5inistration of 7ustice in this countr8. VV.
In People 3. 1uero, &!F -C.+ @(' %&'A&), 1uero 4as con3icted of ro22er8 4ith
ho5icide and 4as sentenced to death, for ?illin9 his 9rand5other after ro22in9 her. Dis con3iction
4as 2ased on the %i) testi5on8 of the chief of police 2efore 4ho5 he had 3oluntaril8 confessed 2ut
4hich state5ent he refused to si9nJ %ii) testi5on8 of his cousin that he had told hi5 of his plan to
ro2 their 9rand5other, and %iii) testi5on8 of another that he 4as seen on the stairs of the
9rand5otherBs house on the da8 of the ?illin9. ,ote that %i) and %ii) 4ere 7ust circu5stantial
e3idence. +nd since the procedure set in the Miranda rulin9 4as not follo4ed 4hen the confession
4as ta?en, then there 4as no 3alid 4ai3er of the ri9ht, and so the e3idence 4as held inad5issi2le.
Con3iction 4as thus re3ersed.
People 3. 1uero &!F -C.+ @(' %&'A&)
F6 1efendant 4as con3icted of ro22er8 4ith ho5icide and sentenced to death for the ?illin9 of his
9rand5other after ro22in9 her. Dis con3iction 4as 2ased on a testi5on8 of the Chief of Police that the
defendant 3oluntaril8 confessed to hi5 to the ?illin9 and ro22er8, althou9h he refused to si9n a state5ent.
DEL16 In Miranda 3. +rizona, it 4as held that in custodial in3esti9ation the suspect 5ust 2e 9i3en
the follo4in9 4arnin9s6 &)De 5ust 2e infor5ed of his ri9ht to re5ain silent, in order to 5a?e hi5
a4are of the ri9ht, to o3erco5e the inherent pressures of interro9ation at5osphere, and to assure
hi5 that his interro9ators are prepared to respect his pri3ile9e should he choose to eEercise itJ ")
P+/E '
De 5ust 2e 4arned that an8thin9 said can and 4ill 2e used a9ainst hi5 in order to hi5 a4are not
onl8 of the pri3ile9e 2ut also of the conse:uences of fore9oin9 itJ @) De has a ri9ht to counsel and
that if is indi9ent, a la48er 4ill 2e appointed to represent hi5. *hese 4arnin9s 4ere not 9i3en to
defendant. Dis oral confession, therefore is inad5issi2le. VV.
In People 3. +nda9, '$ -C.+ A$& %&'A!), the police ad5itted that he did not 9i3e the
Miranda 4arnin9s, and althou9h +ndao ?ne4 his ri9hts, the police said that he could not find a
la48er to counsel the accused durin9 the in3esti9ation. *he -C held that it 4as no eEcuse that
there 4as no la48er around, and so the state5ent 5ade 2efore the police 4as held inad5issi2le.
People 3. +nda9, '$ -C.+ A$& %&'A!)
Confessions of a suspect who was not informed of right to counsel is inadmissible in evidence
F6 *he accused 4as con3icted of ro22er8 4ith ho5icide on purel8 circu5stantial e3idence and on
the eEtra7udicial confession si9ned 28 hi5, 4hich he later repudiated as ha3in9 2een eEtracted 28 force
and inti5idation.
DEL16 *he accused 4as not afforded his constitutional ri9ht to counsel and to 2e infor5ed of
such ri9ht durin9 the in3esti9ation. -9t. Valle7os ad5itted in court that the accused had insisted on
ha3in9 a la48er durin9 the in3esti9ation 2ut he 4as una2le to secure a la48er 2ecause there 4as no
one a3aila2le. *his eEcuse is unaccepta2le. VV.
B+.LO,/+0 C+-E-6
People 3. Bernardo, ""! -C.+ @&
F6 Bernardo and his co#accused 4ere con3icted of the cri5e of Kidnappin9 for .anso5. Bernardo
assailed the ad5issi2ilit8 of the state5ent 9i3en 28 hi5 to the 5edia re9ardin9 the cri5e as e3idence
a9ainst hi5.
.ULI,/6 BernardoBs culpa2ilit8 is sho4n 28 his spontaneous state5ent 9i3en to /M+ ( reporters
Jessica -o7o 4herein he tried to 7ustif8 his un9ratefulness to his e5plo8er 4ho5 he ?idnapped. *his
4as 5ade not as part of the custodial in3esti9ation 2ut as the accusedBs acco5odation to 5edia
:uestionin9 and is thus ad5issi2le in e3idence. *he fact that the tape 4as edited 4ith co55entaries
does not erase the realit8 that such declaration ca5e out freel8 fro5 BernardoBs o4n lips. C'($o.
People 3. Jun9co, &A$ -C.+ (&F
F6 Jun9co and se3eral others, appellants herein, 4ere char9ed, tried and con3icted 4ith the cri5e of
.o22er8 4ith Do5icide. In con3ictin9 the accused, the trial court relied hea3il8 on the eEtra7udicial
confessions eEecuted 28 the5 and the pictures ta?en durin9 the reenact5ent of the cri5e.
+ppellants contend that the said eEtra7udicial confessions are inad5issi2le in e3idence 2ecause
the8 4ere eEtracted fro5 the5 durin9 the custodial in3esti9ation 4ithout the assistance of counsel and
after the8 had 2een su27ected to different for5s of 5altreat5ent, threats and inti5idation.
I--UE6 >C, the e3idence 4ere ad5issi32le.
.ULI,/6 ,O. *he Court is con3inced after 9oin9 o3er the records that the eEtra7udicial
confessions in :uestion are inad5issi2le in e3idence, the sa5e ha3in9 2een eEecuted 28 appellants
P+/E $!
durin9 custodial in3esti9ation 4ithout the assistance of counsel, particularl8 4hen the confessants
5anifested the 4ai3er of their ri9ht to counsel. *he pre3ailin9 rule is still the one laid do4n in
People 3. /alit. %,ote that this case 4as decided on June "", &'A.)
*he Court also finds that the pictures ta?en durin9 the reenact5ent of the cri5e, are
inad5issi2le since the reenact5ent 4as 2ased upon the defendantsB inad5issi2le eEtra7udicial
confessions. Pictures re#enactin9 a cri5e 4hich are 2ased on an inad5issi2le confession are
the5sel3es inad5issi2le. C'($o.
People 3. Balisteros, "@( -C.+ F''
F6 ,ilo +3estros, -al3ador Balisteros and Ernesto /al3ante 4ere char9ed 4ith 5urder for the ?illin9
of one .o5eo +2ad on +u9ust &$, &''& in Pandi, Bulacan. Upon arrai9n5ent, the @ accused pleaded not
9uilt8. 1urin9 the trial, the prosecution 5o3ed for the eEclusion ofaccused /al3ante fro5 the infor5ation
for 5urder so that he could 2eco5e a state 4itness as particeps 5ini5is. *he Court 9ranted the 5otion. It
e3entuall8 found Balisterois and +3estro 9uilt8 as char9ed.
Upon appeal, appellant contended the alle9ed 3iolation os -ec. &", +rt. III of the Constitution,
4hen in accordance 4ith the present rule for the :ualification of a state 4itness, /al3ante eEecuted a
s4orn state5ent 4herein he cate9oricall8 ad5itted his 9uilt 2ut 4ithout the assistance od counsel and in
the presence of the " 2rothers of the 3icti5 and counsel of the plaintiff.
I--UE6 >C, there 4as a constitutional 3iolation of /al3anteBs ri9ht to counsel.
DEL16 ,O.
+ppellant cannot in3o?e the constitutional pro3ision that a confession ta?en in 3iolation of
-ec. &" and -ec. &(, +rt. III of the &'A( Constitution = shall 2e inad5issi2le in e3idence a9ainst
hi5=, 5eanin9 the confessant. *his o27ection can 2e raised onl8 28 the confessant 4hose ri9hts
ha3e 2een 3iolated as such ri9ht is personal in nature.
+lso, repeatin9 his confession in Court, /al3ante con3erted it into a 7udicial confession
4hich, ha3in9 2een allo4ed 28 the trial court, eli5inated the need for assistance of counsel 4hich
is re:uired in eEtra#7udicial confession %EJC). Further5ore, e3en in EJC, 4hich under
7urisprudential doctrines ha3e 2een held to 2e 9enerall8 2indin9 upon the confessant and not a9ainst
his co#accused, /al3anteBs confession 4ould readil8 fall into the eEceptions to that rule since
appellants are 2ein9 char9ed as co# conspirators and said confession is used onl8 as corro2oratin9
e3idence, or as circu5stantial e3idence to sho4 the pro2a2ilit8 of participation 28 the co#
conspirator, or is corro2orated 28 other e3idence of record. S.:ette.
People 3. Marra, "@$ -C.+ $
F6 *andoc 4as shot. *he accused 4as identified 28 the co5panion of the 3icti5. *he police located
the accused in a restaurant after a securit8 9uard pointed hi5 out after 2ein9 descri2ed 28 the police. *he
police as?ed the accused if he has a 9un, since he clai5ed to 2e a securit8 9uard. >hen he ans4ered in
the affir5ati3e, the police as?ed hi5 if the8 could loo? at it. *he parties 4ent to the accusedQs house
4here the police 4ere sho4n the said 9un. >hen as?ed 28 the police if he has fired the 9un since there
4as an e5pt8 shell, he replied in the ne9ati3e. *he police then as?ed hi5 if he ?illed the 3icti5. +t first
he 3ehe5entl8 denied ?illin9 the 3icti5 2ut later he ad5itted that he shot the 3icti5, and clai5ed self#
defense. *he police 2rou9ht the accused to the station. De 4as su2se:uentl8 char9ed 4ith and con3icted
of 5urder.
I--UE6 >hether or not the accused 4as under custodial in3esti9ation 4hen he ad5itted that he
shot the 3icti5.
.ULI,/ 6 ,O.
P+/E $&
Custodial in3esti9ation in3ol3es an8 :uestionin9 initiated 28 la4 enforce5ent officers after
a person has 2een ta?en into custod8 or other4ise depri3ed of his freedo5 of action in an8
si9nificant 4a8. It is onl8 after the in3esti9ation ceases to 2e a 9eneral in:uir8 into an unsol3ed
cri5e and 2e9ins to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect is ta?en into custod8, and the police
carries out a process of interro9ations that lends itself to elicitin9 incri5inatin9 state5ents that the
rule 2e9ins to operate.
In the case at 2ar, appallant 4as not under custodial in3esti9ation 4hen he 5ade the
ad5ission. *here 4as no coercion 4hatsoe3er to co5pel hi5 to 5a?e such a state5ent. De could
ha3e refused to ans4er :uestions fro5 the 3er8 start 4hen the police re:uested that the8 all 9o to
his residence. *he ploice in:uir8 had not 8et reached a le3el 4herein the8 considered hi5 as a
particular suspect. *hus, co5pliance 4ith the constitutional procedure on custodial in3esti9ation is
not applica2le in this case. 4(1.
Ki5po 3. -andi9an2a8an, "@" -C.+ @
F6 Ki5po, as a pu2lic official, 4as char9ed 4ith and con3icted of Mal3ersation 28 the
-andi9an2a8an. +5on9 the e3idence presented 28 the Prosecution 4ere the .eport of an audit#
eEa5ination and a -tate5ent of +ccounta2ilit8 for +ccounta2le For5s 4ithout Mone8 Value, and a
.econciliation -tate5ent of +ccounta2ilit8. Ki5po o27ected to the ad5ission of said e3idence on the
9round of 3iolation of Constitutional .i9hts Under Custodial In3esti9ation.
I--UE6 >hether or not there 4as a 3iolation of the in3o?ed Constitutional .i9ht
.ULI,/6 ,o. *he e3identiar8 docu5ents ad5itted are official for5s prepared and acco5plished
in the nor5al course of audit re9ularl8 conducted 28 the Co55ission on +udit. Ki5po, not 2ein9
at the ti5e under in3esti9ation for the co55ission of a cri5inal offense, let alone under custodial
in3esti9ation, clearl8 cannot 2e said to ha3e 2een depri3ed of the constitutional prero9ati3es he
in3o?es. 4(1.
People 3. *ranca, "@ -C.+ F
F6 +ccused *ranca 4as arrested in a 2u8#2ust operation, 4here a P&!! 2ill dusted 4ith flourescent
po4der 4as used. *he accused 4as 2rou9ht 28 the police to Ca5p Cra5e, 4here the Che5ist eEposed the
2ill and the person of the accused to ultra3iolet radiation. Flourescent po4der 4as disco3ered on the 2ill,
on the hands of the accused, on his face and his shorts. *he results of the eEa5ination 4ere contained in
a report. +ccused contends that the ri9ht of the accused a9ainst self#incri5ination 4as 3iolated 4hen he
4as 5ade to under9o an ultra3iolet ra8 eEa5ination. De also contends that the Che5ist failed to infor5
hi5 of his ri9ht to counsel 2efore su27ectin9 hi5 to the eEa5ination.
I--UE6 >hether or not there 4ere 3iolations of the accusedQs ri9hts a9ainst self#incri5ination and
to 2e infor5ed of his ri9ht to counsel 4hen under custodial in3esti9ation.
.ULI,/6 ,O. >hat is prohi2ited 28 the constitutional 9uarantee a9ainst self#incri5ination is the
use of ph8sical or 5oral co5pulsion to eEtort co55unication fro5 the 4itness, not an inclusion of
his 2id8 in e3idence, 4hen it 5a8 2e 5aterial. ,or can the su27ection of the accusedQs 2od8 to
ultra3iolet radiation, in order to deter5ine the presence of ultra3iolet po4der, 2e considered a
custodial in3esti9ation so as to 4arrant the presence of counsel. 4(1.
People 3. -i5on, "@F -C.+
P+/E $"
F6 -i5on 4as arrested after a 2u8#2ust operation. De 4as char9ed 4ith and con3icted of ha3in9
3iolated the 1an9erous 1ru9s la4. De 4as 2rou9ht to Ca5p Oli3as and 4as placed under custodial
in3esti9ation. De 4as apprised of his ri9hts to re5ain silent, to infor5ation and to counsel. +ccused,
ho4e3er, orall8 4ai3ed his ri9ht to counsel. *he in3esti9atin9 officer prepared a R.eceipt of Propert8
-eizedCConfiscated, 4hich accused si9ned, ad5ittin9 the confiscation of four tea 2a9s of 5ari7uana dried
lea3es in his possession. + Boo?in9 -heet and +rrest .eport 4ere prepared 28 the police, 4hich 4ere
si9ned 28 accused.
I--UE6 >hether or not the said docu5ents are ad5issi2le in e3idence.
.ULI,/6 ,O. +ccusedQs confor5ance to these docu5ents are declarations a9ainst interest and
tacit ad5issions of the cri5e char9ed. *he8 4ere o2tained in 3iolation of his ri9ht as a person
under custodial in3esti9ation for the co55ission of an offense, there 2ein9 nothin9 in the records to
sho4 that he 4as assisted 28 counsel. +lthou9h accused 5anifested durin9 the custodial
in3esti9ation that he 4ai3ed his ri9ht to counsel, the 4ai3er 4as not 5ade in 4ritin9 and in the
presence of counsel, hence 4hate3er incri5inator8 ad5ission or confession 5a8 2e eEtracted fro5
hi5, either 3er2all8 or in 4ritin9, is not allo4a2le in e3idence. Besides, the arrest report is self#
ser3in9 and hearsa8 and can easil8 2e concocted to i5plicate a suspect. %+ccused 4as con3icted
2ased on other e3idence.) 4(1.
People 3. Bolanos, "&& -C.+ "$"
F6 Bolanos 4as con3icted for Murder. *he 3icti5, Pa9dalian 4as found dead, sustainin9 sta2
4ounds. >hen the police5en in:uired a2out the circu5stances of the incident, the8 4ere infor5ed that
the deceased 4as 4ith t4o co5panions, on the pre3ious ni9ht. *he accused 4as apprehended. In the
3ehicle 4here the accused 2oarded, on his 4a8 to the Police -tation, Bolanos alle9edl8 ad5itted that he
?illed Pa9dalian 2ecause he 4as a2usi3e.
I--UE6 >hether or not the ad5ission in the 7eep 4as ad5issi2le in e3idence.
DEL16 *he trial court, in ad5ittin9 the eEtra#7udicial confession of the accused in e3idence,
3iolated his Constitutional ri9ht to 2e infor5ed, to re5ain silent and to ha3e a counsel of his
choice, 4hile alread8 in police custod8. -ince the eEtra#7udicial confession 4as the onl8 2asis for
the con3iction of the accused, the trial coustQs 7ud95ent 4as re3ersed. 4(1.
People 3. Bandula, "@" -C.+ $$
F6 +fter he and his 4ife 4ere indi3iduall8 ho9tied and their house ransac?ed, +tt8. /ara8
4as found dead 4ith @ 9unshot 4ounds . For his death and the loss of their thin9s on the occasion
thereof, Bandula, -idi9o, 1ionanao, and E7an 4ere char9ed in court for ro22er8 4ith ho5icide.
On the 2asis of the eEtra7udicial confessions %EJC) alle9edl8 5ade 28 Bandula and 1ionanao
durin9 their custodial in3esti9ation 4hich the court found to =ha3e all the :ualities and ha3e
co5plied 4ith all the re:uire5ents of an ad5issi2le confession, it appearin9 fro5 the confession
that acussed 4ere infor5ed of their ri9hts under the la4 re9ardin9 custodial in3esti9ation and 4ere
dul8 represented 28 Counsel %+tt8. Merna)=, it disre9arded the defenses interposed 28 the accused
and con3icted Bandula. *he @ other accused 4ere ac:uitted for =insufficienc8 of e3idence=.
Issue6 >C, the eEtra7udicial confession of Bandula confor5ed 4ith the constitutional
re:uisites for its 3alidit8, hence ad5issi2le in e3idence.
DEL16 ,O
P+/E $@
Fro5 the records, it can 2e 9leaned that 4hen accused Bandula and 1ionanao 4ere
in3esti9ated i55ediatel8 after their arrest, the8 had no counsel present. If at all, counsel
ca5e in onl8 a da8 after the custodial in3esti9ation 4ith respect to 1ionanao, and " 4ee?s
later 4ith respect to Bandula. +nd counsel 4ho supposedl8 assisted 2oth accused 4as +tt8.
Merna, the Municipal +ttorne8 of *an7a8, 4hose interest is ad5ittedl8 ad3erse to the accused
and 4ho is not an independent counsel. On top of this, there are telltale si9ns that 3iolence
4as used a9ainst the accused. Certainl8, these are 2latant 3iolations of of -ec. &", +rt III of
the &'A( Constitution 4hich protects the ri9hts of the accused durin9 custodial in3esti9ation.
S.:ette.
&. Miranda rule not applica2le to confessions eEecuted 2efore Januar8 &(, &'(@
Ma9toto 3. Man9uera, $@ -C.+ F %&'()
In this and other cases %People 3. Pa9e, (( -C.+ @F" %&'((), People 3. /arcia, '$ -C.+
F'( %&'A!), and People 3. .i2ada7o, &F" -C.+ $@( %&'A$)), the -C ruled that the Miranda rule
applies onl8 to confessions o2tained after Januar8 &(, &'(@, the date of effecti3it8 of the &'(@
Constitution. Confessions o2tained prior to Januar8 &(, &'(@ 4ithout the readin9 of the Miranda
ri9hts, so lon9 as other4ise 3oluntar8, are ad5issi2le in e3idence, e3en if the8 are actuall8 used
after Januar8 &(, &'(@.
In this case, Ma9toto, 4ho 4as accused of 5urder, 4as 5ade to confess 4ithout 2ein9
4arned of his Miranda ri9hts in Octo2er &'(! 4hile in the custod8 of the Consta2ular8. De 4as
arrai9ned in ,o3e52er &'(", and tried after Januar8 &(, &'(@. *he Court ad5itted the confession,
supportin9 its decision 4ith the histor8 of the Miranda .ule in the Philippines.
+lthou9h +rt. &" if the .e3ised Penal Code, there is a pro3ision that =in e3er8 case, the
person detained shall 2e infor5ed of the cause of his detention and shall 2e allo4ed , upon re:uest,
to co55unicate and confer at an8 ti5e 4ith his counsel=, the 5a7orit8 in Ma9toto 3. Man9uera
ruled that this onl8 conferred on the accused the ri9ht to 2e infor5ed of the char9e a9ainst hi5 and
not the ri9ht to counsel.
*hen, People 3. Jose, %&'(&), the in3ocation of the Miranda rulin9 4as re7ected 28 the -C,
4hich held that under the &'@ Constitution, the Miranda#Esco2edo rulin9 %on the need for
counsel) 4as not applica2le durin9 custodial in3esti9ation, 2ut onl8 durin9 trial %fro5 arrai9n5ent
to 7ud95ent).
It 4as in reaction to this case, accordin9 to the -C in Ma9toto 3. Man9uera, that the &'(&
Constitutional Con3ention eEpressl8 adopted the Miranda rulin9.
,o4, this ri9ht cannot 2e 9i3en retroacti3e effect, continued the Court for it 4ould
desta2ilized the 7udicial process. It 4ould 2e unfair for the prosecution to 2e told to follo4 the
rulin9 in People 3. Jose, and then to 2e told later that after &'(@ , the8 can no lon9er use these
confessions for the8 4ere in3alid all alon9.
%*he dissent of Justice Castro ar9ued that +rt. &" of the .PC 5ade it o2li9ator8 on he
part of the detainin9 officer to infor5 the detainees of his ri9ht to counsel 2efore custodial in:uest.
*hus, he said, it 4as error for the Court to sa8 that the Concon 9ranted the ri9ht to counsel durin9
P+/E $F
custodial in3esti9ation onl8 for the first ti5e 28 adoptin9 the Miranda#Esco2edo rulin9, for it is
possi2le that the dele9ates the5sel3es 4ere not a4are of the .PC. +s to the Jose rulin9, he
continued , the part re7ectin9 the Miranda rulin9 4as o2iter, since Jose could ha3e 2een con3icted
4ith or 4ithout his confession on the stren9th of Ma99ie de la .i3aBs testi5on8 alone.)
People 3. .i2ada7o &F" -C.+ $@( %&'A$)
F6 On ,o3. "!, &'(&, the appellants confessed participation in the sla8in9 of a fello4 in5ate,
Bernardo Cata5ora, at the ,e4 Bili2id Prison. On the 2asis of their confession, the8 4ere found 9uilt8 of
5urder. On appeal, the8 clai5ed that their eEtra7udicial confessions had 2een o2tained 28 force.
DEL16 *he proscription a9ainst the ad5issi2ilit8 of confessions o2tained fro5 an accused durin9
the period of custodial in3esti9ation, in 3iolation of procedural safe9uards, applies to confessions
o2tained after the effecti3it8 of the &'(@ Const. ,o la4 9i3es the accused the ri9ht to 2e so
infor5ed 2efore the enact5ent of the &'(@ Const., e3en of presented after Jan. &(, &'(@. *hat
Constitutional 9uarant8 relati3e to confessions o2tained durin9 custodial in3esti9ation does not
ha3e an8 retroacti3e effect. VV.
". ,ot applica2le to res gestae state5ents
People 3. 18, &A -C.+ &&& %&'AA)
@. ,ot applica2le to state5ents 9i3en in ad5inistrati3e in3esti9ations
People 3. +8son, &( -C.+ "&$ %&'A')
It should at once 2e apparent that there are t4o %") ri9hts, or sets of ri9hts, dealt
4ith in the section, na5el86
&) the ri9ht a9ainst self#incri5ination i.e., the ri9ht of a person not to 2e co5pelled to 2e a
4itness a9ainst hi5self set out in the first sentence, 4hich is a 3er2ati5 reproduction of -ection
&A, +rticle III of the &'@ Constitution, and is si5ilar to that accorded 28 the Fifth +5end5ent of
the +5erican Constitution, and
") the ri9ht of a person in custodial interro9ation, i.e., the ri9hts of e3er8 suspect =under
in3esti9ation for the co55ission of an offense.=
Parentheticall8, the &'A( Constitution indicates 5uch 5ore clearl8 the indi3idualit8 and
disparateness of these ri9hts. It has placed the ri9hts in separate sections. *he ri9ht a9ainst self#
incri5ination, =,o person shall 2e co5pelled to 2e a 4itness a9ainst hi5self,= is no4 e52odied in
-ection &(, +rticle III of the &'A( Constitution. *he ri9hts of a person in custodial interro9ation,
4hich ha3e 2een 5ade 5ore eEplicit, are no4 contained in -ection &" of the sa5e +rticle III.
.i9ht +9ainst -elf#Incri5ination
*he first ri9ht, a9ainst self#incri5ination, 5entioned in -ection "!, +rticle IV of the &'(@
Constitution, is accorded to e3er8 person 4ho 9i3es e3idence, 4hether 3oluntaril8 or under
co5pulsion of su2poena, in an8 ci3il, cri5inal, or ad5inistrati3e proceedin9. *he ri9ht is ,O* to
=2e co5pelled to 2e a 4itness a9ainst hi5self.= It prescri2es an =option of refusal to ans4er
incri5inatin9 :uestions and not a prohi2ition of in:uir8.= It si5pl8 secures to a 4itness, 4hether
he 2e a part8 or not, the ri9ht to refuse to ans4er an8 particular incri5inator8 :uestion, i.e., one
the ans4er to 4hich has a tendenc8 to incri5inate hi5 for so5e cri5e. Do4e3er, the ri9ht can 2e
P+/E $
clai5ed onl8 4hen the specific :uestion, incri5inator8 in character, is actuall8 put to the 4itness.
It cannot 2e clai5ed at an8 other ti5e. It does not 9i3e a 4itness the ri9ht to disre9ard a su2poena,
to decline to appear 2efore the court at the ti5e appointed.
*he ri9ht a9ainst self#incri5ination is not self#eEecutin9 or auto5aticall8 operational. It
5ust 2e clai5ed. It follo4s that the ri9ht 5a8 2e 4ai3ed, eEpressl8, or i5pliedl8, as 28 a failure to
clai5 it at the appropriate ti5e.
.i9hts in Custodial Interro9ation
-ection "!, +rticle IV of the &'(@ Constitution also treats of a second ri9ht, or 2etter said,
9roup of ri9hts. *hese ri9hts appl8 to persons =under in3esti9ation for the co55ission of an
offense,= i.e., =suspects= under in3esti9ation 28 police authoritiesJ and this is 4hat 5a?es these
ri9hts different fro5 that e52odied in the first sentence, that a9ainst self#incri5ination 4hich, as
aforestated, indiscri5inatel8 applies to an8 person testif8in9 in an8 proceedin9, ci3il, cri5inal, or
ad5inistrati3e.
*his pro3ision 9rantin9 eEplicit ri9hts to persons under in3esti9ation for an offense 4as not
in the &'@ Constitution. It is a3o4edl8 deri3ed fro5 the decision of the U.-. -upre5e Court in
Miranda 3. +rizona, a decision descri2ed as an =earth:ua?e in the 4orld of la4 enforce5ent.=
-ection "! states that 4hene3er an8 person is =under in3esti9ation for the co55ission of
an offense=##
&) he shall ha3e the ri9ht to re5ain silent and to counsel, and to 2e infor5ed of such ri9ht,
") no force, 3iolence, threat, inti5idation, or an8 other 5eans 4hich 3itiates the free 4ill
shall 2e used a9ainst hi5J and
@) an8 confession o2tained in 3iolation of these ri9hts shall 2e inad5issi2le in e3idence.
Miranda ri9hts
De 5ust 2e 4arned prior to an8 :uestionin9 that he has the ri9ht to re5ain silent, that
an8thin9 he sa8s can 2e used a9ainst hi5 in a court of la4, that he has the ri9ht to the presence of
an attorne8, and that if he cannot afford an attorne8 one 4ill 2e appointed for hi5 prior to an8
:uestionin9 if he so desires. Opportunit8 to eEercise those ri9hts 5ust 2e afforded to hi5
throu9hout the interro9ation. +fter such 4arnin9s ha3e 2een 9i3en, such opportunit8 afforded hi5,
the indi3idual 5a8 ?no4in9l8 and intelli9entl8 4ai3e these ri9hts and a9ree to ans4er or 5a?e a
state5ent. But unless and until such 4arnin9s and 4ai3er are de5onstrated 28 the prosecution at
the trial, no e3idence o2tained as a result of interro9ation can 2e used a9ainst hi5.
*he o27ecti3e is to prohi2it =inco55unicado interro9ation of indi3iduals in a police#
do5inated at5osphere, resultin9 in self# incri5inatin9 state5ent 4ithout full 4arnin9s of
constitutional ri9hts.=
*he ri9hts a2o3e specified, to repeat, eEist onl8 in =custodial interro9ations,= or =in#
custod8 interro9ation of accused persons.= +nd, as this Court has alread8 stated, 28 custodial
interro9ation is 5eant =:uestionin9 initiated 28 la4 enforce5ent officers after a person has 2een
ta?en into custod8 or other4ise depri3ed of his freedo5 of action in an8 si9nificant 4a8.=
.i9hts of 1efendant in Cri5inal Case +s .e9ards /i3in9 of *esti5on8
P+/E $$
In fine, a person suspected of ha3in9 co55itted a cri5e and su2se:uentl8 char9ed 4ith its
co55ission in court, has the follo4in9 ri9hts in the 5atter of his testif8in9 or producin9 e3idence,
to 4it6
&) BEFO.E *DE C+-E I- FILE1 I, COU.* %or 4ith the pu2lic prosecutor, for
preli5inar8 in3esti9ation), 2ut after ha3in9 2een ta?en into custod8 or other4ise depri3ed of his
li2ert8 in so5e si9nificant 4a8, and on 2ein9 interro9ated 28 the police6 the continuin9 ri9ht to
re5ain silent and to counsel, and to 2e infor5ed thereof, not to 2e su27ected to force, 3iolence,
threat, inti5idation or an8 other 5eans 4hich 3itiates the free 4illJ and to ha3e e3idence o2tained
in 3iolation of these ri9hts re7ectedJ and
") +F*E. *DE C+-E I- FILE1 I, COU.*
a) to refuse to 2e a 4itnessJ
2) not to ha3e an8 pre7udice 4hatsoe3er result to hi5 28 such refusalJ
c) to testif8 in his o4n 2ehalf, su27ect to cross#eEa5ination 28 the prosecutionJ
d) >DILE *E-*IF0I,/, to refuse to ans4er a specific :uestion 4hich tends to
incri5inate hi5 for so5e cri5e other than that for 4hich he is then prosecuted.
It is clear fro5 the undisputed facts of this case that Felipe .a5os 4as not in an8 sense
under custodial interro9ation, as the ter5 should 2e properl8 understood, prior to and durin9 the
ad5inistrati3e in:uir8 into the disco3ered irre9ularities in tic?et sales in 4hich he appeared to ha3e
had a hand. *he constitutional ri9hts of a person under custodial interro9ation under -ection "!,
+rticle IV of the &'(@ Constitution did not therefore co5e into pla8, 4ere of no rele3ance to the
in:uir8. G),nd(.

F. Custodial Phase of In3esti9ation
Police Lineups
/a52oa 3. Cruz June "(, &'AA
&olice lineup not part of custodial inquest
F6 Petitioner 4as arrested for 3a9ranc8 in Manila. *he follo4in9 da8, he 4as included in a police
line#up and 4as identified as one of the suspects in a ro22er8 case. De 4as later char9ed 4ith ro22er8 and
char9ed. De 5o3ed to dis5iss the case on the 9round that the conduct of the line#up, 4ithout the
assistance of counsel, 4as unconstitutional.
DEL16 *he police line#up 4as not part of the custodial in:uest, hence, petitioner 4as not 8et
entitled, at such sta9e, to counsel. VV.
U- 3. >ade, @AA U- "&A %&'$()
B+.LO,/+0 C+-E-6
People 3. Datton, "&! -C.+ &
F6 +l9ra5e 4as sta22ed at the 2ac? 4hile 4al?in9 4ith se3eral co5panions includin9 On9ue 4ho
3a9uel8 reco9nized the assailant, descri2in9 the latter as a =5estizo.= *4o da8s later, On9ue 4as in3ited
P+/E $(
28 the police to identif8 the suspect in a police line# up. Datton 4as pointed 28 On9ue as the assailant.
Datton alle9es that at the ti5e that he 4as 5ade to stand in the police line#up, he 4as not assisted 28
counsel. Dence, his identification therein 28 On9ue is inad5iss2le.
.ULI,/6 >hen the suspect 4as 2rou9ht to the police station for indentification, technicall8, he
4as not 8et under custodial in3esti9ation. *hus, the ri9ht to counsel does not 8et appl8.
Do4e3er, there is e3er8 reason to dou2t the re9ularit8 of the identification of the suspect
28 the 4itness. 1urin9 the proceedin9s in the police station, On9ue identified Datton not 2ecause
he 4as certain that Datton 4as reall8 the assailant 2ut 2ecause he 4as the onl8 5estizo in the
station and 2ecause he 4as pointed 28 the police as the suspect. *his cannot 2e considered as
positi3e identification of the accused 28 the 4itness. C'($o.
People 3. Casinillo, "&@ -C.+ (((
F6 Casinillo 4as con3icted of rape. De :uestioned the police line#up on the 9round that the sa5e
4ere conducted 4ithout the assistance of counsel and that the accused 4as not infor5ed of his ri9ht to
counsel.
.ULI,/6 *he appellantBs 9rie3ance is 5isplaced. *he trial courtBs findin9 as to the identification of
the accused did not e3en consider the said line#ups. Moreo3er, in People 3. Ol3is, this Court ruled
that, in effect, a police line#up is not enco5passed in the Constitutional ri9ht a9ainst testi5onial
co5pulsion and the ri9ht to counsel. C'($o.
People 3. -antos, "@$ -C.+ $A$ %Ma8 &&, &''@)
F6 /licierio Cupcupin and +l2erto Bautista 4ere ridin9 on a 7eep dri3en 28 the for5er. *4o %")
persons ar5ed 4ith short 9uns approached the 7eep and fired at Cupcupin and Bautista. Cupcupin 4as hit
se3eral it5es in different parts of his 2od8 and he died. Bautista 4as a2le to run a4a8 e3en as he 4as
2ein9 fired upon. *he one firin9 the 9un at thi5 4as a 5an he later identified to 2e accused .aul -antos.
*he other one 4hich he sa4 si5ilar8 firin9 his 9un 4as ai5in9 at Cupcupin. De identified the 5an to 2e
one Mario Morales. Upon the apprehension of accused Bautista pic?ed out fro5 a line#up accused .aul
-antos. In another line# up, he also pic?ed out accused Morales.
Police +ide Victorino Bohol 4as on dut8 and directin9 traffic at the corner of Plaza .izal and
Estrella -treets 4hen he heard 9unshots. >hen he loo?ed around the sa4 t4o %") persons 4ho 4ere
holdin9 Cal. F pistols firin9 at persons on 2oard a stainless steel o4ner 7eep. +fter the arrest of accused
-antos, Bohol 4as called to the police station and throu9h a one#4a8 5irror he 4as a2le to identif8
accused -antos as one of the persons 4ho shot Cupcupin and Bautista. Bohol also 9a3e a s4orn state5ent
to the police.
*he trial court found that the accused .aul -antos had 2een identified positi3el8 28 the sur3i3in9
3icit5 of the shootin9 incident +l2erto Bautista, and 28 the *raffic +ide 4ho had 4itnessed the eEecution
of the cri5e Victorino Bohol.
+ppellant -antos 5a?es t4o ar9u5ents.
&) he co5plains that he 4as not afforded his ri9ht to counsel in the course of the police line#up, at the
police station 4here he 4as identified 28 the prosecution 4itnesses. *he accused contends that durin9 the
police line#up, accused 4as under custodial in3esti9ation, a sta9e 4hich, per the appellant, 2e9an the in#
stant the police suspected -antos then had no la48er present nor 4as one pro3ided.
.ulin96 *he ar9u5ent has no le9al 2asis. In /a52oa 3. Cruz, the Court said that there is =no real
need to afford a suspect the ser3ice of counsel at police line#up,= a declaration reiterated in People
3. Lo3eria. *here is nothin9 in the record of this case 4hich sho4s that in the course of the line#up,
the police in3esti9ators sou9ht to eEtract an8 ad5ission or confession fro5 appellant -antos. *he
P+/E $A
in3esti9ators did not in fact interro9ate appellant -antos durin9 the line#up and he re5ained silent
after he had 2een identified 28 Bautista and Bohol.
") -antos contends that there had 2een =i5proper su99esti3eness= in the course of the police line#up
a5ountin9 to an uncounselled confession. In effect, defense counsel clai5s that Bautista and Bohol 4ere
induced 28 the police in3esti9ators to point to appellant -antos as one of the 9un5en.
.ulin96 *he record does not sho4 that the police in3esti9ators had coached Bautista. >hat that
Court 4arned a9ainst in People 3. +costa, i.e., a9ainst an identification process that 4as
=pointedl8 su99esti3e, or 9enerated confidence 4hen there 4as noen, acti3ated 3isual i5a9ination,
and all told, su23erted Ga personBsH relia2lit8 as GanH e8e#4itness G..H,= has not 2een successfull8
sho4n in the case at 2ar. G),nd(.
. *ests of Validit8 of >ai3er of Miranda .i9hts
a. Pre#/alit rule %Jan. &(, &'(@ to March "!, &'A)
If the 4ai3er 4as 5ade after Januar8 &(, &'(@ 2ut 2efore March "!, &'A, the 4ai3er
5ust 2e %i) 3oluntar8, %ii) ?no4in9, and %iii) intelli9ent.

No v()id -(ive$.
People 3. Ca9uioa ' -C.+ " %&'A!)
Right to counsel may be waived provided the waiver is voluntary, $nowing and intelligent
F6 .espondent Pa:uito 0upo 4as accused of 5urder in the CFI of Bulacan. *he prosecution
presented Corporal Conrado .oca of the Me8caua8an Police 4ho identified a state5ent of the accused
durin9 a police interro9ation and his alle9ed 4ai3er of the ri9ht to re5ain silent and to counsel. >hen
.oca 4as :uestioned on the incri5inatin9 ans4ers in the state5ent, the defense o27ected, contendin9 that
0upoBs state5ent 4as 9i3en 4ithout the assistance of counsel. .espondent Jud9e sustained the o27ection on
the 9round that the ri9ht to counsel cannot 2e 4ai3ed.
DEL16 *he ri9ht to counsel durin9 custodial interro9ation 5a8 2e 4ai3ed pro3ided the 4ai3er is
5ade intelli9entl8 and 3oluntaril8, 4ith full understandin9 of its conse:uences. In this case, the
state5ent 5ade onl8 a perfunctor8 openin9 :uestion, after infor5in9 the suspect that he 4as under
in3esti9ation, that he had a ri9ht to counsel and that an8thin9 he said could 2e used for or a9ainst
hi5 and after as?in9 4hether he 4as 4illin9 to ans4er :uestions and he ans4ered =8es.= *he
state5ent 4as in *a9alo9 4hich the defendant, a nati3e of -a5ar, had not 2een sho4n to 2e full8
ac:uainted 4ith. *he date of eEecution of the state5ent 2efore the 5unicipal court 4as not
indicated. *he separate state5ent si9ned 28 the defendant statin9 he 4as 5ade to read the openin9
state5ent containin9 the Miranda 4arnin9s and that the8 4ere eEplained to hi5 all the 5ore
en9enders dou2t as to 4hether the defendant 4as properl8 infor5ed of his ri9ht.
Barredo, J., concurring6 *he perfunctor8 :uestion and ans4er in the state5ent in :uestion is not
sufficient. *he person to 2e interro9ated 5ust not onl8 2e infor5ed of his ri9hts 2ut 5ust
specificall8 2e as?ed in a lan9ua9e he understands 4hether or not he desires to eEercise those ri9hts
and onl8 4hen he definitel8, cate9oricall8 and freel8 4ai3es those ri9hts 5a8 the in3esti9ation
proceed and e3en then he 5a8 still in3o?e the sa5e ri9hts later. VV.
P+/E $'
People 3. *a5pus '$ -C.+ $"F %&'A!)
&ublic trial? waiver of right to counsel
F6 Jose *a5pus and .odolfo +3ila 4ere prisoners at the ,ational Penitentiar8 in Muntinlupa, .izal.
On June &F, &'($, the8 attac?ed and ?illed Celso -a5inado, another prisoner. +fter4ards, the8
surrendered to the prison 9uard, sa8in9 =surrender po ?a5i. /u5anti lan9 po ?a5i.= *4o da8s later, the8
9a3e eEtra7udicial confessions ad5ittin9 the ?illin9. *he8 4ere accused of 5urder and pleaded 9uilt8.
*he8 too? the 4itness stand and affir5ed their confessions. *a5pus 4as sentenced to death 4hile +3ila to
reclusion te5poral. *rial too? place at the Penitentiar8. On re3ie4, it 4as contended that *a5pus 4as
denied the ri9ht to a pu2lic trial and to counsel.
DEL16 *he record does not sho4 that the pu2lic 4as actuall8 eEcluded fro5 the place 4here the
trial 4as held or that the accused 4as pre7udiced 28 the holdin9 of the trial there. +n84a8, the ri9ht
to pu2lic trial 5a8 2e 4ai3ed. In another case 4here +3ila 4as also a defendant, the -C directed
that, for securit8 reasons, +3ilaBs trial 2e held in the ,ational Penitentiar8. *he accused 4as 4arned
in *a9alo9 that he had a ri9ht to re5ain silent and to counsel 2ut despite this, he 4as 4illin9 to
ans4er :uestions of the police. *here is no dou2t that the confession 4as 3oluntaril8 5ade. *he
truth is that shortl8 after the ?illin9, *a5pus and +3ila ad5itted their 9uilt. That spontaneous
statement, elicited without interrogation, was part of the res gestae and at the same time was a
voluntary confession of guilt. By means of that statement given freely on the spur of the moment
without any urging or suggestion, the two waived their right to remain silent and to counsel. VV.
*eehan?eeBs dissent dou2ted the 3oluntariness of the 4ai3er 5ade in the 5iddle of his
confession, and noted that the 4ai3er should ha3e 2een done 2efore a responsi2le official of the
penitentiar8.
People 3. Ocha3ido &F" -C.+ &'@ %&'A$)
&re)alit test of voluntariness of waiver of #iranda rights
F6 *he appellants, 4ho are in5ates at the ,ational Penitentiar8, si9ned eEtra7udicial confessions
ad5ittin9 that the8 had sta22ed to death another in5ate on Januar8 &, &'(A inside the penitentiar8. *he8
4ere con3icted of 5urder and sentenced to death 28 the Circuit Cri5inal Court. On appeal, the8
contended that their confessions 4ere inad5issi2le 2ecause the8 had not 2een infor5ed of their Miranda
ri9hts prior to the eEecution of the confession.
DEL16 *here 4as su2stantial co5pliance 4ith the Miranda pro3ision. *he Prison /uard, to
4ho5 the confessions 4ere 9i3en, 9a3e the Miranda 4arnin9s to the appelants, after 4hich the
confessions 4ere 3erified 28 the appellants 2efore the +ssistant Pro3incial Fiscal. VV.
People 3. ,icandro &F& -C.+ "A' %&'A$)
F6 *he appellant 4as prosecuted for 3iolation of the 1an9erous 1ru9s +ct. *he prosecution 4itness,
Pat. .o5eo Jo3es testified that he sa4 her sell 5ari7uana ci9arettes to the police infor5er 2ecause the sale
4as done in a place 4here there 4ere persons passin9 28. >hen told it 4as i5possi2le to sell prohi2ited
dru9s openl8, he said it 4as done secretl8. Jo3es also said that at first he sa4 her hand a plastic 2a9
containin9 5ari7uana lea3es 2ut later corrected hi5self, sa8in9 it 4as 5ari7uana ci9arettes. Jo3es testified
further that after infor5in9 her of her ri9hts, she ad5itted sellin9 5ari7uana to the police infor5er and
that the 5ari7uana 2elon9s to her. *he police infor5er 4as not presented to testif8. *he trial court found
her 9uilt8.
P+/E (!
DEL16 *he Constitution in re:uirin9 a person under in3esti9ation =to 2e infor5ed= of his ri9ht to
re5ain silent and to counsel, conte5plates the trans5ission of 5eanin9ful infor5ation rather than
7ust the cere5onial and perfunctor8 recitation of an a2stract constitutional principle. *he de9ree of
eEplanation re:uired 4ill necessaril8 3ar8, dependin9 upon the education, intelli9ence and other
rele3ant personal circu5stances of the person under in3esti9ation. >here the su27ect is unlettered,
a si5pler and 5ore lucid eEplanation is needed. It stands to reason that 4here the ri9ht has not
2een ade:uatel8 eEplained and there are serious dou2ts as to 4hether the person interro9ated ?ne4
and understood the :uestions, it is idle to tal? of 4ai3er of ri9hts. +ppellant ac:uitted. VV.
People 3. 1uhan &F" -C.+ &!! %&'A$)
&erfunctory recitation of rights of the accused insufficient basis of waiver
F6 Credi2le e3idence sho4s that four police5en rounded up the appellants in the e3enin9 of June
"', &'A" pursuant to a police saturation dri3e, and forced the5 to ride in their pri3ate 3ehicle to the police
head:uarters, infor5in9 the5 that the8 4ere rounded up for 3erification purposes. +t the police station,
the8 4ere 2rou9ht inside the co5fort roo5, one after the other, 4here the8 4ere 5altreated and forced to
ad5it possession of 5ari7uana lea3es. +ppellants did not 9i3e an8 4ritten state5ents to the police.
Instead, the police in3esti9ator prepared for the5 Boo?in9 and Infor5ation -heets 4hich the8 later si9ned
upon the policeBs assurances that the8 4ere for 3erification purposes and that the8 4ould 2e released after.
It turned out that the Boo?in9 and Infor5ation -heets contained the follo4in9 ad5ission6 =+ccused, after
2ein9 infor5ed of his constitutional ri9ht to re5ain silent and to counsel, readil8 ad5itted his 9uilt 2ut
refused to 9i3e an8 4ritten state5ent.= Instead of 2ein9 released, the8 4ere then loc?ed up in 7ail.
DEL16 *he 5ere assertion 28 a police officer that after the accused 4as infor5ed of his
constitutional ri9ht to re5ain silent and to counsel, he readil8 ad5itted his 9uilt does not 5a?e the
supposed confession ad5issi2le a9ainst the purported confessant. -C cited the case of People 3.
,icandro, reiteratin9 that since the ri9ht to 2e infor5ed re:uires co5prehension, the de9ree of
eEplanation re:uired 4ill necessaril8 3ar8, dependin9 upon the education, intelli9ence and other
rele3ant personal circu5stances of the person under in3esti9ation. VV.
People 3. Po8os &F@ -C.+ F@ %&'A$)
0o valid waiver of right to counsel and to silence
F6 Po8os 4as con3icted of the 5urder of a ((#8ear#old 4o5an and sentence to death. Dis con3iction
4as 2ased solel8 on his eEtra7udicial confession 4hich he diso4ned in court. *he confession 4as 9i3en to
the police and su2scri2ed 2efore the cler? of court and contains a 4ai3er.
DEL16 It is dou2tful, 9i3en the tenor of the :uestion 4hether there 4as a definite 4ai3er 28 the
suspect of his ri9ht to counsel. Dis ans4er 4as cate9orical enou9h, to 2e sure, 2ut the :uestion
itself 4as not since it spo?e of a 4ai3er onl8 =for the 5o5ent.= +s 4orded, the :uestion su99ested
a tentati3eness that 2elied the suspectBs supposed per5anent fore9oin9 of his ri9ht to counsel, if
indeed there 4as an8 4ai3er at all. Moreo3er, he 4as told that he could hire a la48er 2ut not that
one could 2e pro3ided for hi5 for free. VV.
-ince .o8oBs con3iction for 5urder 4as 2ased on a 4ritten confession sho4in9 that he 4as
apprised of his ri9ht not onl8 28 the police 2ut also 28 the fiscal, 2ut that he 4ai3ed these ri9hts,
then the 4ai3er found to 2e 3oluntar8, ?no4in9 and intelli9ent and thus ad5issi2le.
P+/E (&
2. *he /alit .ule %March "!, &'A to Fe2. ", &'A()
It is not enou9h that the confession is 3oluntar8, ?no4in9 and intelli9ent. *he 4ai3er 5ust
2e 5ade in the presence of counsel. >ai3er of the ri9ht to counsel 5ust 2e 5ade 4ith the
assistance of counsel. *his rule applied fro5 March "!, &'A to Fe2ruar8 ", &'A(.
In People 3. /alit, &@ -C.+ FA %&'A), the -C, reiteratin9 a dictu5 in Morales 3.
Enrile, &"& -C.+ @A %&'A@), ruled that no custodial in3esti9ation should 2e conducted unless it
2e in the presence of counsel, and that althou9h the ri9ht to counsel 5a8 2e 4ai3ed, the 4ai3er
should not 2e 3alid unless 5ade 4ith the assistance of counsel.
In the /alit case, ho4e3er, the adoption of the Morales o2iter 4as also an o2iter. *he
confession in this case 4as traditionall8 in3oluntar8, and so the -C did not need the Morales o2iter
in order to disallo4 the confession.
Under the facts of the case, the accused /alit 4as con3icted of ro22er8 4ith ho5icide on
the 2asis of his confession, 4hich 4as o2tained throu9h torture. *he ,BI in3esti9ators co3ered
/alitBs face 4ith a ra9 and then pushed it into a toilet 2o4l full of hu5an 4aste. It 4as onl8 after
the8 had 2ro?en his 4ill that he si9ned the confession and posed for pictures for re#enact5ent as
directed 28 the in3esti9ators.
People 3. /alit &@ -C.+ F$ %&'A)
F6 1efendant 4as con3icted of ro22er8 4ith ho5icide 28 the Circuit Cri5inal Court. *he principal
prosecution 4itness testified that he heard the defendant and his 4ife, 4ho 4as the 5other of the 4itnessB
4ife, :uarrellin9 the 5ornin9 after the cri5e. De said the defendant 4anted to lea3e their house 2ecause
he and his co5panions had ro22ed =+lin9 ,ene.= *he prosecution also presented the eEtra7udicial
confession of the defendant.
DEL16 *he confession of the defendant is inad5issi2le 2ecause it 4as o2tained throu9h torture.
*he ,BI in3esti9ators co3ered the defendantBs face 4ith a ra9 and then pushed in into a toilet 2o4l
full of hu5an 4aste. It 4as onl8 after the8 had 2ro?en his 4ill that the defendant si9ned the
confession and posed for pictures for reenact5ent as directed 28 the in3esti9ators. *he defendant is
fro5 -a5ar and there is no sho4in9 that he understood *a9alo9. It 4as t4o 4ee?s after he
eEecuted the sala8sa8 that his relati3es 4ere per5itted to 3isit hi5. Dis state5ent does not contain
an8 4ai3er or ri9ht to counsel and 8et durin9 the in3esti9ation he 4as not assisted 28 one. *hese
constitute 9ross 3iolations of his ri9ht. *he -C cited the case of Morales 3. Ponce Enrile 4here it
laid the procedure in custodial in3esti9ations6 ,o custodial in3esti9ation shall 2e conducted unless
it 2e in the precense of counsel en9a9ed 28 the person arrested, or 28 an8 person on his 2ehalf, or
appointed 28 the court upon petition either of the detainee hi5self or of an8one on his 2ehalf. *he
ri9ht to counsel 5a8 2e 4ai3ed 2ut the 4ai3er shall not 2e 3alid unless 5ade 4ith the assistance of
counsel. +n8 state5ent o2tained in 3iolation of this, 4hether eEculpator8 or inculpator8, in 4hole
or in part, shall 2e inad5issi2le in e3idence. VV.
>hate3er dou2t as to the 3alidit8 of the /alit rule, ho4e3er, 4as laid to rest 28 the -C in
People 3. -ison, &F" -C.+ "&' %&'A$). *he Court held that in People 3. /alit, 4hich 4as decided
en banc and concurred in 28 all the Justices eEcept one 4ho too? no part, the Court 4as out to rest
all dou2ts re9ardin9 the rulin9 in Morales 3. Enrile, and e52raced its rulin9.
P+/E ("
In this case, the prosecution sou9ht to pro3e its char9e of su23ersion a9ainst +sis 28 5eans
of her confession 9i3en in the hospital, in 4hich she ad5itted throu9h a leadin9 :uestion, that she
4as a 5e52er of the ,P+ and that she 4as 4ounded in the encounter. *he -C upheld the trial
courtBs decision eEcludin9 the confession on the 9round that the 4ai3er of the Miranda ri9hts 4as
5ade 4ithout the assistance of counsel.
People 3. -ison &F" -C.+ "&' %&'A$)
F6 Jocel8n de +sis 4as accused of su23ersion. +t the trial, the Fiscal offered as e3idence an
eEtra7udicial confession 9i3en 28 her in the hospital. In that confession, she ad5itted, throu9h a leadin9
:uestion that she 4as a 5e52er of the ,P+. *he trial court eEcluded the confession on the 9round that the
4ai3er of Miranda ri9hts 4as 5ade 4ithout the assistance of counsel. *he prosecution contends that the
rulin9 in Morales 3. Ponce Enrile that the ri9ht to counsel 5a8 2e 4ai3ed onl8 4ith the assistance of
counsel, 4as onl8 a dictu5.
DEL16 In the case of People 3. /alit, 4hich 4as decided en 2anc and concurred in 28 all Justices
eEcept one 4ho too? no part, the -C put to rest all dou2ts re9ardin9 the rulin9 in Morales 3. Ponce
Enrile and Moncupa 3. Enrile. VV.
1oes the /alit rule ha3e retroacti3e applicationI
*his re:uire5ent to ha3e a counsel present 4hen 4ai3in9 the Miranda ri9hts applies onl8
to confessions 5ade after March "!, &'A, 4ai3ers 5ade 2efore that date need not 2e 5ade in the
presence of counsel.
Co5pare People 3. Ponce, &'( -C.+ (F$ %&''&) 4ith People 3. Li5, &'$ -C.+ A!' %&''&)
People 3. Ponce, &'( -C.+ (F$ %&''&)
People 3. Li5, &'$ -C.+ A!' %&''&)
In People 3. ,a2aluna, &F" -C.+ FF$ %&'A$), ,a2aluna et. al. 4ere con3icted of ro22er8
4ith ho5icide on the 2asis, a5on9 others, of eEtra7udicial confessions ta?en in &'((. *he
confessions and the special counsel 2efore 4ho5 the confessions 4ere si9ned pro3e that the
Miranda 4arnin9s 4ere 9i3en, 2ut these 4ere not 5ade in the presence of counsel. *he -C, in
allo4in9 the confession, ruled that the /+lit rulin9 could not ha3e a retroacti3e effect, especiall8
since in this case the trial court decision 4as alread8 rendered 2efore the -C pronounce5ent.
People 3. ,a2aluna &F" -C.+ FF$ %&'A$)
)alit voluntariness test not retroactively applicable
F6 *he appellants 4ere con3icted of ro22er8 4ith ho5icide and sentenced to death on the 2asis,
a5on9 other thin9s, of eEtra7udicial confessions. *he interro9ation of appellants lasted fro5 &! a.5. to @
p.5. on 1ec. , &'(( 8et their confessions 4ere 5ade the da8 after. *he confessions stated that the8 had
2een 9i3en the Miranda 4arnin9s. -pecial counsel to 4ho5 the confessions 4ere 5ade testified he
infor5ed the5 of their ri9ht to re5ain silentJ an8thin9 the8 sa8 could 2e used a9ainst the5J the8 had a
ri9ht to counsel and if the canBt afford one, their case 4ill 2e referred to the Citizens Le9al +ssistance
Office.
P+/E (@
DEL16 *he Court is 5indful of the cases of Morales 3. Ponce Enrile %&'A@), People 3. /alit
%&'A), and People 3. Pascual %&'A&) particularl8 the re:uisite that 2efore a person under custodial
in3esti9ation 5a8 2e dee5ed to ha3e properl8 4ai3ed his ri9ht to counsel, a counsel 5ust 2e
present to assist hi5. But this re:uire5ent 4as laid do4n in the said cases onl8 after final 7ud95ent
in this case had 2een 5ade 28 the trial court. ,o error should attach to the ad5ission 28 the trial
court of the eEtra7udicial state5ents as e3idence. VV.
People 3. Lasac &FA -C.+ $"F %&'A()
F6 +ppellant 4as con3icted of parricide on the 2asis of a confession and circu5stantial e3idence
4hich the trial court found su2stantial to esta2lish 9uilt.
DEL16 *he 4ai3er 28 the appellant of his ri9ht to counsel 4as 5ade 4ithout the assistance of a
counsel. *he -C has held in Morales 3. Ponce Enrile, People 3. /alit and People 3. -ison %&'A$)
that this re:uire5ent is 5andator8. +n8 state5ent o2tained in 3iolation of this procedure shall 2e
inad5issi2le in e3idence. VV.
c. ,e4 rule on 4ai3er %Fe2. ", &'A()
+rt. III, -ec. &" %&)6 >ai3er 5ust 2e in 4ritin9 and 5ade in the presence of counsel
A$t. III Se%. 17. =1A An, &e$son .nde$ investi2(tion +o$ t'e %o11ission o+ (n o++ense
s'()) '(ve t'e $i2't to *e in+o$1ed o+ 'is $i2't to $e1(in si)ent (nd to '(ve %o1&etent (nd
inde&endent %o.nse) &$e+e$(*), o+ 'is %'oi%e. I+ t'e &e$son %(nnot (++o$d t'e se$vi%es o+
%o.nse) 'e 1.st *e &$ovided -it' one. T'ese $i2'ts %(nnot *e -(ived e;%e&t in -$itin2 (nd
in t'e &$esen%e o+ %o.nse).

Under the ne4 Constitution, an8 4ai3er 5ust no4 2e 5ade %&) in 4ritin9, and %") in the
presence of counsel.
But see People 3. +l2ofera, &" -C.+ &"@ %&'A()
Olaes 3. People, & -C.+ FA$, supra.
$. *he 2urden of pro3in9 3oluntariness of 4ai3ers is on the prosecution
*he 2urden to pro3e that there 4as a 3alid 4ai3er of the Miranda 4arnin9 de3ol3es upon
the one see?in9 to present the confession, that is, on the prosecution. *his rule applies 4hether in
the pre#/alit, /alit, or &'A( rule.
In People 3. Jara, &FF -C.+ &$ %&'A$), the -C noted that the stereot8pe =ad3ice=
appearin9 in practicall8 all eEtra7udicial confessions 4hich are later repudiated has assu5ed the
nature of a le9al for5. In3esti9ators auto5aticall8 t8pe it to9ether 4ith =opo= as the ans4er, or as?
the accused to si9n it or e3en cop8 it in their hand4ritin9. Its tired punctilious, fiEed and
artificiall8 statel8 st8le does not create an i5pression of 3oluntariness or e3en understandin9 on the
part of the accused.
P+/E (F
>hene3er a Constitutional protection is 4ai3ed 28 one entitled to that protection, the
presu5ption is al4a8s a9ainst the 4ai3er. *hus, the prosecution 5ust pro3e 4ith stron9l8
con3incin9 e3idence that indeed the accused 4illin9l8 and 3oluntaril8 su25itted his confession, and
?no4in9l8 and deli2eratel8 5anifested that he 4as not interested in ha3in9 a la48er assist hi5
durin9 the ta?in9 of that confession.
People 3. Jara, &FF -C.+ &$ %&'A$)
F6 +ppellants 4ere found 9uilt8 of ro22er8 4ith ho5icide for the ?illin9 and ro22er8 of +5para
3da. de Banti9ue on June ', &'(A. In another case, t4o of the appellants 4ere found 9uilt8 of ho5icide for
the ?illin9 on the sa5e date of Luisa Jara 4hile Felicisi5o Jara, the hus2and of the deceased, 4as found
9uilt8 of parricide. *4o of the appellants, .a85undo Ver9ara and Bernardo Bernadas, 5ade eEtra7udicial
confessions i5plicatin9 Jara as the 5aster5ind. *he confessions 4ere ta?en 4hile the t4o 4ere held
inco55unicado in the presence of fi3e police5en and after t4o 4ee?s of detention.
DEL16 *he stereot8ped =ad3ice= of the Miranda ri9hts appearin9 in practicall8 all eEtra7udicial
confessions 4hich are later repudiated assu5ed the nature of a le9al for5 or 5odel. Its tired,
punctilious, fiEed and artificial st8le does not create an i5pression of 3oluntariness or e3en
understandin9 on the part of the accused. *he sho4in9 of a spontaneous, free and unconstrained
9i3in9 up of a ri9ht is 5issin9. >hene3er a protection 9i3en 28 the Constitution is 4ai3ed 28 the
person entitled to that protection, the presu5ption is al4a8s a9ainst the 4ai3er. Conse:uentl8, the
prosecution 5ust pro3e 4ith stron9, con3incin9 e3idence that indeed the accused 4illin9l8 and
3oluntaril8 su25itted his confession and ?no4in9l8 and deli2eratel8 5anifested that he 4as not
interested in ha3in9 a la48er assist hi5 durin9 the ta?in9 of that confession. *hat proof is 5issin9
in this case. VV.
(. >hat 5a8 2e 4ai3ed6 *he ri9ht to re5ain silent and to counsel, 2ut not the
ri9ht to 2e 9i3en =Miranda 4arnin9s=
*he ri9ht to re5ain silent and to counsel, 4hich are the effectuations of the Miranda ri9hts,
can 2e 4ai3ed.
>hat cannot 2e 4ai3ed are6
&. *he ri9ht to 2e 9i3en the Miranda 4arnin9s. %For ho4 can one 4ai3e 4hat one does
not ?no4I)
". *he ri9ht to counsel 4hen 5a?in9 the 4ai3er of the ri9ht to re5ain silent or to counsel.
A. EEclusionar8 rule
A$t. III Se%. 17. ;;;
=>A An, %on+ession o$ (d1ission o*t(ined in vio)(tion o+ t'is o$ Se%tion 1J 'e$eo+ s'())
*e in(d1issi*)e in eviden%e (2(inst 'i1.

,ote than under G+rt. III, -ec. @%")H the eEclusionar8 rule reads6 %an8 e3idence o2tained in
3iolation of this or the precedin9 section shall 2e inad5issi2le =for an8 purpose in an8 proceedin9.=
*here are t4o eEceptions to the eEclusionar8 rule. One, to i5peach the credi2ilit8 of the
accused. *4o, pu2lic safet8.
P+/E (
I5peach the credi2ilit8
*he un4arned or uncounselled confession is not totall8 4ithout use. >hile it is not
ad5issi2le to pro3e the 9uilt of the accused, it 5a8 2e used a9ainst hi5 to i5peach his credi2ilit8
28 sho4in9 that he is l8in9 in court, so ruled the U.-. -upre5e Court in Darris 3. ,e4 0or?, F!&
U.-. """ %&'(&).
Darris 3. ,e4 0or?, F!& U.-. """ %&'(&)
In this case, Darris 4as arrested for t4ice sellin9 heroin to an underco3er police a9ent. De
confessed to the cri5e durin9 the police interro9ation, 2ut the confession 4as uncounselled, and so
it 4as held as inad5issi2le in e3idence. But 4hen Darris too? the 4itness stand, he testified that
4hat he sold 4as 2a?in9 po4der in order to defraud the police a9ent. *he -C allo4ed the
prosecution to introduce the uncounselled stat5ent to sho4 that he 4as l8in9.
In 7ustif8in9 the ad5ission of the testi5on8, Justice Bur9er said that it is one thin9 to sa8
that the 9o3ern5ent cannot 5a?e an affir5ati3e use of the e3idence unla4full8 o2tained, and :uite
another to sa8 that the defendant can turn the ille9al 5ethod 28 4hich the e3idence in the
possession of the 9o3ern5ent 4as o2tained to his o4n ad3anta9e, pro3idin9 hi5self 4ith a shield
a9ainst per7ur8 and the contradiction of his untruths.
*he reason, continued the Court is that the shield pro3ided 28 the Miranda ri9hts cannot
2e per3erted into a license to use per7ur8 28 4a8 of a defense, free fro5 the ris? of confrontation
4ith prior inconsistent utterances.
Pu2lic -afet8
Pu2lic -afet8 5a8 7ustif8 the police in ta?in9 confessions 4ithout prior 4arnin9. *hus
ruled the U.-. -upre5e Court in ,e4 0or? 3. Puarles, &!F -. Ct. "$"$ %&'AF).
,e4 0or? 3. Puarles, &!F -. Ct. "$"$ %&'AF).
In the case, the Court eEcused the 9i3in9 of the Miranda 4arnin9 2ecause the pu2lic safet8
re:uired that the 4eapon had to 2e located 2efore it could 2e used 28 the accused a9ainst those in
the super5ar?et.
*he criticis5 hurled a9ainst this rulin9 is that 4hile the police 5a8 2e 7ustified in forcin9
the assailant to sa8 4here the 4eapon is located, he is not 7ustified to present this in e3idence in the
su2se:uent cri5inal prosecution.
C. .i9ht to 2ail
A$t. III Se%. 1>. A)) &e$sons e;%e&t t'ose %'($2ed -it' o++enses &.nis'(*)e *,
reclusion perpetua -'en t'e eviden%e o+ 2.i)t is st$on2 s'()) *e+o$e %onvi%tion *e *(i)(*)e *,
s.++i%ient s.$eties o$ *e $e)e(sed on $e%o2ni:(n%e (s 1(, *e &$ovided *, )(-. t'e $i2't to *(i)
P+/E ($
s'()) not *e i1&(i$ed even -'en t'e &$ivi)e2e o+ t'e -$it o+ habeas corpus is s.s&ended.
E;%essive *(i) s'()) not *e $e/.i$ed.
&. >hen ri9ht 5a8 2e in3o?ed
*he ri9ht to 2ail is a3aila2le fro5 the 3er8 5o5ent of arrest %4hich 5a8 2e 2efore or after
the filin9 of for5al char9es in court) up to the ti5e of con3iction 28 final 7ud9e5ent %4hich 5eans
after appeal).
,o char9e need 2e filed for5all8 2efore one can file for 2ail, so lon9 as one is under arrest.
-o ruled the -C in Deras *eehan?ee 3. .o3ica. ( Phil.$@F %&'F).
*he case 4as uni:ue in that after the 4ar, the PeopleBs Court +ct a5ended +rt. &" of the
.PC to allo4 for a lon9er ti5e to detain persons 2ecause of the i5possi2ilit8 of filin9 char9es
4ithin the re9le5entar8 period due to the nu52er of indictees.
Darris *eehan?ee 3. .o3ira, ( Phil. $@F %&'F)
People 3. -an 1ie9o, "$ -C.+ "" %&'$A)
Bail and /abeas Corpus
In the case of 2ail, there is an i5plicit reco9nition that the arrest and detention, are 3alid,
or that e3en if the8 4ere initiall8 ille9al, such ille9alit8 4as cured 28 the su2se:uent filin9 of a case
in court. *hus, the pra8er in 2ail is that one 2e released te5poraril8 fro5 such 3alid detention, and
this can 2e 5ade an8ti5e after arrest.
In habeas corpus, the assu5ption is precisel8 that the arrest and detention are ille9al, so
that the pra8er is to 2e released per5anentl8 fro5 such ille9al detention. >hen the pri3ile9e of the
4rit is suspended, the arrest and detention re5ain ille9al, 2ut the re5ed8 afforded 28 la4 to the
3icti5 is not a3aila2le. Under the &'A( Constitution, thou9h the effect of the suspension has 2een
considera2l8 lessened to the need to file a case 4ithin (" hours fro5 the ille9al arrest, other4ise the
detainee is to 2e released.
*he Constitution no4 pro3ides, o3errulin9 Morales 3. Enrile, that the suspension of the
pri3ile9e of the 4rit does not carr8 4ith it the suspension of the ri9ht to 2ail. Da2eas Corpus refers
to ille9al detention, 4hile 2ail refers to le9al detention, or e3en detention that started as ille9al 2ut
4as cured 28 the filin9 of a case in court.
". >hen 2ail is a 5atter of ri9ht, 4hen it is a 5atter of discretion
Bail is a 5atter of ri9ht in all cases not punisha2le 28 reclusion perpetua.
It is a 5atter of discretion in case the e3idence of 9uilt is stron9. In such a case, accordin9
to People 3. -an 1ie9o, "$ -C.+ "" %&'$$), the courtBs discretion to 9rant 2ail 5ust 2e eEercised
in the li9ht of a su55ar8 of the e3idence presented 28 the prosecution. *hus, the order 9rantin9 or
P+/E ((
refusin9 2ail 5ust contain a su55ar8 of the e3idence for the prosecution follo4ed 28 the
conclusion on 4hether or not the e3idence of 9uilt is stron9.
*he onl8 ti5e 2ail 5a8 2e denied is 4hen %a) the offense is punisha2le 28 reclusion
perpetua, and %2) the e3idence of 9uilt is stron9.
>ith the a2olition of the death penalt8 %III, "!), and the auto5atic co55utation of a death
sentence to reclusion perpetua, it is contended that 4hen the &'A( Constitution denies the ri9ht to
2ail in offenses punisha2le 28 reclusion perpetua, it is 5eant to appl8 onl8 to those cri5es 4hich
4ere once punisha2le 28 death. For if it includeds e3en those cri5es 4hich 2efore and no4 are
reall8 punisha2le 28 reclusion perpetua, it 4ould 9o a9ainst the 3er8 spirit of the Constitution.
People 3. 1onato, &'$ -C.+ &@! %&''&)
@. Bail in courts#5artial
Co55endador 3. 1e Villa, "!! -C.+ A! %&''&)
+s4at 3. /alido, "!F -C.+ "! %&''&)
.uff8 3. Chief of -taff, ( Phil. A( %&'F$)
F. -tandards for fiEin9 2ail
R.)e 11I Se%. 6. &mount of bail$ guidelines.-- T'e G.d2e -'o issed t'e -($$(nt o$
2$(nted t'e (&&)i%(tion s'()) +i; ( $e(son(*)e (1o.nt o+ *(i) %onside$in2 &$i1($i), *.t not
)i1ited to t'e +o))o-in2 2.ide)inesD
=(A 3in(n%i() (*i)it, o+ t'e (%%.sed to 2ive *(i)<
=*A N(t.$e (nd %i$%.1st(n%es o+ t'e o++ense<
=%A Pen()t, o+ t'e o++ense %'($2ed<
=dA C'($(%te$ (nd $e&.t(tion o+ t'e (%%.sed<
=eA A2e (nd 'e()t' o+ t'e (%%.sed<
=+A T'e -ei2't o+ t'e eviden%e (2(inst t'e (%%.sed<
=2A P$o*(*i)it, o+ t'e (%%.sed (&&e($in2 in t$i()<
='A 3o$+eit.$e o+ ot'e$ *onds<
=iA T'e +(%t t'(t (%%.sed -(s ( +.2itive +$o1 G.sti%e -'en ($$ested< (nd
=GA T'e &enden%, o+ ot'e$ %(ses in -'i%' t'e (%%.sed is .nde$ *ond.
E;%essive *(i) s'()) not *e $e/.i$ed.
>here the ri9ht to 2ail eEists, it should not 2e rendered nu9ator8 2e re:uirin9 a su5 that is
eEcessi3e, other4ise, it 2eco5es =a pro5ise to the ear to 2e 2ro?en to the hope, a teasin9 illusion
li?e a 5unificent 2e:uest in a pauperBs 4ill= %Jac?son). *hus, said the -C in 1e la Ca5ara 3.
Ena9e, F& -C.+ & %&'(&).
P+/E (A
In this case, a 2ail of P&.&' 5illion i5posed a9ainst Ma8or Ca5ara for char9es of &"
5urders and &" frustrated 5urder 4as found eEcessi3e.
*he -C laid do4n the follo4in9 9uidelines in fiEin9 the a5ount of 2ail in Villasenor 3.
+2ano, "& -C.+ @&" %&'$(), later contained in sec. $ of .ule &&F.
&. +2ilit8 of the accused to 9i3e the 2ail.
". ,ature of the offense.
@. Penalt8 for the offense char9ed.
F. Character and reputation of the accused
. Dealth of the accused.
$. Character and stren9th of the e3idence.
(. Pro2a2ilit8 of the accused appearin9 in trial.
A. Forfeiture of other 2onds.
'. >hether the accused 4as a fu9iti3e fro5 7ustice 4hen arrested.
&!. If the accused is under 2ond for appearance at trial in other cases.
E3en 4hen the accused has pre3iousl8 7u5ped 2ail, still he cannot 2e denied 2ail. the
re5ed8 in this case is to increase the a5ount of the 2ail %-i:uia5 3. +5paro).
Villasenor 3. +2ano, "& -C.+ @&" %&'$()
1e la Ca5ara 3. En9a9e, F& -C.+ & %&'(&)
. .i9ht to 2ail and ri9ht to tra3el a2road
A$t. III Se%. 6. T'e )i*e$t, o+ (*ode (nd o+ %'(n2in2 t'e s(1e -it'in t'e )i1its
&$es%$i*ed *, )(- s'()) not *e i1&(i$ed e;%e&t .&on )(-+.) o$de$ o+ t'e %o.$t. ,either shall
the right to tra*el be impaired e#cept in the interest of national security' public safety' or
public health' as may be pro*ided by law.
In Manotoc 3. Court of +ppeals, &F" -C.+ &F' %&'A$), the -C disallo4ed a person
released on 2ail to tra3el a2road for a 2usiness trip. *he Court 9a3e " reasons 4h8 2ail operates
onl8 4ithin the countr8.
One, the accused 5a8 2e placed 2e8ond the 7urisdiction of the court if he 4ere allo4ed to
lea3e the Philippines 4ithout sufficient reason, thus affectin9 one of the conditions in the 9rant of
2ail, na5el8 to ha3e the accused a3aila2le 4hene3er the court re:uires his presence.
*4o, i5plicit in the 2ail is the a9ree5ent 2et4een the -tate and the suret8 that the -tate
4ill do nothin9 to 5a?e it difficult for the suret8 to arrest the defendant upon order of the court. If
the court thus allo4s his to lea3e, then the -tate loses its ri9ht to order the forfeiture of the 2ond
2ecause it itself has 2reached its o2li9ation to the suret8.
*he case lea3es the :uestion of allo4in9 an accused under 2ail to 9o a2road for
hu5anitarian reasons open#ended. *his reason 4as not foreclosed 28 the Court, 4hich hinted that
P+/E ('
the accused could 2e allo4ed to lea3e if he had =sufficient reason=. >hat the Court found
insufficient 4as the 2usiness trip.
Manoto? 3. C+, &F" -C.+ &F' %&'A$)
F6 Petitioner is a principal stoc?holder of t4o corporations, in one of 4hich he 4as the president.
*he fir5s 4ere placed under a 5ana9e5ent co55ittee 28 the -EC and petitioner 4as placed =on hold= 28
the Co55ission of I55i9ration. Petitioner 4as char9ed 4ith estafa. De later as?ed for per5ission to lea3e
the countr8 for 2usiness reasons, 2ut his re:uest 4as denied 28 the courts. De filed a petition for certiorari
2ut his petition 4as also dis5issed for lac? of 5erit. De appealed to the -C.
DEL16 *he condition i5posed 28 .ule &&F, sec. & upon the accused to 5a?e hi5self a3aila2le
4hene3er the court re:uires his presence, operates as a 3alid restriction on his ri9ht to tra3el. *he
constitutional ri9ht to tra3el is not a2solute, 2ut is su27ect to la4ful orders of the court. VV.
$. >ai3er of the .i9ht to Bail
People 3. 1onato, &'A -C.+ &@! %&''&)
1. .i9hts durin9 trial
A$t. III Se%. 1I. =1A No &e$son s'()) *e 'e)d to (ns-e$ +o$ ( %$i1in() o++ense -it'o.t
d.e &$o%ess o+ )(-.
In ()) %$i1in() &$ose%.tions t'e (%%.sed s'()) *e &$es.1ed inno%ent .nti) t'e %ont$($,
is &$oved (nd s'()) enGo, t'e $i2't to *e 'e($d *, 'i1se)+ (nd %o.nse) to *e in+o$1ed o+ t'e
n(t.$e (nd %(.se o+ t'e (%%.s(tion (2(inst 'i1 to '(ve ( s&eed, i1&($ti() (nd &.*)i% t$i() to
1eet t'e -itnesses +(%e to +(%e (nd to '(ve %o1&.)so$, &$o%ess to se%.$e t'e (ttend(n%e o+
-itnesses (nd t'e &$od.%tion o+ eviden%e in 'is *e'()+. Ho-eve$ (+te$ ($$(i2n1ent t$i() 1(,
&$o%eed not-it'st(ndin2 t'e (*sen%e o+ t'e (%%.sed &$ovided t'(t 'e '(s *een d.), noti+ied
(nd 'is +(i).$e to (&&e($ is .nG.sti+i(*)e.
&. Presu5ption of innocence
In People 3. 1ra5a3o, F" -C.+ $' %&'(&), the -C noted that the re:uire5ent of proof
2e8ond reasona2le dou2t is a necessar8 corollar8 of the constitutional ri9ht to 2e presu5ed
innocent.
People 3. 1ra5a3o, F" -C.+ $' %&'(&)
In I9ot 3. Co5elec, ' -C.+ @'" %&'A!), a la4 dis:ualif8in9 candidates char9ed 4ith
national securit8 offences 4as struc? do4n as unconstitutional, for 3iolatin9 the presu5ption
a9ainst innocence.
I9ot 3. Co5elec, ' -C.+ @'" %&'A!)
P+/E A!
In +le7andro 3. Pepito, '$ -C.+ @"" %&'A!), a 7ud9e 4ho allo4ed the accused to present
his e3idence ahead of the prosecution, o3er the o27ection of the prosecution, after the acused
ad5itted the ?illin9 2ut in3o?ed self#defense, 4as re3ersed 28 the -C on the 9round that this
chan9e in the order of trial 3iolated the constitutional presu5ption of innocence 4hich places the
2urden proof on the prosecution.
*his rulin9 4as 5odified 28 .ule &&', sec. @ %e) of the &'A .ules of Cri5inal Procedure
4hich no4 re3erses the order of trial 4hen the defendant ad5its the act 2ut in3o?es a 7ustif8in9 or
eEe5ptin9 circu5stance.
+le7andro 3. Pepito, '$ -C.+ @"" %&'A!)
(rder of trial as provided in the Rules of Court is essential to due process
F6 .espondent 7ud9e issued an order directin9 that, in 3ie4 of the fact that as accused in the
cri5inal case, petitioner ad5itted to the ?illin9, he 5ust first pro3e self#defense and then the prosecution
4ould present e3idence to dispro3e it. Petitioner 5o3ed for reconsideration of the order. >hen his 5otion
4as denied, he filed a petition for certiorari in the -C.
DEL16 *he constitutional pro3ision that no person shall 2e held to ans4er for a cri5inal offense
4ithout due process of la4 re:uires that the procedure in .ule &&', sec. @ 2e follo4ed. *hat
procedure protects the ri9ht of the accused to 2e presu5ed innocent until the contrar8 is pro3ed.
*his orderl8 course of procedure re:uires that the prosecution shall for for4ard and present all its
proof in the first instance. In U- 3. /aciran, the defense had produced its proofs 2efore the
prosecution presented its case, and it 4as held that no su2stantial ri9hts of the accused 4ere
pre7udiced. Do4e3er, in that case no o27ection 4as entered in the court 2elo4. In this case, the
chan9e in the order of trial 5ade 28 the Jud9e 4as ti5el8 o27ected.
,ote6 *he rulin9 in +le7andro 3. Pepito 4as a2ro9ated 28 .ule &&', sec. @%e) 4hich pro3ides that
4hen the accused ad5its the acts or o5issions char9ed in the co5plaint or infor5ation 2ut
interposes a la4ful defense, the order of trial 5a8 2e 5odified accordin9l8. VV.
B+.LO,/+0 C+-E6
People 3. de /uz5an, "@& -C.+ (@'
F6 1e /uz5an, Castro and Catap 4ere char9ed 4ith 5urder for the ?illin9 of an unidentified
person on ,o3. &$, &''F. Onl8 1e /uz5an and Castro 4ere arrested and 2oth pleaded not 9uilt8.
*he8 4ere con3icted 28 the court 5ainl8 on the 2asis of the testi5on8 of +delia +n9eles. -he
positi3el8 identified the " accused as the persons 4ho 4ere 4ith Catap 4ho 5altreated an
unidentified person 4ho5 the8 had tied to an ipil#ipil tree and upon seein9 her, she testified that
the8 untied the 5an and 2rou9ht hi5 to4ards the direction of the Pasi9 ri3er 4hich 4as onl8 @
houses a4a8. *his 4as further stren9thened 28 the eEtra7udicial confession %EJC) of accused
Castro to Police Corporal 1o5inador Cunanan that it 4as Catap 4ho ?illed the 3icti5 and that he
and de /uz5an acted onl8 as loo?#outs.
Issue6 >C, the constitutional presu5ption of innocenec of the accused has 2een o3erco5e.
DEL16 0E-
*hou9h there is no direct e3idence to lin? the @ accused to the ?illin9 of the
un?no4n 3icti5, the circu5stantial e3idence presented satisfied -ec. F, .ule &@@ .OC
P+/E A&
na5el86 %&) there is 5ore than one circu5stanceJ %") the facts fro5 4hich the inferences are
deri3ed are pro3enJ and %@) the co52ination of all the circu5stances is such as to produce
con3iction 2e8ond resona2le dou2t.
>ith re9ard to the EJC of +ccused Castro to Police Cpl. Cunanan, there is no
e3idence that Cunanan had an8 5oti3e to falsel8 testif8 a9ainst accused. >hile it is true
that accusedBs EJC 4as 5ade 4ithout the ad3ice and assistance of counsel, hence
inad5issi2le as e3idence, it could 2e treated as a 3er2al ad5ission of the accused
esta2lished throu9h the testi5onies of persons 4ho heard it or 4ho conducted the
in3esti9atiuon of the accused %Peo 3 Molas "&A -C.+ F(@). Moreo3er in Peo 3 +l3arez,
the court ruled that an eEtra7udicial confession is ad5issi2le a9ainst a co#accused 4hen it is
used as a circu5stantial e3idence to sho4 the pro2a2ilit8 of the participation of said co#
accused in the cri5e co55itted. S.:ette.
". .i9ht to 2e heard personall8 or 28 counsel
+de:uate le9al assistance shall not 2e denied to an8 person 28 reason of po3ert8 %+rt. III,
-ec. &&.) ,o 5atter ho4 educated one 5a8 2e, he 5a8 not ?no4 ho4 to esta2lsih his innocence
for the si5ple reason that he does not ?no4 the rules of e3idence said the -C in People 3. Dol9ado,
A Phil (" %&'").
People 3. Dol9ado, A Phil (" %&'")
F6 +ppellant Frisco Dol9ado 4as char9ed in the court of First Instance of .o52lon 4ith sli9ht
ille9al detention 2ecause he did =feloniousl8 and 4ithout 7ustifia2le 5oti3e, ?idnap and detain one
+rte5ia Fa2rea9 in the house of +ntero Dol9ado for a2out ei9ht hours there28 depri3in9 said +rte5ia
Fa2rea9 of her personal li2ert8.= +ccused, unaided 28 counsel, pleaded 9uilt8 and said that he 4as
instructed 28 Mr. Oca5po to do so.
+ccused 4as con3icted of a capital offense.
-ince the accused#appellant pleaded 9uilt8 and no e3idence appears to ha3e 2een presented 28
either part8, the trial 7ud9e 5ust ha3e deduced the capital offense fro5 the facts pleaded in the
infor5ation.
.ulin96 Under the circu5stances, particularl8 the :ualified plea 9i3en 28 the accused 4ho 4as
unaided 28 counsel, it 4as not prudent, to sa8 the least, for the trial court to render such a serious
7ud95ent findin9 the accused 9uilt8 of a capital offense, and i5posin9 upon hi5 such a hea38
penalt8 as ten 8ears and one da8 of prision 5a8or to t4ent8 8ears, 4ithout a2solute an8 e3idence
to deter5ine and clarif8 the true facts of the case.
*he proceedin9s in the trial court are irre9ular fro5 the 2e9innin9. It is eEpressl8 pro3ided
in our rules of Court, .ule &&", section @ %no4 .ule &&$, -ec. $), that6
If the defendant appears 4ithout attorne8, he 5ust 2e infor5ed 28 the court that it is his ri9ht to
ha3e attorne8 2efore 2ein9 arrai9ned., and 5ust 2e as?ed if he desires the aid of attorne8, the Court 5ust
assi9n attorne8 de oficio to defend hi5. + reasona2le ti5e 5ust 2e allo4ed for procurin9 attorne8.
,ot one of these duties had 2een co5plied 4ith 28 the trial court.
One of the 9reat principles of 7ustice 9uaranteed 28 our Constitution is that =no person
shall 2e held to ans4er for a cri5inal offense 4ithout due process of la4=, and that all accused
=shall en7o8 the ri9ht to 2e heard 28 hi5self and counsel.= In cri5inal cases there can 2e no fair
hearin9 unless the accused 2e 9i3en the opportunit8 to 2e heard 28 counsel. *he ri9ht to 2e heard
4ould 2e of little a3ail if it does not include the ri9ht to 2e heard 28 counsel. E3en the 5ost
P+/E A"
intelli9ent or educated 5an 5a8 ha3e no s?ill in the science of the la4, particularl8 in the rules of
procedure, and, 4ithout counsel, he 5a8 2e con3icted not 2ecause he is 9uilt8 2ut 2ecause he does
not ?no4 ho4 to esta2lish his innocence. +nd this can happen 5ore easil8 to persons 4ho are
i9norant or uneducated. It is for this reason that the ri9ht to 2e assisted 28 counsel is dee5ed so
i5portant that it has 2eco5e a constitutional ri9ht and it is so i5ple5ented that under our rules of
procedure it is not enou9h for the Court to apprise an accused of his ri9ht to ha3e an attorne8, it is
not enou9h to as? hi5 4hether he desires the aid of an attorne8, 2ut it is essential that the court
should assi9n one de oficio if he so desires and he is poor 9rant hi5 a reasona2le ti5e to procure
an attorne8 of his o4n. G),nd(.
P6 >hat happens if the accused files a de5urrer to the e3idence of the prosecution %on the
9round that the prosecution failed to tender a case) and this 5otion is denied ## could the defense
still present its o4n e3idenceI

In +2riol 3. Do5eres, AF Phil ", %&'F'), the -C ruled in the affir5ati3e, contendin9 that
the ri9ht of the accused to present his e3idence is a constitutional ri9ht 4hich cannot 2e defeated 28
the dis5issal of the 5otion of de5urrer.
'iling of demurrer to evidence is a 2%I3+R of right to be heard %.ule &&', -ec. &.)
+2riol 3. Do5eres, AF Phil ", %&'F')
F6 Fidel +2riol, to9ether 4ith siE other persons, 4as accused of ille9al possession of firear5s and
a55unition. +fter the prosecution had presented its e3idence and rested its case, counsel for the defense
5o3ed to dis5iss the case on the 9round of insufficienc8 of the e3idence to pro3e the 9uilt of the accused.
+fter hearin9 the ar9u5ents for and a9ainst the 5otion for dis5issal, the court held the proofs sufficient
to con3ict and denied said 5otion, 4hereupon counsel for the defense offered to present e3idence for the
accused. *he pro3incial fiscal opposed the presentation of e3idence 28 the defense, contendin9 that the
present procedural practice and la4s precluded the defense in cri5inal cases fro5 presentin9 an8 e3idence
after it had presented a 5otion for dis5issal 4ith or 4ithout reser3ation and after said 5otion had 2een
denied, and citin9 as authorit8 the case of United -tates 3s. 1e la Cruz, "A Phil., "('. Dis Donor Jud9e -.
C. Moscoso sustained the opposition of the pro3incial fiscal and, 4ithout allo4in9 the accused to present
e3idence in their defense, con3icted all of the5 and sentenced the herein petitioner to suffer se3en 8ears of
i5prison5ent and to pa8 a fine of P",!!!.
Issue6 >hether the accused should 2e allo4ed to present e3idence after the denial of their 5otion
to dis5iss on the 9round of insufficienc8 of e3idence of the prosecution
.ulin96 *he accused should 2e allo4ed to present e3idence.
&. *he refusal of Jud9e Moscoso to allo4 the accused#petitioner to present proofs in his
defense after the denial of his 5otion for dis5issal 4as a palpa2le error 4hich resulted in den8in9
to the said accused the due process of la4 9uaranteed in the Bill of .i9hts e52odied in the
Constitution, it 2ein9 pro3ided in +rticle II, section & %&(), of the Constitution that in all cri5inal
prosecutions the accused shall en7o8 the ri9ht to 2e heard 28 hi5self and counsel and to ha3e
co5pulsor8 process to secure the attendance of 4itnesses in his 2ehalf. *here is no la4 nor
=procedural practice= under 4hich the accused 5a8 e3er 2e denied the ri9ht to 2e heard 2efore
2ein9 sentenced.
,o4 that the /o3ern5ent cannot appeal in cri5inal cases if the defendant 4ould 2e placed
there28 in dou2le 7eopard8 %sec. ", .ule &&A), the dis5issal of the case for insufficienc8 of the
e3idence after the prosecution has rested ter5inates the case then and there. But if the 5otion for
dis5issal is denied, the court should proceed to hear the e3idence for the defense 2efore enterin9
P+/E A@
7ud95ent re9ardless of 4hether or not the defense had reser3ed its ri9ht to present e3idence in the
e3ent its 5otion for dis5issal 2e denied. *he reason is that it is the constitutional ri9ht of the
accused to 2e heard in his defense 2efore sentence is pronounced on hi5. Of course if the accused
has no e3idence to present or eEpressl8 4ai3es the ri9ht to present it, the court has no alternati3e
2ut to decide the case upon the e3idence presented 28 the prosecution alone.
". *he 5ain :uestion to decide is 4hether the 4rit of habeas corpus lies in a case li?e the
present.
>e ha3e alread8 sho4n that there is no la4 or precedent 4hich could 2e in3o?ed to place
in dou2t the ri9ht of the accused to 2e heard or to present e3idence in his defense 2efore 2ein9
sentenced. On the contrar8, the pro3isions of the Constitution hereina2o3e cited eEpressl8 and
clearl8 9uarantee to hi5 that ri9ht. -uch constitutional ri9ht is in3iolate. ,o court of 7ustice under
our s8ste5 of 9o3ern5ent has the po4er to depri3e hi5 of that ri9ht. If the accused does not 4ai3e
his ri9ht to 2e heard 2ut on the contrar8 as in the instant case in3o?es that rou9h, and the court
denies it to hi5, that court no lon9er has 7urisdiction to proceedJ it has no po4er to sentence the
accused 4ithout hearin9 hi5 in his defenseJ and the sentence thus pronounced is 3oid and 5a8 2e
collaterall8 attac?ed in a habeas corpus proceedin9.
+lthou9h the sentence a9ainst the petitioner is 3oid for the reasons hereina2o3e stated, he
5a8 2e held under the custod8 of the la4 28 2ein9 detained or ad5itted to 2ail until the case
a9ainst hi5 is finall8 and la4full8 decided. *he process a9ainst hi5 in cri5inal case ,o. &F(" 5a8
stand should 2e resu5ed fro5 the sta9e at 4hich it 4as 3itiated 28 the trial courtBs denial of his
constitutional ri9ht to 2e heard. Up to the point 4hen the prosecution rested, the proceedin9s 4ere
3alid and should 2e resu5ed fro5 there. G),nd(.
But .ule &&', sec. of the &'A .ules of Cri5inal Procedure 5odified this rulin9 28 no4
pro3idin9 that 4hen at the end of the presentation of e3idence 28 the prosecution the defense 5o3es
to :uash the infor5ation, the filin9 of such 5otion to :uash is e:ui3alent to a =4ai3er= of the ri9ht
to present e3idence.
If the 5otion is denied, the court 4ill no lon9er recei3e the e3idence of the defense 2ut
instead proceed 4ith the 7ud95ent on the 2asis solel8 of the e3idence of the prosecution. *his is
not unconstitutional so lon9 as it is 5ade clear to the accused that if he 5o3es to de5ur to the
e3idence, he can no lon9er present his e3idence. +lso it does not follo4 that 7ust 2ecause the
de5urrer is denied, then the accused 4ould 2e con3icted, in 3ie4 of the :uantu5 of e3idence
re:uired to sustain a con3iction.
If on the other hand, the 5otion is 9ranted and the court a9rees that the infor5ation or
prosecution e3idence is insufficient to for5 a case, then the effect of the 9rant is an ac:uittal, to
4hich no appeal can 2e ta?en an85ore, said the -C in People 3. 1onesa, F' -C.+ "A& %&'(@).
People 3. 1onesa, F' -C.+ "A& %&'(@)
)rant of demurrer is equivalent to an acquittal
F6 +fter prosecution presented its 4itnesses, the defense 5o3ed for dis5issal of the case on the
9round of insufficienc8 of e3idence. *he 7ud9e 9ranted the 5otion.
Issue6 1id such dis5issal operate as an ac:uittal of the accusedI
.ulin96 0E-
P+/E AF
+ dis5issal ordered after the ter5ination of the presentation of the e3idence for the
prosecution has the force and effect of an ac:uittal. -ince there is a failure to pro3e the 9uilt of the
accused, the case 5ust 2e dis5issed, and it 4ill 2e a 2ar to another prosecution for the sa5e
offense e3en thou9h it 4as ordered 28 the Court upon 5otion or 4ith the eEpress consent of the
defendant, in eEactl8 the sa5e 4a8 as a 7ud95ent of ac:uittal. G),nd(.
R.)e 119 Se%. 1?. De1.$$e$ to eviden%e.FF A+te$ t'e &$ose%.tion '(s $ested its %(se
t'e %o.$t 1(, dis1iss t'e %(se on t'e 2$o.nd o+ ins.++i%ien%, o+ eviden%eD =1A ont its o-n
intiti(tive (+te$ 2ivint t'e &$ose%.tion (n o&&o$t.nit, to *e 'e($d< o$ =7A on 1otion o+ t'e
(%%.sed +i)ed -it' &$o&e$ )e(ve o+ %o.$t.
I+ t'e %o.$t denies t'e 1otion +o$ dis1iss() t'e (%%.sed 1(, (dd.%e eviden%e in 'is
de+ense. W'en t'e (%%.sed +i)es s.%' 1otion to dis1iss -it'o.t e;&$ess )e(ve o+ %o.$t 'e
-(ives t'e $i2't to &$esent eviden%e (nd s.*1its t'e %(se +o$ G.d21ent on t'e *(sis o+ t'e
eviden%e +o$ t'e &$ose%.tion. =R.)es o+ Co.$t.A
People 3. Canceren, ""' -C.+ A&
F6 .o5eo Canceran 4as char9ed 4ith 5urder for the ?illin9 of Pripert 1oro7a on Fe2ruar8
&F, &'A'. It 4as esta2lished durin9 the trial, throu9h the testi5onies of +rnold Bautista, Edralin
Melindez and the 5other of the 3icti5 Francisca 1oro7a, that Canceran, Bautista, Melindez and
the 3icti5 4ere all seated and ha3in9 a drin?in9 session 4hen Canceran accidentall8 shot the
3icti5 4hile pla8in9 4ith a re3ol3er. De 4as found 9uilt8 28 the trial court.
Issue6 >C, accused 4as denied of his constitutional ri9ht to counsel especiall8 durin9 the
5ost delicate sta9es of the trial.
DEL16 ,O
*he issue of 3iolation of the accused Bs ri9ht to an attorne8 can 2e readil8 settled 28
readin9 the Ori9inal .ecords of this case. 1urin9 his arrai9n5ent, the accused 4as dul8
assisted 28 counsel de oficio, +tt8. Man9lic5ot. *he Order of the trial court dated "&
March &'A' directed the Citizens le9al +ssistance Office to thereafter represent the accused.
Clearl8, no 3iolation of the ri9ht to counsel 4as co55itted. *he paraffin test %4hich ca5e
out positi3e) conducted 4ithout the presence of counsel did not 3iolate the ri9ht a9ainst self#
incri5ination nor the ri9ht to counsel. S.:ette.
@. .i9ht to free le9al assistance
People 3. .io, "!& -C.+ (!" %&''&)
F6 On "' 1ece52er &'A', the accused#appellant .icardo .io, in t4o %") letters dated &F 1ece52er
&'A', addressed to 1i3ision Cler? of Court Fer5in J. /ar5a and to +ssistant Cler? of Court *o5asita M.
1ris, 5anifested his intention to 4ithdra4 the appeal due to his po3ert8.

Paraphrasin9 Mr. Justice Malcol5, =*4o %") of the 2asic pri3ile9es of the accused in a
cri5inal prosecution are the ri9ht to the assistance of counsel and the ri9ht to a preli5inar8
eEa5ination. President Mc?inle8 5ade the first a part of the Or9anic La4 in his Instructions to the
Co55ission 28 i5posin9 the in3iola2le rule that in all cri5inal prosecutions the accused Bshall
P+/E A
en7o8 the ri9ht ... to ha3e assistance of counsel for the defenseB =. *oda8 said ri9ht is enshrined in
the &'A( Constitution for, as Jud9e Coole8 sa8s, this is =perhaps the pri3ile9e 5ost i5portant to
the person accused of cri5e.=
=In cri5inal cases there can 2e no fair hearin9 unless the accused 2e 9i3en an opportunit8
to 2e heard 28 counsel. *he ri9ht to 2e heard 4ould 2e of little 5eanin9 if it does not include the
ri9ht to 2e heard 28 counsel. E3en the 5ost intelli9ent or educated 5an 5a8 ha3e no s?ill in the
science of the la4, particularl8 in the rules of procedure, and, 4ithout counsel, he 5a8 2e con3icted
not 2ecause he is 9uilt8 2ut 2ecause he does not ?no4 ho4 to esta2lish his innocence. +nd this can
happen 5ore easil8 to persons 4ho are i9norant or uneducated. It is for this reason that the ri9ht to
2e assisted 28 counsel is dee5ed so i5portant that it has 2eco5e a constitutional ri9ht and it is so
i5ple5ented that under our rules of procedure it is not enou9h for the Court to apprise an accused
of his ri9ht to ha3e an attorne8, it is not enou9h to as? hi5 4hether he desires the aid of an attor#
ne8, 2ut it is essential that the court should assi9n one de oficio for hi5 if he so desires and he is
poor, or 9rant hi5 a reasona2le ti5e to procure an attorne8 of his o4n.=
*his ri9ht to a counsel de oficio does not cease upon the con3iction of an accused 28 a
trial court. It continues, e3en durin9 appeal, such that the dut8 of the court to assi9n a counsel de
oficio persists 4here an accused interposes an intent to appeal. E3en in a case, such as the one at
2ar, 4here the accused had si9nified his intent to 4ithdra4 his appeal, the court is re:uired to
in:uire into the reason for the 4ithdra4al. >here it finds the sole reason for the 4ithdra4al to 2e
po3ert8, as in this case, the court 5ust assi9n a counsel de oficio, for despite such 4ithdra4al, the
dut8 to protect the ri9hts of the accused su2sists and perhaps, 4ith 9reater reason. +fter all, =those
4ho ha3e less in life 5ust ha3e 5ore in la4.= Justice should ne3er 2e li5ited to those 4ho ha3e the
5eans. It is for e3er8one, 4hether rich or poor. Its scales should al4a8s 2e 2alanced and should
ne3er e:ui3ocate or co9itate in order to fa3or one part8 o3er another.
It is 4ith this thou9ht in 5ind that 4e char9e cler?s of court of trial courts to 2e 5ore
circu5spect 4ith the dut8 i5posed on the5 28 la4 %-ection &@, .ule &"" of the .ules of Court) so
that courts 4ill 2e a2o3e reproach and that ne3er %if possi2le) 4ill an innocent person 2e sentenced
for a cri5e he has not co55itted nor the 9uilt8 allo4ed to 9o scot#free.
In this spirit, the Court ordered the appoint5ent of a counsel de oficio for the accused#
appellant and for said counsel and the -olicitor /eneral to file their respecti3e 2riefs, upon su25is#
sion of 4hich the case 4ould 2e dee5ed su25itted for decision.
Fro5 the records of the case, it is esta2lished that the accused# appellant 4as char9ed 4ith the
cri5e of rape in a 3erified co5plaint filed 28 co5plainant >il5a Phua .io, dul8 su2scri2ed 2efore @rd
+ssistant Fiscal .odolfo M. +le7andro of the pro3ince of .izal, 4hich reads as follo4s6
*hat on or a2out the "Fth da8 of March, &'AF, in the Municipalit8 of Muntinlupa, Metro Manila,
Philippines, a place 4ithin the 7urisdiction of this Donora2le Court, the a2o3e#na5ed accused, 28 5eans
of force and inti5idation did then and there 4ilfull8, unla4full8 and feloniousl8 ha3e carnal ?no4led9e of
the undersi9ned >il5a Phua a9ainst her 4ill.
On "$ June &'A, at the arrai9n5ent, the accused#appellant, assisted 28 +tt8. Leonido Manalo of
the Ma?ati CL+O office, as counsel de oficio, entered a plea of not 9uilt8 to the offense char9ed.
EEE
*he trial court found the accused#appellant 9uilt8 of the cri5e of rape.
*he theor8 of the defense at the trial le3el 4as 9rounded on ali2i. *he accused clai5ed that at the
ti5e of the alle9ed co55ission of the cri5e of rape he 4as in .o52lon. *his clai5 4as corro2orated 28
the accusedBs 2rother, +5ado .io. Do4e3er, this clai5 4as, as aforestated, re2utted 28 the prosecutionBs
su25ission of the 3oterBs affida3it eEecuted 28 the accused in Muntinlupa, Metro Manila on @& March
&'AF 4hen appellant clai5ed he 4as in .o52lon.
DEL16 On appeal, appellantBs counsel de oficio chan9ed the theor8 of the defense. *he ne4
theor8 presented 28 counsel de oficio is that >il5a Phua consented 4hen accused#appellant had
seEual intercourse 4ith her on "F March &'AF. It 4as stressed 28 counsel de oficio that the rape
occurred on "F March &'AF and that, alle9edl8, it 4as the fourth ti5e accused had a2used
P+/E A$
co5plainant. *his alle9ation as 4ell as the fact that co5plainant failed to loc? the door to the
2athroo5 could onl8 ha3e 2een due to the fact that there 4as consent. *he char9e 4as filed,
accordin9 to defense counsel de oficio, onl8 2ecause the co5plainantBs 5other cau9ht the5.
*his theor8 of the defense on appeal that there had 2een consent fro5 the co5plainant,
fails to 9enerate dou2t as to the accusedBs 9uilt, for it 4ould 2e an incredulous situation indeed to
2elie3e that one, so 8oun9 and as 8et uninitiated to the 4a8s of the 4orld, 4ould per5it the
occurrence of an incestuous relationship 4ith an uncle, a 2rother of her 3er8 o4n 5other. *he
Court notes the sudden s4ift in the theor8 of the defense fro5 one of total denial of the incident in
:uestion, 28 4a8 of ali2i, to one of participation, that is, 4ith the alle9ed consent of the
co5plainant. *his ne4 3ersion could onl8 2e attri2uted 28 the Court to the fact that counsel on
appeal is different fro5 the counsel in the trial court. +lthou9h the -olicitor /eneral has su99ested
that this sudden shift 2e interpreted as an afterthou9ht 28 the accused or a desperate effort to 9et
hi5self ac:uitted, the Court dee5s it 5ore li?el8 that this shift 4as caused 28 counsel de oficioBs
preparation of the appellantBs 2rief 4ithout eEa5inin9 the entire records of the case. If the
appointed counsel for the accused, on appeal, had read the records and transcripts of the case
thorou9hl8, he 4ould not ha3e chan9ed the theor8 of the defense for such a shift can ne3er spea?
4ell of the credi2ilit8 of the defense. Moreo3er, the rule in ci3il procedure, 4hich applies e:uall8 in
cri5inal cases, is that a part8 5a8 not shift his theor8 on appeal. If the counsel de oficio had 2een
5ore conscientious, he 4ould ha3e ?no4n that the sudden shift 4ould 2e 3iolati3e of
afore5entioned procedural rule and detri5ental to the cause of the accused#appellant %his client).
The Court hereby admonishes members of the Bar to be more conscious of their duties
as advocates of their clients; causes, whether acting de parte or de oficio, for "public interest re
quires that an attorney exert his best efforts and ability in the prosecution or defense of his
client;s cause." -awyers are an indispensable part of the whole system of administering 4ustice in
this 4urisdiction. %nd a lawyer who performs that duty with diligence and candor not only
protects the interests of his client? he also serves the ends of 4ustice, does honor to the Bar and
helps maintain the respect of the community to the legal profession. This is so because the
entrusted privilege to practice law carries with it correlative duties not only to the client but also
to the court, to the bar and to the public.
2hile a lawyer is not supposed to $now all the laws, he is expected to ta$e such
reasonable precaution in the discharge of his duty to his client and for his professional guidance
as will not ma$e him, who is sworn to uphold the law, a transgressor of its precepts.
The fact that he merely volunteered his services or the circumstance that he was a
counsel de oficio neither diminishes nor alters the degree of professional responsibility owed to
his client. The ethics of the profession require that counsel display warm *eal and great
dedication to duty irrespective of the client;s capacity to pay him his fees. %ny attempted
presentation of a case without adequate preparation distracts the administration of 4ustice and
discredits the Bar. G),nd(.
F. .i9ht to 2e infor5ed of nature and cause of accusation
*he arrai9n5ent in cri5inal prosecution is precisel8 intended to co5pl8 4ith the ri9ht of
the accused to 2e infor5ed of the nature and cause of the accusation a9ainst hi5. +s noted in Vera
3. People, procedural due process re:uires that the accused 5ust 2e infor5ed 4h8 he is 2ein9
prosecuted and 4hat char9e he 5ust 5eet.
Bor7a 3. Mendoza, (( -C.+ F"" %&'(()

0o valid trial in absentia without arraignment
P+/E A(
F6 Petitioner 4as accused of sli9ht ph8sical in7uries in the Cit8 Court of Ce2u. +fter one
postpone5ent due to petitionerBs failure to appear, the case 4as reset. +9ain, petitioner failed to appear,
despite notice to his 2onds5an. *he court then allo4ed the prosecution to present e3idence despite the fact
that petitioner had not 2een arrai9ned. +fter the offended part8 had testified and presented docu5entar8
e3idence, the court found petitioner 9uilt8. *he CFI affir5ed the decision. Dence, this petition for
certiorari.
DEL16 .espondent Jud9e co55itted a 9ra3e a2use of discretion and his decision is 3oid. Because
petitioner 4as not arrai9ned, he 4as not infor5ed of the nature and cause of accusation a9ainst
hi5. +rrai9n5ent is an indispensa2le re:uire5ent in an8 cri5inal proceedin9. VV.
. .i9ht to speed8, i5partial and pu2lic trial
%&) -peed8 *rial
*he ri9ht to a speed8 trial 5eans one that is free fro5 3eEatious and oppressi3e dela8s. Its
o27ecti3e is to free the innocent person fro5 anEiet8 and eEpense of a court liti9ation, or other4ise,
to ha3e his 9uilt deter5ined 4ithin the shortest possi2le ti5e, co5pati2le 4ith the presentation and
consideration of 4hate3er le9iti5ate defense the accused 5a8 interpose.
>hile reasona2le dela8 5a8 2e allo4ed as deter5ined on a case to case 2asis, an
unreasona2le dela8 on the part of the prosecution to present its case, there28 causin9 the threat of
penal lia2ilit8 to re5ain han9in9 o3er the head of the accused for an eEtended period of ti5e,
3iolates the ri9ht of the accused to a speed8 trial.
*he re5ed8 of the accused in this case is habeas corpus if he has 2een restrained of his
li2ert8, or certiorari, prohi2ition or 5anda5us for the final dis5issal of the caseJ and dis5issal
2ased on the denial of the ri9ht to speed8 trial a5ounts to an ac:uittal.
-o said the -C in +ce3edo 3. -ar5iento, @$ -C.+ "F( %&'(!), a case in3ol3in9 the
prosecution for da5a9e to propert8 throu9h rec?less i5prudence 4hich had 2een pendin9 for $
8ears, the last step ta?en 2ein9 the start of the cross#eEa5ination of the co5plainin9 4itness, 4ho
did not appear thereafter. *he -C ordered the case dis5issed 4ith pre7udice, thus ac:uittin9 the
accused.
+ce3edo 3. -ar5iento, @$ -C.+ "F( %&'(!)
%") Pu2lic *rial

+ pu2lic trial does not re:uire that the entire pu2lic can 4itness the trial. It is enou9h if it
is conducted at a place 4here oneBs relati3es and friends can 2e acco55odated and the pu2lic 5a8
?no4 4hat is 9oin9 on.
*he ri9ht is not a2solute. *he court can order the pu2lic out of the trial roo5 in the
interest of 5oralit8 and order.
In /arcia 3. 1o5in9o, " -C.+ &F@ %&'(!), the -C dis5issed the contention of one part8
that the trial 4as conducted inside the cha52er of the 7ud9e on the 9round that the o27ection ca5e
too late %the part8 onl8 co5plained after the &Fth hearin9) and that the place 4as a9reed upon 28
the parties for their 5utual con3enience %the 7ud9eBs roo5 4as air conditioned).
P+/E AA
/arcia 3. 1o5in9o, " -C.+ &F@ %&'(!)
*he pi3otal :uestion in this petition for certiorari and prohi2ition, one 4hich thus far has re5ained
unresol3ed, is the 5eanin9 to 2e accorded the constitutional ri9ht to pu2lic trial.
Issue6 Is the holdin9 of trial in the cha52ers of the 7ud9e 3iolati3e of the ri9ht to a pu2lic trialI
.ulin96 ,O
*he defendants in this case a9reed that the hearin9s 2e held in the cha52ers. On fourteen
separate occasions this 4as the case and there 4as no o27ection on their part. *here 4as no
e3idence to su2stantiate the clai5 that an8 other person 4as eEcluded fro5 the cha52ers. It is
thus e3ident that 4hat too? place in the cha52ers of the cit8 court 7ud9e 4as de3oid of haste or
intentional secrec8.
*he trial 5ust 2e pu2lic. It possesses that character 4hen an8one interested in o2ser3in9
the 5anner a 7ud9e conducts the proceedin9s in his courtroo5 5a8 do so. *here is to 2e no 2an on
such attendance. Dis 2ein9 a stran9er to the liti9ants is of no 5o5ent. ,o relationship to the parties
need 2e sho4n. *he thou9ht that lies 2ehind this safe9uard is the 2elief that there28 the accused is
afforded further protection, that his trial is li?el8 to 2e conducted 4ith re9ularit8 and not tainted
4ith an8 i5propriet8. It is not a5iss to recall that 1ele9ate Laurel in his terse su55ation the
i5portance of this ri9ht sin9led out its 2ein9 a deterrence to ar2itrariness. It is thus understanda2le
4h8 such a ri9ht is dee5ed e52raced in procedural due process. >here a trial ta?es place, as is
:uite usual, in the courtroo5 and a calendar of 4hat cases are to 2e heard is posted, no pro2le5
arises. It the usual course of e3ents that indi3iduals desirous of 2ein9 present are free to do so.
*here is the 4ell reco9nized eEception thou9h that 4arrants the eEclusion of the pu2lic 4here the
e3idence 5a8 2e characterized as =offensi3e to decenc8 or pu2lic 5orals.=
>hat did occasion difficult8 in this suit 4as that for the con3enience of the parties, and of
the cit8 court Jud9e, it 4as in the latterBs air#conditioned cha52ers that the trial 4as held. 1id that
suffice to in3esti9ate the proceedin9s as 3iolati3e of this ri9htI *he ans4er 5ust 2e in the ne9ati3e.
*here is no sho4in9 that the pu2lic 4as there28 eEcluded. It is to 2e ad5itted that the size of the
roo5 allotted the Jud9e 4ould reduce the nu52er of those 4ho could 2e present. -uch a fact
thou9h is not indicati3e of an8 trans9ression of this ri9ht. Courtroo5s are not of unifor5
di5ensions. -o5e are s5aller than others. Moreo3er, as ad5itted 28 Justice Blac? in his 5asterl8
In re Oli3er opinion, it suffices to satisf8 the re:uire5ent of a trial 2ein9 pu2lic if the accused
could =ha3e his friends, relati3es and counsel present, no 5atter 4ith 4hat offense he 5a8 2e
char9ed.=
*hen, too, reference 5a8 also 2e 5ade to the undisputed fact at least fourteen hearin9s had
2een held in cha52ers of the cit8 court Jud9e, 4ithout o27ection on the part of respondent
police5en. EEE G),nd(.
%@) I5partial trial
One aspect of an i5partial trial is a neutral 5a9istrate 4ho eEercises cold i5partialit8.
In *u5e8 3. Ohio, "(@ U.-. &! %&'"(), it 4as held that a to4n 5a8or 4ho 4as paid on
the 2asis of the fine he i5poses for e3er8 con3iction for 3iolation of the drin?in9 la4s, could not 2e
an i5partial 7ud9e. Under such a situation, he 4ould 2e interested in con3ictin9 those he tries so he
4ould earn 5ore.
*u5e8 3. Ohio, "(@ U.-. &! %&'"()
P+/E A'
+nother aspect of an i5partial trial is an i5partial tri2unal 2ound 28 the Bill of .i9hts and
the strict rules of e3idence and procedure.
In Ola9uer 3. Militar8 Co55ission, &! -C.+ &FF %&'A(), the -C held that a ci3ilian
cannot 2e tried 28 a 5ilitar8 court %in connection 4ith the Li9ht a Fire Mo3e5ent) so lon9 as the
ci3il courts are open and operatin9, e3en durin9 Martial La4.
$. .i9ht to confront 4itness
*he purpose of this ri9ht is to ena2le the accused to test the credi2ilit8 of the 4itness. *he
2est 5eans of confrontation is the process of cross#eEa5ination.
(. .i9ht to secure attendance of 4itnesses %and the production of e3idence in his
2ehalf)
*here are 3arious 5eans a3aila2le to the parties to co5pel the attendance of 4itnesses and
the production of docu5ents and thin9s needed in the prosecution or defense of a case in an
ad3ersarial 5anner6 su2poena and su2poena duces tecum6 depositions and other 5odes of
disco3er8J perpetuation of testi5onies.

A. *rial in %bsentia
+lthou9h the ri9ht to 2e present is not eEplicit in the pro3ision, it is inferra2le fro5 the
phrase =trial 5a8 proceed not4ithstandin9 the a2sence of the accused=
*his ri9ht to 2e present 5a8, ho4e3er, 2e 4ai3ed 28 the accused. .ule &&, sec, &%c),
tal?s of @ 4a8s that the 4ai3er 5a8 ta?e place6 %a) eEpress 4ai3er pursuant to the stipulations set
forth in his 2ail 2ond, unless his presence is specificall8 ordered 28 the court for purposes of
identificationJ %2) i5plied 4ai3er 4hen the accused 4ithout an8 7ustifia2le cause is a2sent at the
trial on a particular date of 4hich he had noticeJ and %c) i5plied 4ai3er 4hen the accused under
custod8 4ho had 2een notified of the date of trial escapes.
In cases in 4hich there ha3e 2een a 4ai3er of the ri9ht to 2e present, 4hether eEpressed or
i5plied, the trial 5a8 2e held =in absentia=. *he re:uisites of a 3alid trial in absentia are6 %i) the
accused has 2een arrai9nedJ %ii) he 4as dul8 notified of the hearin9J and %iii) his failure to attend
the trial is un7ustified.
*here can 2e no 3alid trial in absentia unless the accused has 2een arrai9ned, ruled the -C
in Boria 3. Mendoza, (( -C.+ F"" %&'((), a case in3ol3in9 a char9e for sli9ht ph8sical in7uries
4here the accused failed to appear and so the trial court allo4ed the prosecution to present its
e3idence e3en if the accused has not 8et 2een arrai9ned. +rrai9n5ent is crucial 2ecause it infor5s
the accued of the nature and cause of the accusation a9ainst hi5. Con3iction 4ithout arrai9n5ent
3iolates due process and ousts the court of its 7urisdiction.
Boria 3. Mendoza, (( -C.+ F"" %&'((), supra.
P+/E '!
DEL16 *he su2se:uent trial in absentia depri3ed petitioner of his ri9ht to 2e heard 28 hi5self and
counsel. *he indispensa2le re:uire5ent for trial in absentia is that it should co5e after
arrai9n5ent. VV.
>ai3er of the ri9ht to 2e present i5plies also 4ai3er of the ri9ht to present e3idence.
*hus, if the accused fails to attend trial %4hich presupposes arrai9n5ent), 4ithout an8 7ustifia2le
cause, the prosecution can proceed 4ith the presentation of the e3idence, and thereupon, the court
5a8 consider the case su25itted for decision. *he court 4ill decide the case on the 2asis onl8 of
the prosecutionBs e3idence. *his does not 3iolate the constitutional presu5ption of innocence
2ecause it does not 5ean that the 7ud95ent of the trial court 4ill result in con3iction.
-o ruled the -C in People 3. -alas, &F@ -C.+ &$@ %&'A$), 4hich further ruled that trial in
absentia applies e3en to capital cases.
People 3. -alas &F@ -C.+ &$@ %&'A$)
Trial in absentia applies even to capital cases
F6 Mario +2on9 4as ori9inall8 char9ed 4ith ho5icide in the CFI Ce2u 2ut 2efore he could 2e
arrai9ned, the case 4as rein3esti9ated on 5otion of the prosecution. +s a result of the rein3esti9ation, an
a5ended infor5ation 4as filed, 4ith no 2ail reco55ended, to 4hich he pleaded not 9uilt8. *rial
co55enced 2ut 4hile it 4as in pro9ress, the prisoner too? ad3anta9e of the first infor5ation filed and
succeeded in decei3in9 the cit8 court of Ce2u into 9rantin9 hi5 2ail and orderin9 his release. *he
respondent Jud9e, learnin9 of the tric?er8, cancelled the ille9al 2ail 2ond and ordered +2on9Bs re#arrest.
But he 4as 9one. ,onetheless, the prosecution 5o3ed that the hearin9 continue in accordance 4ith the
constitutional pro3ision authorizin9 trial in a2sentia. *he respondent Jud9e denied the 5otion and
suspended all proceedin9s until the return of the accused. Dence, this petition.
DEL16 *he doctrine laid do4n in People 3. +3anceNa has 2een 5odified 28 +rt. IV, sec. &' Gno4
+rt. III, sec. &F%") of the &'A( ConstitutionH 4hich allo4s trial in absentia. *he prisoner cannot 28
si5pl8 escapin9 th4art his continued prosecution and possi2le e3entual con3iction pro3ided onl8
that %a) he has 2een arrai9nedJ %2) he has 2een dul8 notified of the trialJ and %c) his failure to
appear is un7ustified. *he ri9ht to 2e present at oneBs trial 5a8 no4 2e 4ai3ed eEcept onl8 at that
sta9e 4here the prosecution intends to present 4itnesses 4ho 4ill identif8 the accused. *he
defendantBs escape 4ill 2e considered a 4ai3er of this ri9ht and the ina2ilit8 of the court to notif8
hi5 of the su2se:uent hearin9s 4ill not pre3ent it fro5 continuin9 4ith his trial. VV.
*rial in absentia 4as introduced onl8 in the &'(@ Constitution to re5ed8 a situation in
4hich cri5inal prosecution could not 5o3e 2ecause the accused has either escaped or 7u5ped 2ail.
In People 3. Prieto, AF -C.+ &'A %&'(A), the -C ruled that trial in absentia does not
7ustif8 the accused to 7u5p 2ail. Just 2ecause th Constitution allo4s trial in absentia does not
5ean that the accused is no4 free to 4ai3e his ri9ht to 2e present durin9 the trial. If he does, he
runds the ris? of ha3in9 his 2ail 2ond forfeited.
People 3. Prieto AF -C.+ &'A %&'(A)
&rovision for trial in absentia not a 4ustification for 4umping bail
P+/E '&
F6 For repeated failure of the accused 1ario /a5a8on to appear, respondent Jud9e declared the 2ail
2ond forfeited and re:uired the 2onds5en to produce the accused 4ithin thirt8 da8s and to sho4 cause
4h8 no 7ud95ent should 2e rendered a9ainst the5. Do4e3er, on 5otion of defense counsel, 4ho in3o?ed
the last sentence of +rt. IV, section &' Gno4 +rt. III, sec. &F%")H on trial in a2sentia, respondent Jud9e
reconsidered his order. De ar9ued that =if trial could 2e conducted after the accused has 2een arrai9ned
and identified, the conclusion is inescapa2le that issuin9 an order of forfeiture of the 2ail 2ond is
pre5ature.= *he prosecution filed a petition for certiorari.
DEL16 *he inno3ation introduced 28 the present Constitution 9oes no further than to ena2le a
7ud9e to continue 4ith the trial e3en if the accused is not present under the conditions therein
specified. It does not 9i3e the accused the ri9ht to 7u5p 2ail. VV.
/i5enez 3. ,azareno, &$! -C.+ & %&'AA)
In trial in absentia accused waives the right to present evidence and confront witnesses
F6 *eodoro dela Ve9a Jr., to9ether 4ith fi3e others, 4as char9ed 4ith 5urder. +fter arrai9n5ent,
durin9 4hich he pleaded not 9uilt8, the case 4as set for hearin9 on -ept. &A, &'(@ 2ut he escaped. De 4as
tried in absentia. *he trial court rendered 7ud95ent dis5issin9 the case a9ainst his co#accused 2ut it held
in a2e8ance the proceedin9s a9ainst hi5 in order to 9i3e hi5 the chance to cross eEa5ine the 4itnesses
a9ainst hi5 and present e3idence. Dence, this petition for certiorari.
DEL16 >as the 7urisdiction lost 4hen the accused escaped fro5 the custod8 of the la4 and failed
to appear durin9 the trialI ,o. +s 4e ha3e consistentl8 ruled, 7urisdiction once ac:uired is not lost
upon the instance of parties 2ut continues until the case is ter5inated. *he lo4er court 4as correct
in proceedin9 4ith the reception of e3idence 2ut it erred 4hen is suspended the proceedin9s as to
the respondent. *he court need not 4ait for the ti5e until the accused finall8 decides to appear. *o
allo4 this dela8 is to render ineffecti3e the constitutional pro3ision on trial in absentia. VV.
'. >hen presence of the accused is a 1U*0
In People 3. +3ancena, @" O./. (&@, the -C held that %a) the accused has the ri9ht to 2e
present durin9 trialJ %2) if he is in the custod8 of the la4, presence in all sta9e is li?e4ise a dut8
durin9 %i) arrai9n5ent, %ii) enterin9 a plea, and %iii) pro5ul9ation of 7ud95ent. *his rule ho4e3er
has 2een 5odified.
+s thin9s stand, the follo4in9 are the rules6
&. /enerall8, the accused has the ri9ht to 2e present at all sta9es the trial %fro5
arrai9n5ent to rendition of 7ud95ent).
". If the accused is in the custod8 of the la4, his presence durin9 the trial is a dut8 onl8 if
the court orders his presence to ena2le the prosecution 4itnesses to identif8 hi5. %People 3. -alas,
infra. reiteratin9 +:uino 3. Militar8 Co55iission, infra. 5odif8in9 People 3. +3ancena, infra.)
@. +lthou9h the accused is not in the custod8 of the la4 %and 5ore so if he is in the
custod8 of the la4), his presence is re:uired in the follo4in9 cases6
a) +rrai9n5ent, re9ardless of the offenseJ
P+/E '"
2) Enterin9 a plea, re9ardless of 4hether the plea is 9uilt8 or not 9uilt8.
c) Pro5ul9ation of 7ud95ent, eEcept that 4hen the 7ud95ent is for a li9ht offense,
he 5a8 2e represented 28 his counsel or a personal e5issar8.
a. +rrai9n5ent and plea, 4hether of innocence or of 9uilt
R.)e 116 Se%. 1. &rraignment and plea$ how made.--
;;;
=*A T'e (%%.sed 1.st *e &$esent (t t'e ($$(i2n1ent (nd 1.st &e$son()), ente$ 'is
&)e(. 4ot' ($$(i2n1ent (nd &)e( s'()) *e 1(de o+ $e%o$d *.t ( +(i).$e to ente$ o+ $e%o$d s'())
not (++e%t t'e v()idit, o+ t'e &$o%eedin2s.
2. 1urin9 trial, for identification
People 3. +3ancena, @" O./. (&@
+:uino 3. Militar8 Co55ission ,o. ", $@ -C.+ F$ %&'()
People 3. -alas, &F@ -C.+ &$@ %&'A$), supra.
DEL16 *he ri9ht to 2e present at oneBs trial 5a8 no4 2e 4ai3ed eEcept onl8 at that sta9e
4here the prosecution intends to present 4itnesses 4ho 4ill identif8 the accused. VV.
c. Pro5ul9ation of sentence, unless it is for a li9ht offense, in 4hich case
accused 5a8 appear by counsel, or a representative %.ule &"!, -ec. $.)
E. Pri3iled9e a9ainst self incri5ination
A$t. III Se%. 1J. No &e$son s'()) *e %o1&e))ed to *e ( -itness (2(inst 'i1se)+.
+n8 confession or ad5ission o2tained in 3iolation of section &( hereof shall 2e
inad5issi2le in e3idence a9ainst hi5. G+rt. III, -ec. &" %@)H
&. -cope of pri3ile9e6 Co5pulsor8 *esti5onial self#incri5ination
*he pri3ile9e co3ers onl8 testi5onial incri5ination o2tained co5pulsoril8. It refers
therefore to the use of the 5ental process and the co55unicati3e faculties, and not to a 5erel8
ph8sical acti3it8. If the act is ph8sical or 5echanical, the accused can 2e co5pelled to allo4 or
perfor5 the act, and the result can 2e used in e3idence a9ainst hi5.
*hus the accused can 2e re:uired to allo4 a sa5ple of a su2stance ta?en fro5 his 2od8
%U.-. 3. *an *eh. "@, Phil. &F %&'&")).
U.-. 3. *an *en9. "@, Phil. &F %&'&")
P+/E '@
F6 *his defendant 4as char9ed 4ith the cri5e of rape. De 4as found 9uilt8 of the char9e. De
appeals the decision on the 9round that the lo4er court erred in ad5ittin9 the testi5on8 of the ph8sicians
a2out ha3in9 ta?en a certain su2stance fro5 the 2od8 of the accused 4hile he 4as confined in 7ail and
re9ardin9 the che5ical anal8sis 5ade of the su2stance to de5onstrate the ph8sical condition of the
accused 4ith reference to a 3enereal disease. It 4as disco3ered that the rape 3icti5 4as infected 28
3enereal disease so that the findin9 of 3enereal disease in the accused 4as 5aterial to his con3iction.
Upon this infor5ation the defendant 4as arrested and ta?en to the police station and stripped of
his clothin9 and eEa5ined. *he police5an 4ho eEa5ined the defendant s4ore fro5 the 3enereal disease
?no4n as 9onorrhea. *he police5an too? a portion of the su2stance e5ittin9 fro5 the 2od8 of the
defendant and turned it o3er to the Bureau of -cience for the purpose of ha3in9 a scientific anal8sis 5ade
of the sa5e. *he result of the eEa5ination sho4ed that the defendant 4as sufferin9 fro5 9onorrhea.
Issue6 >hether or not the infor5ation that the accused has 9onorrhea 5a8 2e used a9ainst hi5
.ulin96 0E-. *he accused 4as not co5pelled to 5a?e an8 ad5issions or ans4er an8 :uestions,
and the 5ere fact that an o27ect found on his person 4as eEa5ined6 see5s no 5ore to infrin9e the
rule in3o?ed, than 4ould the introduction in e3idence of stolen propert8 ta?en fro5 the person of a
thief.
*he su2stance 4as ta?en fro5 the 2od8 of the defendant 4ithout his o27ection, the
eEa5ination 4as 5ade 28 co5petent 5edical authorit8 and the result sho4ed that the defendant
4as sufferin9 fro5 said disease. +s 4as su99ested 28 Jud9e Lo2in9ier, had the defendant 2een
found 4ith stolen propert8 upon his person, there certainl8 could ha3e 2een no :uestion had the
stolen propert8 2een ta?en for the purpose of usin9 the sa5e as e3idence a9ainst hi5. -o also if the
clothin9 4hich he 4ore, 28 reason of 2lood stains or other4ise, had furnished e3idence of the
co55ission of a cri5e, there certainl8 could ha3e 2een no o27ection to ta?in9 such for the purpose
of usin9 the sa5e as proof. ,o one 4ould thin? of e3en su99estin9 that stolen propert8 and the
clothin9 in the case indicated, ta?en fro5 the defendant, could not 2e used a9ainst hi5 as e3idence,
4ithout 3iolatin9 the rule that a person shall not 2e re:uired to 9i3e testi5on8 a9ainst hi5self.
But the prohi2ition of co5pellin9 a 5an in a cri5inal court to 2e a 4itness a9ainst hi5self,
is a prohi2ition of the use of ph8sical or 5oral co5pulsion, to eEtort co55unications fro5 hi5,
not an eEclusion of his 2od8 as e3idence, 4hen it 5a8 2e 5aterial. *he o27ection, in principle,
4ould for2id a 7ur8 %court) to loo? at a person and co5pare his features 4ith a photo9raph in
proof. Moreo3er 4e are not considerin9 ho4 far a court 4ould 9o in co5pellin9 a 5an to eEhi2it
hi5self, for 4hen he is eEhi2ited, 4hether 3oluntaril8 or 28 order, e3en if the order 9oes too far, the
e3idence if 5aterial, is co5petent.
*he prohi2ition contained in section of the Philippine Bill that a person shall not 2e
co5pelled to 2e a 4itness a9ainst hi5self, is si5pl8 a prohi2ition a9ainst le9al process to eEtract
fro5 the defendantBs o4n lips, a9ainst his 4ill, an ad5ission of his 9uilt.
Mr. >i95ore, in his 3alua2le 4or? on e3idence, in discussin9 the :uestion 2efore us, said6
If, in other 4ords, it %the rule) created in3iola2ilit8 not onl8 for his Gph8sical controlH in
4hate3er for5 eEercised, then it 4ould 2e possi2le for a 9uilt8 person to shut hi5self up in his
house, 4ith all the tools and indicia of his cri5e, and def8 the authorit8 of the la4 to e5plo8 in
e3idence an8thin9 that 5i9ht 2e o2tained 28 forci2l8 o3erthro4in9 his possession and co5pellin9
the surrender of the e3idential articles a clear reductio ad absurdum. In other 4ords, it is not
5erel8 co5pulsion that is the ?ernel of the pri3ile9e, . . . 2ut testi5onial co5pulsion. %F >i95ore,
sec. ""$@.)
*he 5ain purpose of the pro3ision of the Philippine Bill is to prohi2it co5pulsor8 oral
eEa5ination of prisoners 2efore trial. or upon trial, for the purpose of eEtortin9 un4illin9
confessions or declarations i5plicatin9 the5 in the co55ission of a cri5e. %People 3s. /ardner,
&FF ,. 0., &&'.)
*he doctrine contended for 28 appellant 4ould prohi2it courts fro5 loo?in9 at the fact of a
defendant e3en, for the purpose of disclosin9 his identit8. -uch an application of the prohi2ition
P+/E 'F
under discussion certainl8 could not 2e per5itted. -uch an inspection of the 2odil8 features 28 the
court or 28 4itnesses, can not 3iolate the pri3ile9e 9ranted under the Philippine Bill, 2ecause it
does not call upon the accused as a 4itness it does not call upon the defendant for his testi5onial
responsi2ilit8. Mr. >i95ore sa8s that e3idence o2tained in this 4a8 fro5 the accused, is not
testi5on8 2ut his 2od8 his 2od8 itself. G),nd(.
*he accused can 2e ordered to eEpel the 5orphine fro5 his 5outh %U.-. 3. On9 -io Don9
@$ Phil (@, %&'&()).
U.-. 3. On9 -io Don9 @$ Phil (@, %&'&()
Counsel for appellant raises the constitutional :uestion that the accused 4as co5pelled to
2e a 4itness a9ainst hi5self. *he contention is that this 4as the result of forcin9 the accused to
dischar9e the 5orphine fro5 his 5outh. *o force a prohi2ited dru9 fro5 the person of an accused
is alon9 the sa5e line as re:uirin9 hi5 to eEhi2it hi5self 2efore the courtJ or puttin9 in e3idence
papers and other articles ta?en fro5 the roo5 of an accused in his a2senceJ or, as in the *an *en9
case, ta?in9 a su2stance fro5 the 2od8 of the accused to 2e used in pro3in9 his 9uilt. It 4ould 2e a
forced construction of the para9raph of the Philippine Bill of .i9hts in :uestion to hold that an8
article, su2stance, or thin9 ta?en fro5 a person accused of cri5e could not 2e 9i3en in e3idence.
*he 5ain purpose of this constitutional pro3ision is to prohi2it testi5onial co5pulsion 28 oral
eEa5ination in order to eEtort un4illin9 confessions fro5 prisoners i5plicatin9 the5 in the
co55ission of a cri5e. %Darris 3s. Coats G&AAH, ( /a., F&.)
*he accused can 2e 5ade to ta?e off her 9ar5ents and shoes and 2e photo9raphed.
%People 3. Otadura, '$ Phil "FF %&'!)).
People 3. Otadura, '$ Phil "FF %&'!)
+ 4o5an accused of adulter8 can 2e co5pelled to sho4 her 2od8 for ph8sical
in3esti9ation to see if she is pre9nant %Villaflor 3. -u55ers, F& Phil. $" %&'"!)). Vie4ed a9ainst
present standards, ho4e3er, it is possi2le that this 5ethod of deter5inin9 pre9nanc8 4ould 3iolate
due process as 2ein9 too 2ar2aric.
Villaflor 3. -u55ers, F& Phil. $" %&'"!)
F6 *he facts are not dispute. In a cri5inal case pendin9 2efore the Court of First Instance of the cit8
of Manila, E5eteria Villaflor and Florentino -ouin9co are char9ed 4ith the cri5e of adulter8. *he court
ordered the defendant E5eteria Villaflor, to su25it her 2od8 to the eEa5ination of one or t4o co5petent
doctors to deter5ine if she 4as pre9nant or not. *he accused refused to o2e8 the order on the 9round that
such eEa5ination of her person 4as a 3iolation of the constitutional pro3ision relatin9 to self#
incri5ination. *hereupon she 4as found in conte5pt of court and 4as ordered to 2e co55itted to Bili2id
Prison until she should per5it the 5edical eEa5ination re:uired 28 the court.
Issue6 >hether the co5pellin9 of a 4o5an to per5it her 2od8 to 2e eEa5ined 28 ph8sicians to
deter5ine if she is pre9nant, 3iolates that portion of the Philippine Bill of .i9hts
.ulin96 *he constitutional 9uarant8, that no person shall 2e co5pelled in an8 cri5inal case to 2e a
4itness a9ainst hi5self, is li5ited to a prohi2ition a9ainst co5pulsor8 testi5onial self#
P+/E '
incri5ination. *he corollar8 to the proposition is that, an ocular inspection of the 2od8 of the
accused is per5issi2le. *he pro3iso is that torture of force shall 2e a3oided. >hether facts fall
4ithin or 4ithout the rule 4ith its corollar8 and pro3iso 5ust, of course, 2e decided as cases arise.
It is a reasona2le presu5ption that in an eEa5ination 28 reputa2le and disinterested
ph8sicians due care 4ill 2e ta?en not to use 3iolence and not to e52arass the patient an8 5ore than
is a2solutel8 necessar8. Indeed, no o27ection to the ph8sical eEa5ination 2ein9 5ade 28 the fa5il8
doctor of the accused or 28 doctor of the sa5e seE can 2e seen. G),nd(.
*he ta?in9 of footprint sa5ple to see if it 5atches the ones found in the scene of the cri5e
is allo4ed %People 3. -alas and People 3. -ara).
Do4e3er, 5a?in9 the accused ta?e dictation to 9et a speci5en of her hand4ritin9 is not
allo4ed, for this in3ol3es the use of the 5ental process. GBer5udez 3. Castillo, $F Phil. FA
%&'@().H
Ber5udez 3. Castillo, $F Phil. FA %&'@()
F6 In connection 4ith this ad5inistrati3e case, said respondent filed, siE letters 4hich, for purposes
of identification, 4ere 5ar?ed as EEhi2its @", @F, @, @$ and @(. De contends that said siE letters are the
co5plainantBs, 2ut the latter denied it 4hile she 4as testif8in9 as a 4itness in re2uttal.
.espondent re:uired co5plainant to cop8 the letters in her o4n hand4ritin9 in the presence of
the in3esti9ator. *he co5plainant, refused in3o?in9 her ri9ht not to incri5inate herself. *he in3esti9ator,
upholdin9 the co5plainant, did not co5pel her to su25it to the trial re:uired, there28 den8in9 the
respondentBs petition.
Issue6 >hether or not the co5plainant 5a8 2e forced to 5a?e a cop8 of the letters in her o4n
hand4ritin9
.ulin96 ,o. It 4ould 3iolate her ri9ht a9ainst self# incri5ination.
*he constitution pro3ides6 =,o person shall 2e co5pelled to 2e a 4itness a9ainst hi5self.=
It should 2e noted that 2efore it 4as atte5pted to re:uire the co5plainant to cop8 the siE
docu5ents a2o3e#stated, she had s4orn to tell the truth 2efore the in3esti9ator authorized to recei3e
state5ents under oath, and under said oath she asserted that the docu5ents in :uestion had not
2een 4ritten 28 her. >ere she co5pelled to 4rite and 4ere it pro3en 28 5eans of 4hat she 5i9ht
4rite later that said docu5ents had reall8 2een 4ritten 28 her, it 4ould 2e i5possi2le for her to
e3ade prosecution for per7ur8.
*he reason for the pri3ile9e appears e3ident. *he purpose thereof is positi3el8 to a3oid and
prohi2it there28 the repetition and recurrence of the certainl8 inhu5an procedure of co5pellin9 a
person, in a cri5inal or an8 other case, to furnish the 5issin9 e3idence necessar8 for his
con3iction. If such is its purpose, then the e3idence 5ust 2e sou9ht else4hereJ and if it is desired to
disco3er e3idence in the person hi5self, then he 5ust 2e pro5ised and assured at least a2solute
i55unit8 28 one authorized to do so le9all8, or he should 2e as?ed, one for all, to furnish such
e3idence 3oluntaril8 4ithout an8 condition. *his court is of the opinion that in order that the
constitutional pro3ision under consideration 5a8 pro3e to 2e a real protection and not a dead letter,
it 5ust 2e 9i3en a li2eral and 2road interpretation fa3ora2le to the person in3o?in9 it.
In 3ie4 of the fore9oin9 consideration and holdin9, as it is here28 held, that the
co5plainant is perfectl8 entitled to the pri3ile9e in3o?ed 28 her, the respondentBs petition is denied.
G),nd(.
+lso re:uirin9 the accused to reenact the cri5e is not allo4ed, for this also in3ol3es the
5ental process.
P+/E '$
B+.LO,/+0 C+-E-6
People 3. Ol3is, &F -C.+ "
F6 Villaro7o, Cade5as and -orela 4ere con3icted in the lo4er court of 5urder for the death of
Ba9on. Ol3is, the alle9ed principal 28 induce5ent, 4as ac:uitted. *he three accused 4ere con3icted on
the 2asis of the eEtra7udicial confessions eEecuted 28 the5 in the presence of a counsel su55oned 28 the
,BI to handle appellantsB case, and the reenact5ent done 28 the5 of the circu5stances surroundin9 the
?illin9.
.ULI,/6 *he eEtra7udicial confessions are inad5issi2le. *he8 4ere 5ade in the presence of a
counsel su55oned 28 the ,BI and not of appellantsB o4n choice. De cannot therefore 2e said to
ha3e 2een actin9 on 2ehalf of the accused 4hen he lent his presence at the confession proceedin9s.
But the accused 4ere denied their ri9ht to counsel not once 2ut t4ice 4hen the8 4ere
forced to re#enact the cri5e. Forced re#enact5ents li?e uncounselled and coerced confessions co5e
4ithin the 2an a9ainst self#incri5ination. *his constitutional pri3ile9e has 2een defined as a
protection a9ainst testi5onial co5pulsion 2ut this has since 2een eEtended to an8 e3idence
co55unicati3e in nature ac:uired under circu5stances of duress. Essentiall8, the ri9ht is 5eant to
a3oid and prohi2it positi3el8 the repetition and recurrence of the certainl8 inhu5an procedure of
co5pellin9 a person, in a cri5inal or an8 other case, to furnish the 5issin9 e3idence necessar8 for
his con3iction. C'($o.
People 3. /o, "@( -C.+ (@
F6 +fter a 2u8#2ust operation accused 4ere arrested 28 the police. Upon the presentation of a search
4arrant, the house of the accused 4as searched, and se3eral prohi2ited dru9s 4ere seized. *he8 4ere
char9ed 4ith and con3icted of 3iolation of the 1an9erous 1ru9s la4. *he8 contended that the8 had not
2een sho4n a search 4arrant. In concludin9 that a search 4arrant had 2een presented to the accused prior
to the search, the trial court relied on a docu5ent entitiled RCertificate of .e#conduct of -earchS, si9ned
28 the accused.
I--UE6 >hether or not such docu5ent is ad5issi2le in e3idence.
.ULI,/6 I* C+,,O* BE +1MI**E1 I, I*- E,*I.E*0.
*he second para9raph of the Certification a5ounts to an i5plied ad5ission that sha2u, the
5ar?ed 5one8, and sha2u papaphernalia had 2een found 28 the police authorities at the residence
of the /o spouses and therefore, su27ect to the control and custod8 of the accused %the spouses)
and necessaril8 in their possession. *o this eEtent, the RCertificationS is a declaration a9ainst the
interest and tacit ad5ission of the cri5e char9ed. *he second para9raph of the Certification is a
self#incri5inator8 stat5ent 5ade at a ti5e 4hen the spouses 4ere not assisted 28 counsel and
under circu5stances %in the course of or i55ediatel8 after the search of the residence and seizure
of :uantities of sha2u) 4hich render intelli9ent 4ai3er of their ri9ht a9ainst self#incri5ination open
to serious dou2t.
*he Court considers that there is nothin9 to pre3ent ad5ission of the RCertificationS to
su2stantiate the fact that a search 4arrant issued 28 a 7ud9e had 2een 2rou9ht to the attention of
the spouses in the course of the raid or 2u8#2ust operation carried out at their residence and that in
the course thereof, no force or inti5idation had 2een eEercised upon the spouses.
,ot4ithstandin9 such, the accused 4ere con3icted of the cri5e char9ed a9ainst the5.
4(1.
P+/E '(
". In 4hat proceedin9s a3aila2le
*he pri3ile9e is a3aila2le in an8 proceedin9s, e3en outside the court, for the8 5a8
e3entuall8 lead to a cri5inal prosecution.
In Pascual 3. Board of Medical EEa5iners, "A -C.+ @FF %&'$'), the -C held that the
pri3ile9e a9ainst self#incri5ination eEtends to ad5inistrati3e proceedin9s 4hich possess a cri5inal
or penal aspect. In this case, it 4as held that a doctor 4ho 4as 2ein9 in3esti9ated 28 a 5edical
2oard for alle9ed 5alpractice and 4ould lose his license if found 9uilt8, could not 2e co5pelled to
ta?e the 4itness stand 4ithout his consent.
Pascual 3. Board of Medical EEa5iners, "A -C.+ @FF %&'$')
F6 +rsenio Pascual, Jr., petitioner#appellee, filed on Fe2ruar8 &, &'$ 4ith the Court of First
Instance of Manila an action for prohi2ition 4ith pra8er for preli5inar8 in7unction a9ainst the Board of
Medical EEa5iners, no4 respondent#appellant. It 4as alle9ed therein that at the initial hearin9 of an
ad5inistrati3e case for alle9ed i55oralit8, counsel for co5plainants announced that he 4ould present as
his first 4itness herein petitioner# appellee, 4ho 4as the respondent in such 5alpractice char9e.
*hereupon, petitioner#appellee, throu9h counsel, 5ade of record his o27ection, rel8in9 on the
constitutional ri9ht to 2e eEe5pt fro5 2ein9 a 4itness a9ainst hi5self. .espondent#appellant, the Board of
EEa5iners, too? note of such a plea, at the sa5e ti5e statin9 that at the neEt scheduled hearin9, on
Fe2ruar8 &", &'$, petitioner#appellee 4ould 2e called upon to testif8 as such 4itness, unless in the
5eanti5e he could secure a restrainin9 order fro5 a co5petent authorit8.
+ decision 4as rendered 28 the lo4er court on +u9ust ", &'$, findin9 the clai5 of petitioner#
appellee to 2e 4ell#founded and prohi2itin9 respondent Board =fro5 co5pellin9 the petitioner to act and
testif8 as a 4itness for the co5plainant in said in3esti9ation 4ithout his consent and a9ainst hi5self.=
DEL16 Petitioner could suffer the re3ocation of his license as a 5edical practitioner, for so5e an
e3en 9reater depri3ation.
>h8 it should 2e thus is not difficult to discern. *he constitutional 9uarantee, alon9 4ith
other ri9hts 9ranted an accused, stands for a 2elief that 4hile cri5e should not 9o unpunished and
that the truth 5ust 2e re3ealed, such desira2le o27ecti3es should not 2e acco5plished accordin9 to
5eans or 5ethods offensi3e to the hi9h sense of respect accorded the hu5an personalit8. More and
5ore in line 4ith the de5ocratic creed, the deference accorded an indi3idual e3en those suspected
of the 5ost heinous cri5es is 9i3en due 4ei9ht. *o :uote fro5 Chief Justice >arren, =the
constitutional foundation underl8in9 the pri3ile9e is the respect a 9o3ern5ent ... 5ust accord to the
di9nit8 and inte9rit8 of its citizens.=
*hus accordin9 to Justice 1ou9las6 =*he Fifth +5end5ent in its -elf#Incri5ination clause
ena2les the citizen to create a zone of pri3ac8 4hich 9o3ern5ent 5a8 not force to surrender to his
detri5ent.= -o also 4ith the o2ser3ation of the late Jud9e Fran? 4ho spo?e of =a ri9ht to a pri3ate
encla3e 4here he 5a8 lead a pri3ate life. *hat ri9ht is the hall5ar? of our de5ocrac8.= In the li9ht
of the a2o3e, it could thus clearl8 appear that no possi2le o27ection could 2e le9iti5atel8 raised
a9ainst the correctness of the decision no4 on appeal. >e hold that in an ad5inistrati3e hearin9
a9ainst a 5edical practitioner for alle9ed 5alpractice, respondent Board of Medical EEa5iners
cannot, consistentl8 4ith the self#incri5ination clause, co5pel the person proceeded a9ainst to ta?e
the 4itness stand 4ithout his consent. G),nd(.
In /al5an 3. Pa5aran, infra, the pri3ile9e 4as held to eEtend to fact#findin9 in3esti9ation
28 an adhoc 2od8.
P+/E 'A
/al5an 3. Pa5aran, &@A -C.+ "(F %&'A)
% person can be compelled to testify provided he is given immunity coextensive with the
privilege against self incrimination
F6 *he respondents led 28 /eneral Fa2ian Ver and Ma7or /eneral Prospero Oli3as testified 2efore
the +9ra3a Board loo?in9 into the ?illin9 of for5er -enator Beni9no +:uino. *he8 4ere su2se:uentl8
accused of 5urder in t4o cases for the ?illin9 of -en. +:uino and .olando /al5an. *he8 4ere char9ed as
accessories in 2oth. *he prosecution offered in e3idence the testi5on8 of Ver and Oli3as 2efore the +9ra3a
Board, 2ut on the latterBs o27ections, the -andi9an2a8an eEcluded the testi5on8. *he pri3ate and pu2lic
prosecutions filed petitions for certiorari.
DEL16 *he persons su55oned to testif8 2efore the +9ra3a Board 4ere =under in3esti9ation for
the co55ission of the offense= 4ithin the 5eanin9 of +rt. III, sec. &". It is to 2e noted that the
fra5ers of the Constitution did not adopt the Miranda reference to =custodial in3esti9ation.= *he
su27ect 5atter dealt 4ith and the :uestionin9 2efore the +9ra3a Board indu2ita2l8 e3inced
purposes other than 5erel8 deter5inin9 the surroundin9 facts and circu5stances of the
assassination. *he respondents 4ere called to deter5ine their pro2a2le in3ol3e5ent in the cri5e.
0et the8 4ere not infor5ed or at the 3er8 least 4arned of their ri9ht to re5ain silent and that an8
state5ent 9i3en 28 the5 5a8 2e used a9ainst the5. *he first portion of -ec. of P1 &AA$ denied
the5 the ri9ht to re5ain silent, and 9a3e po4er to the Board to punish refusal to testif8. *he -C
said it is not satisfied that 4hen the8 testified the8 4ai3ed their constitutional ri9ht not 2e
co5pelled to 2e a 4itness a9ainst the5sel3es, 5uch less their ri9ht to re5ain silent. *he -C also
said it cannot 2e contended that the pri3ile9e a9ainst self# incri5ination applies onl8 to cri5inal
prosecutions. +rt. III, sec. &( of the Const. pro3ides that =,o person shall 2e co5pelled to 2e a
4itness a9ainst hi5self.= VV.
Co5pare People 3. +8son, &( -C.+ "&$ %&'A'), supra.
@. =Use and Fruit I55unit8= 3. =*ransactional I55unit8=
>hen the -tate re:uires testi5on8 to 2e 5ade 2efore a 2oard or 2od8, it has to 9rant
i55unit8 28 5eans of la4 to the persons testif8in9, so as not to 3iolate their ri9ht a9ainst self#
incri5inatrion. *his is the onl8 4a8 to reconcile t4o conflictin9 3aluesJ pu2lic interest to 9et
certain rele3ant infor5ation, sa8, to le9islation, that can onl8 2e supplied 28 the testi5on8 of
certain persons and the hi9hl8 pri5ed constitutional ri9ht not to 5a?e a person a 4itness a9ainst
hi5self.
*hrou9h an i55unit8 statute, the state in effect eEchan9es i55unit8 for the testi5on8 of a
4itness. *he pro2le5 concerns the eEtent of i55unit8 that the -tate 5ust 9rant in order to protect
the pri3ile9e a9ainst self#incri5ination.
*ransactional I55unit8
In a transactional i55unit8, a person is 9i3en i55unit8 fro5 prosecution of the cri5e in
connection 4ith 4hich he 9a3e his testi5on8. *he i55unit8 is fro5 the prosecution, not 5erel8
fro5 the use of the testi5on8. *hus, e3en if the 9uilt of the person testif8in9 can 2e pro3en 28
independent 5eans, he can not 2e prosecuted an85ore.
Use and Fruit I55unit8
P+/E ''
In a use and fruit i55unit8, a person is eEe5pted fro5 the use of his testi5on8 as 4ell as
the leads %fruits) that the testi5on8 opened up in a cri5inal prosecution arisin9 fro5 4hat he
testified on. *he i55unit8 in this case is fro5 the testi5on8 9i3en. *hus, if the state can procure
e3idence, independent of the testi5on8 and its fruits, it can prosecute the person testif8in9
ne3ertheless.
Distor8 in the United -tates
In Council5an 3. Ditchcoc? %&A'"), the -C ruled that the onl8 4a8 to respect the ri9ht
a9ainst self#incri5ination is to 9i3e transactional i55unit8J an8thin9 less 3iolates the constitutional
ri9ht.
*hus, Con9ress in &A'@ passed the Co5pulsor8 *esti5on8 +ct, pro3idin9 for transactional
i55unit8.
In &'$F, the U.-. -C in Murph8 3. >aterfront Co55ission of ,e4 0or? hinted that it 4as
not reall8 necessar8 to 9i3e transactional i55unit8 in order to protect the ri9ht a9ainst self
incri5ination.
*his 9a3e the U.-. Con9ress the cue to re3ise the Co5pulsor8 *esti5on8 +ct and pro3ide
for a =use and fruit i55unit8=.
>ith the 3alidit8 of this li5ited i55unit8 4as raised, the -C in Casti9as 3. U.-. and
Micarelli 3. U.-. ruled that the ri9ht is a5pl8 protected 28 the use and fruit i55unit8.
In the Philippines
*here is no fiEed rule in the Philippines. =*ransactional i55unit8= can 2e found in the
follo4in96
A$t. #III Se%. 1@. T'e Co11ission on H.1(n Ri2'ts s'()) '(ve t'e +o))o-in2
&o-e$s (nd +.n%tions
;;;
=@A G$(nt i11.nit, +$o1 &$ose%.tion to (n, &e$son -'ose testi1on, o$ &ossession o+
do%.1ents o$ ot'e$ eviden%e is ne%ess($, o$ %onvenient to dete$1ine t'e t$.t' in (n,
investi2(tion %ond.%ted *, it o$ .nde$ its (.t'o$it,.
..+. &@(' or the UneEplained >ealth +ct, -ec. A, 4hich is of &'! 3inta9e.
Se%. 1@. Protection against self-incrimination.-- Neit'e$ t'e $es&ondent no$ (n, ot'e$
&e$son s'()) *e e;%.sed +$o1 (ttendin2 (nd tes+i+,in2 o$ +$o1 &$od.%in2 *oo9s &(&e$s
%o$$es&onden%e 1e1o$(nd( (nd ot'e$ $e%o$ds on t'e 2$o.nd t'(t t'e testi1on, o$ eviden%e
do%.1ent($, o$ ot'e$-ise $e/.i$ed o+ 'is 1(, tend to in%$i1in(te 'i1 o$ s.*Ge%t 'i1 to
&$ose%.tion< *.t no individ.() s'()) *e &$ose%.ted %$i1in()), +o$ o$ on (%%o.nt o+ (n, t$(ns(%tion
1(tte$ o$ t'in2 %on%e$nin2 -'i%' 'e is %o1&e))ed (+te$ '(vin2 %)(i1ed 'is &$ivi)e2e (2(inst se)+F
in%$i1in(tion to testi+, o$ &$od.%e eviden%e do%.1ent($, o$ ot'e$-ise e;%e&t t'(t s.%' individ.()
so testi+,in2 s'()) not *e e;e1&t +$o1 &$ose%.tion (nd %onvi%tion +o$ &e$G.$, o$ +()se testi1on, in so
tes+i+,in2 o$ +$o1 (d1inist$(tive &$o%eedin2s. =Re&.*)i% A%t 1>J9.A
P+/E &!!
..+. $A@", -ec. A. %1a3ide Co55ission.)
Se%. @. )mmunity from riminal Prosecution.FF T'e Co11ission is (.t'o$i:ed to 2$(nt
i11.nit, +$o1 %$i1in() &$ose%.tion to (n, &e$son -'o &$ovides in+o$1(tion o$ testi+ies in (n,
investi2(tion %ond.%ted *, it -'e$e .&on its ev().(tion s.%' in+o$1(tion o$ testi1on, is ne%ess($,
(nd vit()to t'e investi2(tion. T'e i11.nit, t'e$e*, 2$(nted s'()) %ontin.e to &$ote%t t'e -itness
-'o $e&e(ts s.%' testi1on, *e+o$e t'e (&&$o&$i(te %o.$t -'en $e/.i$ed to do so *, t'e )(tte$.
S'o.)d 'e $e+.se to $e&e(t s.%' testi1on, t'e i11.nit, 2$(nted 'i1 s'()) %e(se. =Re&.*)i% A%t
6@>7.A

Use and Fruit I55unit8
On the other hand, =use and fruit i55unit8 can 2e found in P.1. &AA$, 4hich created the
+9ra3a Fact Findin9 Board, and 4hich 4as the su27ect#5atter of /al5an 3. Pa5aran, &@A -C.+
"(F %&'A).
In this case, Ver and other hi9h#ran?in9 +FP officials 4ere 5ade to testif8 2efore the
+9ra3a Board in3esti9atin9 the dou2le 5urder of -en. +:uino and /al5an. Under P.1.&AA$,
e3er8 person su55oned 28 the Board has to appear and testif8 on pain of 2ein9 held in conte5pt.
+n8 testi5on8 5ade, in turn, 4as eEe5pted fro5 2ein9 =used= in a cri5inal prosecution. 1espite
this ho4e3er, a case 4as file a9ainst Ver in the -andi9an2a8an, and one of the e3idence presented
4as the testi5on8 he 5ade 2efore the Board. >hen o27ected to, the -andi9an2a8an sustained the
o27ection. +nd so the 5atter 4as raised to the -C on certiorari.
*he -C held that the testi5on8 could not 2e used in a su2se:uent proceedin9. it hinted
that 4ere it not for the pro3ision in the decree con5pellin9 attendance and testi5on8 on pain of
2ein9 held in conte5pt, the accused could ha3e in3o?ed the ri9ht a9ainst self#incri5ination. But
since the state needed the testi5on8, it 9a3e the5 i55unit8 and so no4, the -tate 5ust honor its
o2li9ation and disallo4 the use of the testi5on8 in the cri5inal prosecution.
/al5an 3. Pa5aran, &@A -C.+ "(F %&'A), supra.
DEL16 I55unit8 statutes 5a8 2e 9enerall8 classified into t4o6 one, 4hich 9rants =use i55unit8=
and the other, 4hich 9rants 4hat is ?no4n as =transactional i55unit8.= *he distinction 2et4een the
t4o is6 =Use i55unit8= prohi2its use of a 4itnessB co5pelled testi5on8 and its fruits in an8 5anner
in connection 4ith the cri5inal prosecution of the 4itness. On the other hand, =transactional
i55unit8= 9rants i55unit8 to the 4itness fro5 prosecution for an offense to 4hich his co5pelled
testi5on8 relates. P1 &AA$, sec. 9rants 5erel8 i55unit8 fro5 use of an8 state5ent 9i3en 2efore
the Board, 2ut not i55unit8 fro5 prosecution 28 reason or on the 2asis thereof. VV
-ec. , P1 ,o. &AA$
Se%. ?. No &e$son s'()) *e e;%.sed +$o1 (ttendin2 (nd tes+i+,in2 o$ +$o1 &$od.%in2 *oo9s
$e%o$ds %o$$e&onden%e do%.1ents o$ ot'e$ eviden%e in o*edien%e to ( s.*&oen( iss.ed *, t'e
4o($d on t'e 2$o.nd t'(t 'is testi1on, o$ t'e eviden%e $e/.i$ed o+ 'i1 1(, tend to in%$i1in(te 'i1
o$ s.*Ge%t 'i1 to &en()t, o$ +o$+eit.$e< *.t 'is testi1on, o$ (n, eviden%e &$od.%ed *, 'i1 s'()) not
*e .sed (2(inst 'i1 in %onne%tion -it' (n, t$(ns(%tion 1(tte$ o$ t'in2 %on%e$nin2 -'i%' 'e is
%o1&e))ed (+te$ '(vin2 invo9ed 'is &$ivi)e2e (2(inst se)+Fin%$i1in(tion to testi+, o$ &$od.%e
eviden%e e;%e&t +$o1 &$ose%.tion (nd &.nis'1ent +o$ &e$G.$, %o11itted in so testi+,in2 no$ s'())
'e *e e;%e1&t +$o1 de1otion o$ $e1ov() +$o1 o++i%e.
P+/E &!&
F. EEclusionar8 rule
A$t. III Se%. 17. ;;;
=>A An, %on+ession o$ (d1ission o*t(ined in vio)(tiono+ t'is o$ Se%tion 1J 'e$eo+ s'())
*e in(d1issi*)e in eviden%e (2(inst 'i1.
*he paradi95atic application of the eEclusionar8 rule is a traditionall8 coerced confession,
and not so 5uch on uncounselled state5ent. + fortiori, testi5on8 forced out of a person cannot 2e
used in e3idence a9ainst that person.
. Effect of denial of the pri3ile9e 28 court
>hen the pri3ile9e a9ainst self#incri5ination is 3iolated outside of court, sa8, 28 the
police, then the testi5on8, as alread8 noted, is not ad5issi2le under the eEclusionar8 rule.
>hen the pri3ile9e is 3iolated 28 the court itself, that is, 28 the 7ud9e, the court is ousted
of its 7urisdiction, all its proceedin9s are null and 3oid, and it is as if no 7ud95ent has 2een
rendered. + classic case is Cha3ez 3. Court of +ppeals, @F -C.+ $$@ %&'$A).
Cha3ez 3. Court of +ppeals, @F -C.+ $$@ %&'$A)
F6 *he thrust of petitionerBs case presented in his ori9inal and supple5entar8 petitions in3o?in9
7urisdiction of this Court is that he is entitled, on habeas corpus, to 2e freed fro5 i5prison5ent upon the
9round that in the trial 4hich resulted in his con3iction he 4as denied his constitutional ri9ht not to 2e
co5pelled to testif8 a9ainst hi5self. *here is his pra8er, too, that, should he fail in this, he 2e 9ranted the
alternati3e re5edies of certiorari to stri?e do4n the t4o resolutions of the Court of +ppeals dis5issin9 his
appeal for failure to file 2rief, and of 5anda5us to direct the said court to for4ard his appeal to this Court
for the reason that he 4as raisin9 purel8 :uestions of la4.
+ccused Cha3ez 4as 5ade to testif8 as a 4itness for the prosecution 4ithout hi5 2ein9
considered a state 4itness inspite of o27ections 28 his counsel.
.o9er Cha3ez 4as found 9uilt8. *he court had this to sa86 =.o9er Cha3ez does not offer an8
defense. +s a 5atter of fact, his testi5on8 as 4itness for the prosecution esta2lishes his 9uilt 2e8ond
reasona2le dou2t.= *he trial court 2randed hi5 =a self# confessed culprit=.
Issue6 >hether or not Cha3ez ri9ht a9ainst self#incri5ination 4as 3iolated
.ulin96 0E-
*he ri9ht a9ianst self#incri5ination is =not 5erel8 a for5al technical rule the enforce5ent
of 4hich is left to the discretion of the court=J it is 5andator8J it secures to a defendant a 3alua2le
and su2stanti3e ri9htJ it is funda5ental to our sche5e of 7ustice.
*he constitutional proscription 4as esta2lished on 2road 9rounds of pu2lic polic8 and
hu5anit8J of polic8 2ecause it 4ould place the 4itness a9ainst the stron9est te5ptation to co55it
per7ur8, and of hu5anit8 2ecause it 4ould 2e to eEtort a confession of truth 28 a ?ind of duress
e3er8 species and de9ree of 4hich the la4 a2hors.
*herefore, the court 5a8 not eEtract fro5 a defendantBs o4n lips and a9ainst his 4ill an
ad5ission of his 9uilt. ,or 5a8 a court as 5uch as resort to co5pulsor8 disclosure, directl8 or
indirectl8, of facts usa2le a9ainst hi5 as a confession of the cri5e or the tendenc8 of 4hich is to
pro3e the co55ission of a cri5e. Because, it is his ri9ht to fore9o testi5on8, to re5ain silent,
unless he chooses to ta?e the 4itness stand 4ith undiluted, unfettered eEercise of his o4n free,
9enuine 4ill.
P+/E &!"
Co5pulsion as it is understood here does not necessaril8 connote the use of 3iolenceJ it
5a8 2e the product of unintentional state5ents. Pressure 4hich operates to o3er2ear his 4ill,
disa2le hi5 fro5 5a?in9 a free and rational choice, or i5pair his capacit8 for rational 7ud95ent
4ould in our opinion 2e sufficient. -o is 5oral coercion =tendin9 to force testi5on8 fro5 the
un4illin9 lips of the defendant.=
Petitioner, as accused, occupies a different tier of protection fro5 an ordinar8 4itness.
>hereas an ordinar8 4itness 5a8 2e co5pelled to ta?e the 4itness stand and clai5 the pri3ile9e as
each :uestion re:uirin9 an incri5inatin9 ans4er is shot at hi5, and accused 5a8 alto9ether refuse
to ta?e the 4itness stand and refuse to ans4er an8 and all :uestions. For, in realit8, the purpose of
callin9 an accused as a 4itness for the People 4ould 2e to incri5inate hi5.
EEE >ith all these, 4e ha3e no hesitanc8 in sa8in9 that petitioner 4as forced to testif8 to
incri5inate hi5self, in full 2reach of his constitutional ri9ht to re5ain silent. It cannot 2e said no4
that he has 4ai3ed his ri9ht. De did not 3olunteer to ta?e the stand and in his o4n defenseJ he did
not offer hi5self as a 4itnessJ on the contrar8, he clai5ed the ri9ht upon 2ein9 called to testif8. If
petitioner ne3ertheless ans4ered the :uestions inspite of his fear of 2ein9 accused of per7ur8 or
2ein9 put under conte5pt, this circu5stance cannot 2e counted a9ainst hi5. Dis testi5on8 is not of
his o4n choice. *o hi5 it 4as a case of co5pelled su25ission. De 4as a co4ed participant in
proceedin9s 2efore a 7ud9e 4ho possessed the po4er to put hi5 under conte5pt had he chosen to
re5ain silent. ,or could he escape testif8in9. *he court 5ade it a2undantl8 clear that his testi5on8
at least on direct eEa5ination 4ould 2e ta?en ri9ht then and thereon the first da8 of the trial.
*he course 4hich petitioner ta?es is correct. /abeas corpus is a hi9h prero9ati3e 4rit. It
is traditionall8 considered as an eEceptional re5ed8 to release a person 4hose li2ert8 is ille9all8
restrained such as 4hen the accusedBs constitutional ri9hts are disre9arded. -uch defect results in
the a2sence or loss of 7urisdiction and therefore in3alidates the trial and the conse:uent con3iction
of the accused 4hose funda5ental ri9ht 4as 3iolated. *hat 3oid 7ud95ent of con3iction 5a8 2e
challen9ed 28 collateral attac?, 4hich precisel8 is the function of habeas corpus. /abeas corpus
is proper to challen9e a con3iction 4here the consitutional ri9hts of the accused 4ere 3iolated.
+ court 4hich denies the accused of his constitutional ri9hts is ousted of its 7urisdiction.
*he 7ud95ent of con3iction pronounced 28 a court 4ithout 7urisdiction is 3oid, and one i5prisoned
thereunder 5a8 o2tain release of habeas corpus. G),nd(.
,otes on the case6 In this case, the accused Cha3ez 4as co5pelled 28 the 7ud9e 4ith the
threat of 2ein9 held in conte5pt to ta?e the 4itness stand, in spite of his o27ection that he had the
ri9ht to re5ain silent and not to 2e a 4itness a9ainst hi5self. +nd so he too? the 4itness stand and
4as con3icted 28 :ualified theft. De appealed 2ut the la48er failed to file the appellantBs 2rief and
so the appeal 4as dis5issed, the 7ud95ent 2eca5e final and eEecutor8, and he ser3ed his sentence.
0ears later, Cha3ez 4ent to the -C on habeas corpus, contendin9 that his con3ictioin 4as 3oid
2ecause it 4as rendered on the 2asis of e3idence o2tained in the 3iolation of his ri9ht a9ainst self#
incri5ination. *he -C 9ranted the petition and released hi5.
/abeas Corpus, as sho4n 28 this case, is an eEtraordinar8 post#con3iction, 5id#sentence,
re5ed8. *he petition for habeas corpus is such that it in:uires into all :uestions of ille9al
detention. >hen the 7ud9e co5pelled the accused to ta?e the 4itness stand, he 4as ousted of his
7urisdiction and all su2se:uent proceedin9s 2eca5e 3oid. Ulti5atel8, the 7ud95ent of con3iction
and e3en the sentence 4ere li?e4ise 3oid, thus 5a?in9 the detention of Cha3ez ille9al, and thus
actiona2le 28 habeas corpus.
*he case also illustrates the difference 2et4een the ordinar8 4itness and the accused. +
4itness can 2e con5pelled to ta?e the standJ he can onl8 o27ect to the :uestions as the8 co5e,
in3o?in9 his ri9ht a9ainst self#incri5ination.
But in the case of the accused, he cannot e3en 2e 5ade to ta?e the 4itness stand, for the
onl8 purpose of such is to incri5inate hi5.
P+/E &!@
Of course, the 5o5ent the accused a9rees to ta?e the stand, he is dee5ed to ha3e 4ai3ed
his ri9ht, and 5ust no4 thus su25it hi5self to cross#eEa5ination.
E. .i9ht to an i5partial tri2unal and trial of ci3ilians 28 5ilitar8 courts
+ni5as 3. Minister of ,ational 1efense, &F$ -C.+ F!$ %&'A$)
F6 *his petition challen9es the 7urisdiction of a 5ilitar8 tri2unal to tr8 t4el3e accused persons, onl8
one of 4ho5 is in the 5ilitar8, for the offense de3oid of an8 national securit8 or political co5pleEion and
co55itted lon9 2efore the procla5ation of 5artial la4,
*he petitioners 4ere char9ed 4ith 5urder in connection 4ith the alle9ed ?illin9 of 0anson, a
political leader,durin9 the ,o3e52er && elections.
*he accused 4ere arrested al5ost a 8ear later, on -epte52er "&, &'(" after 5artial la4 4as
proclai5ed. It 4as onl8 in &'(F that a =su55ar8 preli5inar8 in3esti9ation= 4as conducted 28 a PC
captain 2elon9in9 to the Jud9e +d3ocate /eneral -er3ice. *he petitioners 4ere reco55ended for
prosecution 2efore the Militar8 *ri2unal, considerin9 that one of the5, petitioner -9t. .odolfo +ni5as is a
5ilitar8 personnel. *hereafter, the Jud9e +d3ocate /eneral filed the correspondin9 char9e sheet, 2ut he
5odified the cri5e char9ed fro5 =Murder= to =Violation of -ection A(A of the .e3ised +d5inistrati3e
Code= in .elation to -ection "$'" of the sa5e Code and Presidential 1ecree ,o. ', = Ille9al Possession of
Firear5s 4ith Murder.=
On Fe2ruar8 &$, &'(A, the Minister of ,ational 1efense referred the case to the Militar8
*ri2unalBs Branch of the Jud9e +d3ocate /eneralBs Office %J+/O) 4hich in turn assi9ned the sa5e to
respondent Militar8 Co55ission ,o. "(.
Issue6 >hether or not Militar8 Co55ission ,o. "( is 4ithout 7urisdiction o3er the cri5inal case
.ulin96 *he 5ilitar8 court is 4ithout 7urisdiction.
>e appl8 the rule in .olando +. de /uz5an 3. Don. +le7andro .. Leopando, et al, %/...
,o. $"('A, 1ece52er "", &'A@ and March &@, &'AF) 4here the lone 5ilitar8 personnel 4as
ordered tried to9ether 4ith &' ci3ilians accused 2efore a ci3il court. It is also clear fro5 the records
that the acts for 4hich -9t. +ni5as 4as char9ed had nothin9 to do 4ith the perfor5ance of official
dut8.
*he cri5e for 4hich the petitioners 4ere char9ed 4as co55itted on ,o3e52er &!, &'(&
lon9 2efore the procla5ation of 5artial la4. *here 4as no :uestion a2out the case 2ein9 prosecuted
28 ci3ilian fiscals and tried 28 ci3il courts at the ti5e. ,o4 that it is alread8 late &'A$, and 5artial
la4 is a thin9 of the past, hopefull8 ne3er 5ore to return, there is no 5ore reason 4h8 a 5urder
co55itted in &'(& should still 2e retained, at this ti5e, 28 a 5ilitar8 tri2unal. G),nd(.
Ola9uer 3. Militar8 Co55ission ,o. @F, &! -C.+ &FF
#ilitary trial of civilians void even under #artial -aw if the civil courts are open
F6 Petitioners 4ere found 9uilt8 of su23ersion 28 the respondent 5ilitar8 co55ission and sentenced
to death. *he8 filed a petition for habeas corpus, certiorari, prohi2ition and mandamus 2efore the -C,
:uestionin9 the 7urisdiction of the 5ilitar8 tri2unal.
DEL16 In +:uino 3. Militar8 Co55ission %&'(), the -C held that =Martial la4 creates and
eEception to the 9eneral rules of eEclusi3e 7urisdiction, and renders offenses a9ainst the la4s of 4ar
as 4ell as those of a ci3il character, tria2le 28 5ilitar8 tri2unals.EEE= 1ue process, ho4e3er
de5ands that in all cri5inal cases prosecutions, the accused shall 2e entitled to, a5on9 others, a
trial. +s eEplained 28 Justice *eehan?ee in his dissentin9 opinion in +:uino 3. Militar8
Co55ission supra6 =Judicial po4er is 3ested 28 the Constitution eEclusi3el8 in the -C and insuch
P+/E &!F
inferior courts as are esta2lished 28 la4. Judicial po4er eEists onl8 in the courts 4hich ha3e the
eElcusi3e po4er to hear and deter5ine those 5atters 4hich affect the life or li2ert8 or propert8 of a
citizen.= -ince 4e are not an ene58 occupied territor8 and e3en on the pre5ise that 5artial
continues in force, the 5ilitar8 tri2unals cannot tr8 and eEercise 7urisdiction o3er ci3ilians for ci3il
offenses co55itted 28 the5 4hich are properl8 co9niza2le 28 the ci3il courts.
EEE
=*he presidin9 officer at a court 5artial is not a 7ud9e 4hose o27ecti3it8 and independence
are protected 28 tenure and undi5inshed salar8 and nurtured 28 the 7udicial tradition, 2ut is a
5ilitar8 officer. -u2stantiall8 different rules of e3idence and procedure appl8 in 5ilitar8 trials.
+part fro5 these differences, the su99estion of the possi2ilit8 of influence on the actions of the
court#5artial 28 the officer 4ho con3enes it, selects its 5e52ers and the counsel on 2oth sides, and
4ho usuall8 has direct co55and and authorit8 o3er its 5e52ers is a per3asi3e one in 5ilitar8
la4s, despite strenuous efforts to eli5inate the dan9er. VV.
Cruz 3. Ponce#Enrile, &$! -C.+ (!" %&'AA)
F6 /abeas corpus proceedin9s 4ere co55enced in this Court on Octo2er &, &'A$ to test the
le9alit8 of the continued detention of so5e "&( so#called =political detainees arrested in the nine#8ear
span of official 5artial rule and co55itted to the ,e4 Bili2id Prisons in Muntinlupa. +ll had 2een 5ade
to stand trial for co55on cri5es 2efore 3arious courts 5artialJ if an8 of these offenses had an8 political
color, this had neither 2een pleaded nor pro3ed.
Of the "&( prisoners, &( are ci3ilians, and onl8 "$ confir5ed as 5ilitar8 personnel.
Issue6 >hether or not 5ilitar8 courts ha3e 7urisdiction o3er ci3ilians
.ulin96 ,o
+s held in Ola9uer6 + 5ilitar8 7urisdiction or tri2unal cannot tr8 and eEercise 7urisdiction,
e3en durin9 the period of 5artial la4, o3er ci3ilians for offenses alle9edl8 co55itted 28 the5 as
lon9 as the ci3il courts are open and functionin9, and that an8 7ud95ent rendered 28 such 2od8
relatin9 to a ci3ilian is null and 3oid for lac? of 7urisdiction on the part of the 5ilitar8 tri2unal
concerned
*he fact cannot 2e i9nored, ho4e3er, that cri5es appear to ha3e 2een co55itted, and there
are accusations a9ainst herein petitioners for those offenses. Ola9uer cannot and does not operate
to a2sol3e the petitioners of these char9es, or esta2lish that the sa5e are 2aseless, so as to entitle
the5 to i55ediate release fro5 detention. It is not to 2e for9otten that the 3icti5s in offenses
ascri2ed to the petitioners ha3e as 5uch interest as the -tate has to prosecute the alle9ed authors of
the 5isdeeds. Justice 4ill 2e 2etter ser3ed if the detention of such of the petitioners as are not
here28 ordered released or eEcepted, is continued until their cases are transferred to the ordinar8
courts ha3in9 7urisdiction, and the necessar8 infor5ations ha3e 2een filed a9ainst the5 therein, as
has alread8 2een done in the case of petitioners I5perial 1. Us5an and -a5u /u5al. *he -tate
should 2e 9i3en a reasona2le period of ti5e to acco5plish this transfer, at 4hich ti5e the
petitioners 5a8 appl8 for 2ail for their te5porar8 release.
*he -olicitor /eneral not unreasona2l8 anticipates :uestions to arise as to the a3aila2ilit8
of certain defenses to the petitioners upon their prosecution 2efore the ci3il courts. It see5s e3ident,
ho4e3er, that no 2reach of the constitutional prohi2ition a9ainst t4ice puttin9 an accused in
7eopard8 of punish5ent for the sa5e offense 4ould result fro5 the retrial of the petitioners= cases,
for the si5ple reason that the a2sence of 7urisdiction of the courts 5artial to tr8 and con3ict the
petitioners pre3ented the first 7eopard8 fro5 attachin9. Valid pre3ious proceedin9s are re:uired in
order that the defense of dou2le 7eopard8 can 2e raised 28 the accused in the second prosecution.
G),nd(.
P+/E &!
/. Bills of attainder## Le9islati3e ad7udication of 9uilt
Bill of +ttainder
+ =2ill of attainder= is a la4 4hich su2stitutes the le9islati3e deter5ination of 9uilt for a
7udicial deter5ination. *hrou9h a statute, the le9islature finds indi3iduals or 9roups 9uilt8, 4ithout
the 2enefit of 2ein9 pro3en so in court.
+ 2ill of attainder is of t4o ?inds6 %i) 2ill of attainder proper %le9islati3e i5position of the
death penalt8) and %ii) 2ill of pains and penalties %i5position of a lesser penalt8).
In People 3. Ferrer, FA -C.+ @A" %&'("), the +nti#-u23ersion La4 %.+ &(!!) 4hich
declared the Co55unist Part8 of the Philippines a clear and present dan9er to Philippine securit8,
and thus prohi2ited 5e52ership in such or9anization, 4as contended to 2e a 2ill of attainder. *he
-C, ho4e3er, dis5issed the contention, holdin9 that althou9h the la4 5entions the CPP in
particular, its purpose is not to define a cri5e 2ut onl8 to la8 a 2asis or to 7ustif8 the le9islati3e
deter5ination that 5e52ership in such or9anization is a cri5e 2ecause of the clear and present
dan9er to national securit8.
People 3. Ferrer, FA -C.+ @A" %&'(")
F6 Posed in issue in these t4o cases is the constitutionalit8 of the +nti#-u23ersion +ct, 4hich
outla4s the Co55unist Part8 and other =su23ersi3e associations=, and punishes an8 person 4ho
=?no4in9l8, 4illfull8 and 28 o3ert acts affiliates hi5self, 4ith, 2eco5es or re5ains a 5e52er,= of the
Part8 and of an8 other si5ilar =su23ersi3e= or9anization.
I--UE6 >C, this la4 is a 2ill of attainder.
DEL16 ,O
+ 2ill of attainder is a le9islati3e act 4hich inflicts punish5ent 4ithout trial. Its essence is
the su2stitution of a le9islati3e for a 7udicial deter5ination of 9uilt. *he constitutional 2an a9ainst
2ill of attainder ser3es to i5ple5ent the principle of separation of po4ers 28 confinin9 le9islatures
to rule#5a?in9 and there28 forestallin9 le9islati3e usurpation of the 7udicial function.
>hen the +ct is 3ie4ed in its actual operation, it 4ill 2e seen that it does not specif8 the
Co55unist Part8 of the Phils %CPP) of the 5e52ers thereof for the purpose of punish5ent. >hat
it does is si5pl8 to declare the Part8 to an or9anized conspirac8 for the o3erthro4 of the
/o3ern5ent for the purposes of the prohi2ition a9ainst 5e52ersip in the outla4ed or9anization.
*he ter5 =CPP= is used solel8 for definition purposes. In fact the +ct applies not onl8 to the CPP
2ut to =an8 other or9anizatuiion ha3in9 the sa5e purposes and their successors=. Its focus is not
on indi3iduals 2ut on conduct.
Indeed, 4ere the +nti#-u23ersion +ct a 2ill of attainder, it 4ould 2e totall8 unnecessar8 to
char9e Co55unists in court, as the la4 alone, 4ithout 5ore 4ould suffice to secure their
punishe5ent. But the undenia2le fact is that their 9uilt still has to 2e 7udiciall8 esta2lished. *he
/o3ern5ent has 8et to pro3e at the trial that the accused 7oined the Part8 ?no4in9l8, 4illfull8 and
28 o3ert acts, and that the8 7oined 4ith the specific intent to further its 2asic o27ecti3es. S.:ette.
D. .i9ht to a speed8 disposition of cases
A$t. III Se%. 16. A)) &e$sons s'()) '(ve t'e $i2't to ( s&eed, dis&osition o+ t'ei$
%(ses *e+o$e ()) G.di%i() /.(siFG.di%i() o$ (d1inist$(tive *odies.
P+/E &!$
A$t. VIII Se%. 1?. =1A A)) %(ses o$ 1(tte$s +i)ed (+te$ t'e e++e%tivit, o+ t'is
Constit.tion 1.st *e de%ided o$ $eso)ved -it'in t-ent,F+o.$ 1ont's +$o1 t'e d(te o+
s.*1ission +o$ t'e S.&$e1e Co.$t (nd .n)ess $ed.%ed *, t'e S.&$e1e Co.$t t-e)ve 1ont's
+o$ ()) )o-e$ %o))e2i(te %o.$ts (nd t'$ee 1ont's +o$ ()) )o-e$ %o.$ts.
=7A A %(se o$ 1(tte$ s'()) *e dee1ed s.*1itted +o$ de%ision o$ $eso).tion .&on t'e
s.*1ission o+ t'e )(st &)e(din2 *$ie+ o$ 1e1o$(nd.1 $e/.i$ed *, t'e R.)es o+ Co.$t o$ *,
t'e %o.$t itse)+.
=>A U&on t'e e;&i$(tion o+ t'e %o$$es&ondin2 &e$iod ( %e$ti+i%(tion to t'is e++e%t
si2ned *, t'e C'ie+ E.sti%e o$ t'e &$esidin2 G.d2e s'()) +o$t'-it' *e iss.ed (nd ( %o&, t'e$eo+
(tt(%'ed to t'e $e%o$d o+ t'e %(se o$ 1(tte$ (nd se$ved .&on t'e &($ties. T'e %e$ti+i%(tion
s'()) st(te -', ( de%ision o$ $eso).tion '(s not *een $ende$ed o$ iss.ed -it'in s(id &e$iod.
=IA Des&ite t'e e;&i$(tion o+ t'e (&&)i%(*)e 1(nd(to$, &e$iod t'e %o.$t -it'o.t
&$eG.di%e to s.%' $es&onsi*i)it, (s 1(, '(ve *een in%.$$ed in %onse/.en%e t'e$eo+ s'())
de%ide o$ $eso)ve t'e %(se o$ 1(tte$ s.*1itted t'e$eto +o$ dete$1in(tion -it'o.t +.$t'e$
de)(,.
A$t. VII Se%. 1@. ;;;
T'e S.&$e1e Co.$t 1(, $evie- in (n (&&$o&$i(te &$o%eedin2 +i)ed *, (n, %iti:en t'e
s.++i%ien%, o+ t'e +(%t.() *(sis o+ t'e &$o%)(1(tion o+ 1($ti() )(- o$ t'e s.s&ension o+ t'e
&$ivi)e2e o+ t'e -$it o$ t'e e;tension t'e$eo+ (nd 1.st &$o1.)2(te its de%ision -it'in t'i$t,
d(,s +$o1 its +i)in2.
A$t. I# A Se%. J. E(%' Co11ission s'()) de%ide *, ( 1(Go$it, vote o+ ()) its
"e1*e$s (n, %(se o$ 1(tte$ *$o.2't *e+o$e it -it'in si;t, d(,s +$o1 t'e d(te o+ its s.*1ision
+o$ de%ision o$ $eso).tion. A %(se o$ 1(tte$ is dee1ed s.*1itted +o$ de%ision o$ $eso).tion
.&on t'e +i)in2 o+ t'e )(st &)e(din2 *$ie+ o$ 1e1o$(nd.1 $e/.i$ed *, t'e $.)es o+ t'e
Co11ission o$ *, t'e Co11ission itse)+. Un)ess ot'e$-ise &$ovided *, t'is Constit.tion o$
*, )(- (n, de%ision o$de$ o$ $.)in2 o+ e(%' Co11ission 1(, *e *$o.2't to t'e S.&$e1e
Co.$t on certiorari *, t'e (22$ieved &($t, -it'in t'i$t, d(,s +$o1 $e%ei&t o+ ( %o&, t'e$eo+.
*he ri9ht to a speed8 disposition of cases co5ple5ents the ri9ht to a speed8 trial. +fter
the case has 2een su25itted for decision, so that technicall8 the trial sta9e is ter5inated, the
Constitution 5andates that the 7udicial, :uasi# 7udicial or ad5inistrati3e 2od8 or tri2unal 5ust
decide the case consistent 4ith the ri9ht of the accused to a speed8 disposition of his case.
*o carr8 out this 5andate, the Constitution in se3eral other places pro3ides periods for
decidin9 a case6
*he -upre5e Court has to decide cases 4ithin "F 5onths fro5 the date of su25ission of
the case for decision 4hich is the date of filin9 of the last pleadin9 G+rt. VIII, -ec. & %&).H
In cases to challen9e the 3alidit8 of the procla5ation of 5artial la4 or the suspension of
the pri3ile9e of the 4rit, the period is @! da8s counted fro5 the date the case 4as filed %not the date
it 4as su25itted for decision). %+rt. VII, -ec. &A, par. @.)
If it fails to decide a case 4ithin the period 2ecause it could not 9arner the necessar8
5a7orit8 to render a decision, then, %a) if the case is an appealed case, the 7ud95ent appealed fro5
is dee5ed affir5ed, eEcept if %i) the case is one in 4hich the lo4er court declared the la4
unconstitutional, in 4hich e3ent the presu5ption of constitutionalit8 applies, and %ii) the case is a
P+/E &!(
cri5inal case, in 4hich the e3ent con3iction is re3ersedJ and %2) if the case is an ori9inal petition,
the petition is dee5ed dis5issed. %.ules of Court)
In the case of the Court of +ppeals, the period to decide is &" 5onths fro5 the date of
su25ission, unless reduced 28 the -C, 4ith the sa5e rule in case the 5a7orit8 re:uired to render a
decision is not 5et. G+rt. VIII, -ec. & %&)H
*rial courts ha3e @ 5onths to decide. Failure to decide does not affect the case, 2ut the
7ud9es are su27ect to ad5inistrati3e sanctions. %+rt. VIII, -ec. &.)
Constitutional Co55issions %Ci3il -er3ice, Co5elec and CO+), 4hich are :uasi#7udicial
or ad5inistrati3e tri2unals, are 9i3en $! da8s fro5 the date of su25ission to decide a case. %+rt.
I;,.+, -ec.(.)
III. SU4STANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
+. >hat acts cannot 2e cri5inalized
&. Mere 2eliefs and aspirations
A$t. III Se%. 1@. =1A No &e$son s'()) *e det(ined so)e), *, $e(son o+ 'is &o)iti%()
*e)ie+s (nd (s&i$(tions.
". 1e2ts and ci3il o2li9ations
A$t. III. Se%. 70. No &e$son s'()) *e i1&$isoned +o$ de*t o$ nonF&(,1ent o+ ( &o))
t(;.
>hat the la4 prohi2its is i5prison5ent for non#pa85ent of a contractual o2li9ation.
>hen one is con3icted of estafa and sent to prison, the i5prison5ent is not for the non#
pa85ent of de2t 2ut for the deceit or a2use of confidence e5plo8ed 28 the con3ict.
*hus, in Lozano 3. Martinez, &F$ -C.+ &"@ %&'A$), the -C a9ain upheld Batas Bl9. ""
%Bouncin9 Chec?s La4) as not unconsitutional for 2ein9 3iolati3e of the rule a9ainst non#
i5prison5ent for de2t. It is true that under this la4 deceit is not necessar8. It is, ho4e3er, a 3alid
eEercise of the -tate of its po4er to deter5ine 4hat acts constitute a cri5e.
>hat the Consitution further prohi2its is i5prison5ent for non#pa85ent of poll taE,
4hich is a taE i5posed on certain persons re9ardless of their propert8 or 2usiness. *he prohi2ition
does not appl8 to non#pa85ent of propert8 taEes and taEes on pri3ile9e.
Lozano 3. Martinez, &F$ -C.+ @"@ %&'A$)
F6 BP "" punishes an8 person =4ho 5a?es or dra4s and issues an8 chec? on account
or for 3alue, ?no4in9 at the ti5e of issue that he does not ha3e sufficient funds in or credit 4ith
P+/E &!A
the dra4ee 2an? for the pa85ent of said chec? in full upon present5ent, 4hich chec? is
su2se:uentl8 dishonored 28 the dra4ee 2an? for insufficienc8 of funds EEE= Petitioners challen9ed
the constitutionalit8 of BP "" on the follo4in9 9rounds6 &) It offends the constitutional pro3ision
prohi2itin9 i5prison5ent for de2tJ ") it i5pairs freedo5 of contractJ @) it contra3enes the e:ual
protection clauseJ F) it undul8 dele9ates le9islati3e and eEecuti3e po4ersJ and ) its enact5ent is
fla4ed 2ecause the Interi5 Batasan prohi2ited a5end5ent of the 2ill on @rd readin9.
DEL16 *he 9ra3a5en of the offense punished in BP "" is the act of 5a?in9 and issuin9 a
4orthless chec? or a chec? that is dishonored upon its presentation for pa85ent. It is not the
non# pa85ent of an o2li9ation 4hich the la4 punishes. *he la4 punishes the act not as an
offense a9ainst propert8 2ut as an offense a9ainst pu2lic order. .ecent statistics sho4 that
one third of the entire 5one8 suppl8 of the countr8 consists of currenc8 in circulation. *hese
de5and deposits in the 2an?s constitute the funds a9ainst 4hich co55ercial papers are
dra4n. *he a5ount concerned 7ustifies the le9iti5ate concern of the state in preser3in9 the
inte9rit8 of the 2an?in9 s8ste5. VV.
B+.LO,/+0 C+-E6
Cara5 .esources Corp. 3. Contreras, "@( -C.+ ("
F6 *his is a 3erified co5plaint filed 28 Cara5 .esources Corporation and *e7ada a9ainst Jud9e
Contreras of Branch $& M*C Ma?ati for 9ross i9norance of the la4 and 9ross 5isconduct. *his 4as
alle9edl8 co55itted 28 .espondent Jud9e in relatin to the cri5inal cases filed 28 Cara5 a9ainst a certain
*eresita 1izon for 3iolation of BP"". .espondent Jud9e handed do4n a decision ac:uittin9 1izon on the
9round of reasona2le dou2t. One of his ratiocinations to support his decision is that the application of the
7urisprudence re9ardin9 BP "" 4ould 3iolate the cardinal rule under the Constitution that no person shall
2e i5prisoned for failure to pa8 his de2t, thou9h he do not :uestion the constitutionalit8 of the la4.
I--UE6 >C, the 7ud9e 4as 9uilt8 of the char9e.
DEL16 0E-
*he facts irretrie3a2l8 2rou9ht the accused 4ithin the pur3ie4 of BP "" and respondent
4as 2ound 28 his oath to appl8 the la4. De 4as not at li2ert8 to i9nore it. Dis decision eEposed
hi5 either to i9norance of the la4 and the 7urisprudence 2uilt thereon or si5pl8 i9nored or
disre9arded the a2o3e pronounce5ets of this Court and chose to 5a?e his o4n. It is his dut8 to
appl8 the 9eneral la4 to particular instances under the Canon of Judicial Ethics. *his Court has
the last 4ord on 4hat the la4 is and that its decisions appl8in9 or interpretin9 the la4 or the
Constitution for5s part of the le9al s8ste5 of the land, all other courts should ta?e their 2earin9s
fro5 the decisions of the Court.
+s sho4 in his ratiocination, respondent could not hide his 2ias a9ainst Cara5, 4hose
2usiness practice he loath. -uch eEpression de3iates fro5 the nor of conduct 4hich is essential in
the fair and i5partial ad5inistration of 7ustice. S.:ette.
@. +cts 4hich 4hen done 4ere innocent
A$t. III Se%. 77. No e# post facto )(- o$ *i)) o+ (tt(inde$ s'()) *e en(%ted.
EE Post Facto La4
+n =eE post facto la4= is a la4 that see?s to punish an act 4hich, 4hen co55itted, 4as not
8et a cri5e or 4as not as hea3il8 punished. It is a la4 that retroacts to the da8 of the act so as to
cause pre7udice to the person perfor5in9 the act. Its unfairness consists in the fact that the person
P+/E &!'
could not ha3e ?no4n the act 4as cri5inal, and thus could not ha3e a3oided the cri5e. >hen a
la4 is 5ore fa3ora2le to the accused, ho4e3er, it is allo4ed to retroact.
In re Ka8 Ville9as Ka5i, Inc., @ -C.+ F"A
F6 *his petition for declarator8 4as filed 28 Ka8 Ville9as Ka5i Inc., clai5in9 to 2e a dul8
reco9nized non#stoc? and non#profit corporation created under the la4s of the land, and pra8in9 for the
detre5ination of the 3alidit8 of -ec. A, .+ $&@" and a declaration of petitionerBs ri9ht s and duties
thereunder. Petitioner clai5s that the challen9ed pro3ision constitutes an eE post facto la4.
I--UE6 >C, it is an eE post facto la4.
DEL16 ,O
+n ex post facto la4 is one 4hich6
&. Ma?es cri5inal an act done 2efore the passa9e of the la4 4hich 4as innocent 4hen
done, and punishes such an actJ
". +99ra3ates a cri5e , or 5a?es it 9reater than it 4as, 4hen co55ittedJ
@. Chan9es the punish5ent and inflicts a 9reater punish5ent than the la4 anneEed to the
cri5e 4hen co55ittedJ
F. +lters the le9al rules of e3idence, and authorizes con3iction upon less or different
testi5on8 than the la4 re:uired at the ti5e of the co55ission of the offenseJ
. +ssu5in9 to re9ulate ci3il ri9hts and re5edies onl8, in effect i5poses penalt8 or
depri3ation of a ri9ht for so5ethin9 4hich 4hen done 4as la4fulJ and
$. 1epri3es a person accused of a cri5e of so5e la4ful protection to 4hich he has
2eco5e entitled, such as the protection of a for5er con3iction or ac:uittal, or a procla5ation of
a5nest8. GPuotin9 Me?in 3. >olfe, " Phil. (F %&'!")H
*his constitutional prohi2ition refers onl8 to cri5inal la4s 4hich are 9i3en retroacti3e
effect.
>hile it is true that -e. &A penalizes a 3iolation of an8 pro3isin of .+ $&@" includin9
-ec. A%a) thereof, the penalt8 is i5posed onl8 for acts co55itted after the appro3al of the la4 and
not those perpetrated prior thereto. *here is nothin9 in the la4 that re5otel8 insinuates that its
pro3isions shall appl8 to acts carried out prior to its appro3al. S.:ette.
B. >hat punish5ents cannot 2e i5posed
&. In3oluntar8 ser3itude
A$t. III Se%. 1@ =7A No invo).nt($, sevit.des in (n, +o$1 s'()) e;ist e;%e&t (s (
&.nis'1ent +o$ ( %$i1e -'e$eo+ t'e &($t, s'()) '(ve *een %onvi%ted.
". EEcessi3e fines
A$t. III Se%. 19. =1A E;%essive +ines s'()) not *e i1&osed. no$ %$.e) de2$(din2 o$
in'.1(n &.nis'1ent in+)i%ted. Neit'e$ s'()) t'e de(t' &en()t, *e i1&osed .n)ess +o$
%o1&e))in2 $e(sons invo)vin2 'eino.s %$i1es t'e Con2$ess 'e$e(+te$ &$ovides +o$ it. An,
de(t' &en()t, ()$e(d, i1&osed s'()) *e $ed.%ed to reclusion perpetua.
People 3. 1e la Cruz, '" P '!$ %&'@)
P+/E &&!
People 3. 1acu8cu8, &(@ -C.+ '! %&'A')
F6 Celestino Matondo, -e9undino Ca3al and Cirilo Manorio, pu2lic schools officials of Le8te 4ere
char9ed 2efore the M*C for 3iolation of .+ F$(!. Upon arrai9n5ent , the accused pleaded not 9uilt8.
I55ediatel8 thereafter, the8 orall8 5o3ed to :uash the co5plaint for lac? of 7urisdiction o3er the offense
alle9edl8 due to the correctional nature of the penalt8 of i5prison5ent prescri2ed for the offense. *his
5otion 4as denied. + MF. 4as filed on the sa5e 9round 2ut 4ith the further alle9ation that the facts
char9ed do not constitute an offense considerin9 that -ec. @" of the la4 is null and 3oid for 2ein9
unconstitutional for the ff reasons6 %&) It i5poses a cruel and unusual punish5ent, the ter5 of
i5prison5ent 2ein9 unfiEed and 5a8 rn to reclusiion perpetuaJ and %") It also constitutes an undue
dele9ation of le9islati3e po4er, the duration of the penalt8 of i5prison5ent 2ein9 solel8 left to the
discretion of the court as if the latter 4ere the le9islati3e depart5ent of the /o3ern5ent. MF. denied.
I--UE6 >C, -ec. @" % penal pro3ision) of the la4 is unconstitutional.
DEL16 0E-
*he rule is esta2lished 2e8ond :uestion that a punish5ent authorized 28 a statute is not
cruel or unusual or disproportionate to the nature of the offense unless it is 2ar2arous one un?no4n
to the la4 or so 4holl8 disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to shoc? the 5oral sense of
the co55unit8. *hat the penalt8 is 9rossl8 disproportionate to the cri5e is an insufficient 2asis to
declare la4 unconstitutional on the 9round that it is cruel and unusual. *he fact that the
punish5ent authorized 28 the statute is se3ere does not 5a?e it cruel or unusual. In addition , 4hat
de9ree of disproportion the Court 4ill consider as o2noEious to the Constitution has still to a4ait
appropriate deter5ination in due ti5e since no decision has as 8et 2een struc? do4n a penalt8 fro
2ein9 = cruel and unusual= or = eEcessi3e=.
It is also su25itted that .+ F$(! 3ests in the courts the discretion, not to fiE the period of
i5prison5ent, 2ut to choose 4hich of the alternati3e penalties shall 2e i5posed. >hat 3alid
dele9ation presupposes and sanctions is an eEercise of discretion to fiE the len9th of ser3ice of the
ter5 of i5prison5ent 4hich 5ust 2e enco5passed 4ithin specific or desi9nated li5its pro3ided 28
la4, the a2sence of 4hich desi9nated li5its 4ill constitute such eEercise as an undue dele9ation of
le9islati3e po4er.
-ec. @" of the la4 pro3ides for an indeter5ina2le period , 4ith neither a 5ini5u5 nor a
5aEi5u5 duration ha3in9 2een set 28 the le9islati3e authorit8. *he courts are thus 9i3en a 4ide
latitude of discretion to fiE the ter5 of i5prison5ent , 4ithout e3en the 2enefit of an8 sufficient
standard, such that the duration thereof 5a8 ran9e fro5 one 5inute to the life span of the accused.
*his cannot 2e allo4ed. It 3ests in the courts a po4er and a dut8 essentiall8 le9islati3e in nature
and 4hich, as applied to this case, does 3iolence to the rules on separation of po4ers as 4ell as the
non#dele9a2ilit8 of le9islati3e po4ers. *hus, the presu5ption of constitutionalit8 has to 8ield.
S.:ette.
@. Cruel, de9radin9 and inhu5an punish5ents
A$t. III Se%. 19. =1A E;%essive +ines s'()) not *e i1&osed. no$ %$.e) de2$(din2 o$
in'.1(n &.nis'1ent in+)i%ted. Neit'e$ s'()) t'e de(t' &en()t, *e i1&osed .n)ess +o$
%o1&e))in2 $e(sons invo)vin2 'eino.s %$i1es t'e Con2$ess 'e$e(+te$ &$ovides +o$ it. An,
de(t' &en()t, ()$e(d, i1&osed s'()) *e $ed.%ed to $e%).sion &e$&et.(.
Id. Se%. 17. ;;;
P+/E &&&
+ssu5in9 that 7ud95ent has 2een rendered and the accused has 2een con3icted the
Constitution no4 further prescri2es certain standards as to the punish5ent that can 2e 5eted out.
+fter all, due process prohi2its 2ar2aric and disproportionate penalties.
*he e5plo85ent of ph8sical, ps8cholo9ical or de9radin9 punish5ent a9ainst an8 prisoner
or detainee, or the use of su2standard or inade:uate penal facilities under su2hu5an conditions,
shall 2e dealt 4ith 28 la4. G+rt. III, -ec. &' %").H
In &'@, the prohi2ition 4as a9ainst =cruel and unusual= penalt8, in &'(@J it 4as a9ainst
=cruel or unusual = penalt8J in &'A(, the prohi2ition is a9ainst =cruel, de9radin9 or inhu5an=
punish5ent. *he purpose in chan9in9 the phraseolo98 is to allo4 for eEperi5entation, and not to
fiE the concept of 4hat is cruel to the standards of the present ci3ilization, or those of anti:uit8.
*his notion is supposed to eEpand and 9ro4, so that 4hat toda8 is considered as accepta2le 5a8 in
the neEt 9eneration 2e dee5ed as cruel penalt8.
>hether the cruelt8 of a punish5ent depends on its for5 or 4hether it depends on its
se3erit8 has 2een a52i3alentl8 ans4ered 28 the -C6
In People 3. dela Cruz, '" Phil. '!! %&'@) the -C ruled that it 4as the for5 of
punish5ent as fiEed in anti:uit8 %pillor8 dese52o4el5ent, etc.) and not its se3erit8, that
constituted =cruel and unusual= penalt8 under the &'@ Constitution. *hus a disproportionate
penalt8 %&! 8ears i5prison5ent for theft) is not cruel or unusual 2ecause it is onl8 a 5atter of
se3erit8 of an accepta2le for5 of punish5ent %i5prison5ent).
*he -C spo?e in a different 4a8 in People 3. Bor7a '& -C.+ @F! %&'('), Bor7a 4as
sentenced and he ser3ed at the national penitentiar8 for "! 8ears 2efore the case ca5e to the -C.
*he Court said that Bor7a had 2een li3in9 in the shado4 of death. +lthou9h the sentence 4as
initiall8 3alid, it had 2eco5e cruel 28 the lapse of ti5e. +nd 8et, this 4as a for5 of penalt8 that
4as neither cruel nor unusual.
People 3. Munoz, &(! -C.+ &!( %&'A')
F6 *he accused are four of the && 2od89uards of a 5a8or 4ho ?illed three persons on suspicion that
the8 4ere cattle rustlers. *he8 4ere found 9uilt8 of 5urder. *hree appealed to the -C 4hich found the5
e:uall8 lia2le for the ?illin9. *he penalt8 for 5urder under the .PC is reclusion temporal to death. *he
:uestion concerns the penalt8 to 2e i5posed in 3ie4 of +rt. III, sec. &' 4hich pro3ides that =,either shall
the death penalt8 2e i5posed, unless for co5pellin9 reasons in3ol3in9 heinous cri5es, Con9ress pro3ides
for it. +n8 death penalt8 alread8 i5posed shall 2e reduced to reclusion perpetua.=
DEL16 +rt. III, section &' does not chan9e the periods of the penalt8 prescri2ed 28 +rt. "FA of the
.PC eEcept insofar as it prohi2its the i5position of the death penalt8 adn reduces it to reclusion
perpetua. *he ran9e of 5ediu5 and 5ini5u5 penalties re5ain the sa5e. VV.
People 3. Lu2reo, "!! -C.+ && %&''&)
F6 + co5plaint for ho5icide 4as filed 4ith M*C of 1el Car5en, -uri9ao del ,orte, char9in9
.e5elito Lu2reo alon9 4ith cri5e of Do5icide in connection 4ith the ?illin9 of Ma5erto -anico. Jud9e
/or9olon of said court conducted 2oth the preli5inar8 in3esti9ation and preli5inar8 eEa5ination.
*hereafter, he for4arded the records of the case to the Office of Pro3incial Fiscal. *he fiscal conducted
his o4n PI and on the 2asis thereof, he filed an infor5ation for 5urder not onl8 a9ainst re5elito 2ut also
a9ainst Lucresio Lu2reo. *rial Court find the5 9uilt8 of the cri5e char9ed.
P+/E &&"
I--UE6 >C, the constituional presu5ption of innocence in fa3or of Lucrecio has 2een o3erturned
28 the prosecution

DEL16 ,O.
+n accused is presu5ed innocent until the contrar8 is pro3ed. *he 2urden of proof is upon
the prosecution and until such 2urden is sufficientl8 dischar9ed , the accused continues to en7o8 the
presu5ption of innocence. In the instant case, the lo4er court con3icted Lucrecio on the 2asis of
its conclusion that he 4as positi3el8 identified 28 4itnesses ,enita Monter and Epifanio
Pan9atun9an as one of the assailants, and that therefore, his defense of ali2i 4ould not prosper.
Unfortunatel8, the testi5onies of the a2o3e5entioned 4itnesses did not cate9oricall8 stated or
pro3ed that Lucrecio too? part in hac?in9 the 3icti5.
*hou9h Monter cate9oricall8 stated in her direct eEa5ination that she sa4 the accused
Lucresio hac?in9 the 3icti5, in the =re#enact55ent=, she ho4e3er candidl8 infor5ed the court
Lucresio 4as 7ust standin9 28 and she could not re55en2er as to 4ho actuall8 hac?ed the 3icti5.
Fro5 her 3ersion, the participation of Lucrecio is at one en3eloped inserious dou2t. It is 4orse in
the case of Pan9atun9an. >hile he stated that =Lucrecio a2etted in hac?in9 as if the8 4ill co5e
one after the other in hac?in9 his 5ind %sic) and the nec?=, he ne3er ela2orated as to 4hat =a2etted
in hac?in9 = 5eans. De could not e3en specif8 the part of the 2od8 of Ma5erto 4hich 4as hit 28
Lucrecio.
*here is e3identl8 insufficient e3idence to sho4 the actual participation of Lucresio in teh
cri5e. *here 2ein9 no e3idence of conspirac8, he cannot 2e held for the acts of his co# appellant.
S.:ette.
F. -ecret detention places, solitar8, inco55unicado and other for5s of detention
and the use of su2standard or inade:uate penal facilities
A$t. III Se%. 17. ;;;
Id. Se%. 19. ;;;
=7A T'e e1&)o,1ent o+ &',si%() &s,%'o)o2i%() o$ de2$(din2 &.nis'1ent (2(inst (n,
&$isone$ o$ det(inee o$ t'e .se o+ s.*st(nd($d o$ in(de/.(te &en() +(%i)ities .nde$ s.*'.1(n
%onditions s'()) *e de()t -it' *, )(-.
. Indefinite I5prison5ents
People 3. 1acu8cu8, &(@ -C.+ '! %&'A'), supra.
C. *he protection a9ainst dou2le 7eopard8
A$t. III Se%. 71. No &e$son s'()) *e t-i%e &.t in Geo&($d, o+ &.nis'1ent +o$ t'e s(1e
o++ense. I+ (n (%t is &.nis'ed *, ( )(- (nd (n o$din(n%e %onvi%tion o$ (%/.itt() .nde$ eit'e$
s'()) %onstit.te ( *($ to (not'e$ &$ose%.tion +o$ t'e s(1e (%t.
Mirasol ,otes6
P+/E &&@
Ele5ents of dou2le 7eopard8, %.ule &&(, -ec (J People 3. O2sania, "@ -C.+ "F' %&'$A)6
%&) Court of co5petent 7urisdictionJ
%") + Co5plaint or Infor5ation sufficient in for5 and su2stance to sustain a con3ictionJ
%@) +rrai9n5ent and plea 28 the +ccusedJ
%F) Con3iction, ac:uittal, or dis5issal of the case 4ithout the eEpress consent, of the
accused.
-u2se:uent prosecution is 2arred for the follo4in96
%&) -a5e offense
%") +tte5pt of the sa5e offense
%@) Frustration of the sa5e offense
%F) Offense necessaril8 included in the &st offense %+ll the ele5ents of the "nd
constitute so5e of the ele5ents of the &st offense)
%) Offense that necessaril8 includes the &st offense %+ll the ele5ents of the &st
constitute so5e of the ele5ents of the "nd offense)
EEceptions to no. 6
%&) *he 9ra3er offense de3eloped die to =super3enin9 facts= arisin9 fro5 the sa5e act or
o5ission constitutin9 the for5er char9ed.
*hus, in Melo 3. People, A Phils. ($$ %&'!), the -C allo4ed the a5ned5ent of the
infor5ation fro5 its ori9inal cahr9e of frustrated ho5icide, 2ecause after the filin9 of the
infor5ation, the 3icti5 died.
%") *he facts constitutin9 the 9ra3er char9e 2eca5e ?no4n or 4ere disco3ered onl8 after
the filin9 of the for5er co5plaint or infor5ation.
*his o3errules People 3. 0orac, 4here the -C disallo4ed the a5end5ent of the infor5ation
fro5 sli9ht ph8sical in7uries to frustrated 5urder after the prosecution su27ected the 3icti5 to
another 5edical eEa5ination and found a 4ound, that it 4as the fault of the prosecution if the8 had
an inco5petent 5edical eEa5ination.
%@) *he plea of 9uilt8 to the lesser offense 4as 5ade 4ithout the consent of the fiscal and
the offended part8.
Identit8 of offenses and identit8 of act
>hen an act 9i3es rise to t4o or 5ore offense 4hich are punished 28 the sa5e authorit8,
and an indi3idual is con3icted, ac:uitted, or the case dis5issed 4ithout his consent, of one of these
offense %Cri5e +), there is no dou2le 7eopard8 if he is char9ed of another offfense %Cri5e B)
flo4in9 fro5 the sa5e act. 1ou2le 7eopard8 arises onl8 4hen he is a9ain char9ed of that sa5e
offense %Cri5e +). *hus, this is called dou2le 7eopard8 28 =identit8 of offenses=.
But 4hen an act 4hich 9i3e rise to t4o or 5ore offenses is punished 28 t4o different
authorities %a la4 and an ordinance), then if an indi3idual is con3icted, ac:uitted, or the case
dis5issed 4ithout his consent, of an8 of these offenses punished 28 one authorit8 %Cri5e + 28
la4), e3en if he is char9ed of another offense 4hich is punished 28 the other auhtorit8 %Cri5e B 28
ordinance), there is dou2le 7eopard8, 2ecause 2oth offenses, one punished 28 a la4 and the other
P+/E &&F
punished 28 an ordinance, flo4ed fro5 the sa5e act. *hus, this is called dou2le 7eopard8 28
=identit8 of act.=
-u56 If onl8 a la4 in in3ol3ed, there is dou2le 7eopard8 onl8 4hen there is an identit8 of
offenses. But is a la4 and an ordinance are in3ol3ed, there is dou2le 7eopard8 4hen there is an
identit8 of act.
Identit8 of Offenses6
If a 5arried 5an 5aintains as concu2ine a 5arried 4o5an not his 4ife, the 5an is 9uilt8
of 2oth concu2ina9e and adulter8. Fro5 the sa5e act %coha2itin9 4ith the 5arried 4o5an), t4o
offenses arise. +nd 8et he can 2e prosecuted for 2oth 2ecause, the t4o offenses co5in9 fro5 the
sa5e authorit8, there is no identit8 of offenses.
Identit8 of +ct6
People 3. .elo3a, FA -C.+ "'" %&'A(), .elo3a 4as prosecuted under an ordinance of
Batan9as Cit8 for the use of 4irin9 to tap electricit8 4ithout per5ission fro5 the local authorities,
2ut the case 4as dis5issed 2ecause the cri5e has prescri2ed. -o the fiscal filed a case for theft of
electricit8 under the .PC. *he -C ruled there 4as dou2le 7eopard8 alread8, and so the second case
could no lon9er 2e filed. For althou9h the offenses 4ere different, 2oth flo4ed fro5 the sa5e act.
+nd in this case, the act 4as punished 28 a la4 and an ordinance.
Loss of Jurisdiction6 ,o dou2le 7eopard8
If the court has no 7urisdiction, or 4as ousted of its 7urisdiction 2eccause it 3iolated the
ri9ht to due process of the parties, the decision is null and 3oid, the accused 5a8 a9ain 2e char9ed.
In People 3. Bocar, &@A -C.+ &$$ %&'A), the -C, held that the 5o3e 28 the trial court of
su55aril8 dis5issin9 a cri5inal case for theft on the 9round that it 5erel8 in3ol3ed a :uestion of
o4nership depri3ed the prosecution of due process 28 den8in9 it the chance to introduce its
e3idence. *his ousted the court of its 7uridsiction.
In /al5an 3. -andi9an2a8an, &FF -C.+ F@ %&'A$), the -C declared the cri5inal
prosecution of the "$ accused in the +:uino#/al5an dou2le 5urder case a =5istrial= after the -C
co55ission found that the -andi9an2a8an 7ustices and the *anod2a8an prosecutors had 2een
su55oned 28 the President and instructed on ho4 to conduct the trial. 1ue process is a ri9ht not
onl8 of the accused 2ut also of the -tate. Once the court depri3es either part8, 4hich in this case is
the -tate, of a fi9htin9 chance, then it is ousted fro5 its 7urisdiction, and dou2le 7eopard8 4ould
not appl8. *hus, the accused 4ere ordered retried.
&. *4o situations conte5plated
People 3. .elo3a &FA -C.+ "'" %&'A()
F6 Manuel Opulencia 4as char9ed 4iht 3iolation of Ordinance ,o. & series of &'(F of Batan9as Cit8
prohi2itin9 the installation of electric 4irin9 de3ices 4ithout authorit8 fro5 the cit8 9o3ern5ent. De
ad5itted installin9 the electric 4irin9 de3ices found 28 the police in order to decrease the readin9s of
electric current. *he case 4as ho4e3er dis5issed on the 9round that the offense had prescri2ed. Fourteen
da8s later, the Cit8 Fiscal filed another case for theft a9ainst hi5. *he court also dis5issed this case on the
9round of dou2le 7eopard8. *he prosecution appealed contendin9 the offense 4as different.
P+/E &&
DEL16 *he contention has no 5erit. *he first sentence of +rt. III, sec. "& states the 9eneral rule6
the constitutional protection a9ainst dou2le 7eopard8 is not a3aila2le 4here the second prosecution
is for an offense that is different fro5 the offense char9ed in the first or prior prosecution, althou9h
2oth 5a8 2e 2ased fro5 the sa5e facts. *he second sentence pro3ides an eEception6 that the
protection a9ainst dou2le 7eopard8 is a3aila2le althou9h the prior offense char9ed under an
ordinance 2e different fro5 the offense char9ed su2se:uentl8 under the national statute such as the
.PC pro3ided that 2oth offenses sprin9 fro5 the sa5e act or set of acts. VV.
People 3. Cit8 Court of Manila, Branch VI, &F -C.+ &( %&'A()
F6 +9apito /onzales, to9ether 4ith .o2erto Pan9ilinan, 4as accused of 3iolatin9 -ec.(, in relation
to -ec. && .+ @!$! and +rt. "!&%@) of the .PC, in t4o separate infor5ations filed 4ith the Cit8 Court of
Manila. Upon arrai9n5ent, accused /onzales pleaded not 9uilt8 to 2oth char9es. *he other accused,
Pan9ilinan, 4as not arrai9ned as he is still at lar9e. /onzales filed a 5otion to :uash the infor5ations in
the " cases on the 9round that said infor5ations did not char9e an offense. Motion denied. Later, he
a9ain 5o3ed to :uash the infor5ation in one of the Cri5inal case on the 9round of du2le 7eopard8, as
there 4as accordin9 to hi5, also pendin9 a9inst hi5 another cri5inal case, 4here the infor5atin
alle9edl8 contain the sa5e alle9ations as the infor5ation in the first cri5inal case. Court 9ranted the
5otion.
I--UE6 >C, there is dou2le 7eopard8.
DEL16 ,O
It is a settled rule that to raise the defense of dou2le 7eopard8, @ re:uisites 5ust 2e present6
%&) a first 7eopard8 5ust ha3e attached prior to the secondJ %") the first 7eopard8 5ust ha3e 2een
3alidl8 ter5inatedJ and %@) the second 7eopard8 5ust 2e for teh sa5e offense, or the second offense
includes or is necessaril8 included in the offense char9ed in the first infor5ation, or is an atte5pt to
co55it the sa5e or a frustration thereof. +ll these re:uisites do not eEist in this case,
*he " infor5ations 4ith 4hich the accused 4as char9ed , do not 5a?e onl8 one offense,
contrar8 to pri3ate repondentBs alle9ation. In other 4ords, the offense defined in -ec. ( of the .+
@!$! punishin9 the eEhi2ition of 5otion pictures not dul8 passed 28 the Board of Censors for
Motion Pictures does not include or is not included inthe offense defined in +rt "!& %@) of the .PC
punishin9 the eEhi2ition of indecent and i55oral 5otin pictures.
*he ele5ents of the " offenses are different. *he 9ra3a5en of the offense defined in .+
@!$! is the pu2lic eEhi2ition of an8 5otion pictures 4hich has not 2een pre3iousl8 passed 28 the
Board of Censors for Motion Pictures. *he 5otion picture 5a8 2e indecent or i55oral 2ut if it
has not 2een pre3iousl8 appro3ed 28 the Board, its pu2lic sho4in9 constitutes a cri5nal offense.
On the other hand, the offense punished in +rt "!&%@) of the .PC is the pu2lic sho4in9 os indecent
or i55oral pla8s, scenes, acts, or sho4s, not 7ust 5otion pictures.
*he nature of 2oth offenses also differs. *he cri5e punished in .+ @!$! is 5alu5
prohi2itu5 in 4h cri5inal intent need not 2er pro3ed 2ecause it is presu5ed, 4hile the offense
punished in +rt. "!&%@) of the .PC is 5alu5 in se, 4hich cri5inal intent is an indispensa2le
in9redient. S.:ette.
". .ules of Court pro3isions
R.)e 11J Se%. J. -ormer con*iction of acquittal$ double .eopardy.-- W'en (n (%%.sed
'(s *een %onvi%ted o$ (%/.itted o$ t'e %(se (2(inst 'i1 dis1issed o$ ot'e$-ise te$1in(ted
-it'o.t 'is e;&$ess %onsent *, ( %o.$t o+ %o1&entent G.$isdi%tion .&on ( v()id %o1&)(int o$
in+o$1(tion o$ ot'e$ +o$1() %'($2e s.++i%ient in +o$1 (nd s.*st(n%e to s.st(in ( %onvi%tion
(nd (+te$ t'e (%%.sed '(d &)e(ded to t'e %'($2e t'e %onvi%tion o$ (%/.itt() o+ t'e (%%.sed o$
P+/E &&$
t'e dis1iss() o+ t'e %(se s'()) *e ( *($ to (not'e$ &$ose%.tion +o$ t'e o++ense %'($2ed o$ +o$
(n, (tte1&t to %o11it t'e s(1e o$ +$.st$(tion t'e$eo+ o$ +o$ (n, o++ense -'i%' ne%ess($i),
in%).des o$ is ne%ess($i), in%).ded in t'e o++ense in t'e +o$1e$ %o1&)(int o+ in+o$1(tion.
Ho-eve$ t'e %onvi%tion o+ t'e (%%.sed s'()) not *e ( *($ to (not'e$ &$ose%.tion +o$
(n o++ense -'i%' ne%ess($i), in%).des t'e o++ense %'($2ed in t'e +o$1e$ %o1&)(int o$
in+o$1(tion .nde$ (n, o+ t'e +o))o-in2 inst(n%esD
=(A t'e 2$(ve$ o++ense deve)o&ed d.e to s.&e$venin2 +(%ts ($isin2 +$o1 t'e s(1e (%t o$
o1ission %onsit.tin2 t'e +o$1e$ %'($2e<
=*A t'e +(%ts %onstit.tin2 t'e 2$(ve$ %'($2e *e%(1e 9no-n o$ -e$e dis%ove$ed on),
(+te$ t'e +i)in2 o+ t'e +o$1e$ %o1&)(int o$ in+o$1(tion< o$
=%A t'e &)e( o+ 2.i)t, to t'e )esse$ o++ense -(s 1(de -it'o.t t'e %onsent o+ t'e +is%()
(nd o+ t'e o++ended &($t,.
In (n, o+ t'e +o$e2oin2 %(ses -'e$e t'e (%%.sed s(tis+ied o$ se$ves in -'o)e o$ in &($t
t'e G.d2e1ent 'e s'()) *e %$edited -it' t'e s(1e in t'e event o+ %onvi%tion +o$ t'e 2$(ve$
o++ense.
Melo 3. People, A P (($ %&'!)
F6 Conrado Melo 4as char9ed in the CFI, .izal 4ith frustrated ho5icide , for ha3in9 alle9edl8
inflicted upon O2illo, 4ith a ?itchen ?nife and 4ith intent to ?ill, se3eral serious 4ounds on different parts
of the 2od8, re:uirin9 5edical attendance for a period of 5ore than @! da8s, and incapacitatin9 hi5 fro5
perfor5in9 his ha2itual la2or for the sa5e period of ti5e. On 1ec. "', &'F', at A a5, accused pleaded
not 9uilt8 to the offense char9de. +t &!6& a5 of the sa5e da8, O2illo died fro5 his 4ounds. +n
a5ended infor5ation 4as filed char9in9 accused 4ith consu55ated ho5icide. +ccused filed a 5otion to
:uash the a5ended infor5ation alle9in9 dou2le 7eopard8. Motion denied.
DEL16 ,O
1ou2le 7eopard8 5eans that 4hen a person is char9ed 4ith an offense and the case is
ter5inated either 28 ac:uittal or con3iction or in an8 other 5anner 4ithout the consent of the
accused, the latter cannot a9ain 2e char9ed 4ith the sa5e or identical offense. *he phrase =the
sa5e offense= has al4a8s 2een construed to 5ean not onl8 that the second offense char9ed is
eEactl8 the sa5e as the one alle9ed in the first infor5ation, 2ut also that the t4o offenses are
identical. *here is identit8 2et4een the t4o offenses 4hen the e3idence to support a con3iction for
one offense 4ould 2e sufficient to 4arrant a con3iction for the other.
*his rule of identit8 ho4e3er does not appl8, ho4e3er, 4hen the second offense 4as not in
eEistence at the ti5e of the first prosecution, for the si5ple reason that in such case there is no
possi2ilit8 for the accused, durin9 the first prosecution, to 2e con3icted for an offense that 4as then
inesistent. *hus, 4here the accused 4as char9ed 4ith ph8sical in7uries and after con3iction the
accused dies, the char9e for ho5icide a9ainst the sa5e accused does not put hi5 t4ice in 7eopard8.
+ccordin9l8, an offense 5a8 2e said to necessaril8 include or to 2e necessaril8 included in
another offense, for the purpose of detre5inin9 the eEistence of dou2le 7eopard8, 4hen 2oth
offenses 4ere in eEistence durin9 the pendenc8 of the first prosecution, for other4ise, if the second
offense 4as then ineEistent, no 7eopard8 could attach therefor durin9 the first prosecution, and
conse:uentl8 a su2se:uent char9e for the sa5e cannot constitute a second 7eopard8. S.:ette.
People 3. Cit8 Court of Manila, Branch ;I, &"& -C.+ $@( %&'A@)
F6 *his is a petition to re3ie4 the order of the Cit8 Court of Manila Branch ;I, dis5issin9 the
infor5ation for ho5icide thru rec?less i5prudence filed a9ainst /apa8, in a cri5inal case on the 9round
P+/E &&(
of dou2le 7eopard8. .espondent court held that the accused ha3in9 2een pre3iousl8 tried and con3icted of
serious ph8sical in7uries thru rec?less i5prudence for the resultin9 death of the 3icti5 4ould place the
accused in dou2le 7eopard8.
I--UE6 >C, a person 4ho has 2een prosecuted for serious ph8sical in7uries thru rec?less
i5prudence and con3icted thereof 5a8 2e prosecuted su2se:uentl8 for ho5icide thru rec?less
i5prudence if the offended part8 dies as a result of the sa5e in7uries.
DEL16 0E-
>ell settled is the rule that one 4ho has 2een char9ed 4ith an offense cannot 2e char9ed
a9ain 4ith the sa5e or identical offense thou9h the latter 2e lesser or 9reater than the for5er.
Do4e3er as held in the MELO case, the rule of identit8 does not appl8 4hen the second offense
4as not in eEistence at the ti5e of teh first prosecution , for the reason that in such case there is no
possi2ilit8 for the accused durin9 the first prosecution, to 2e con3icted for an offense that 4as
ineEistent.
*he 3icti5 1iolito de la Cruz died on the da8 the infor5ation 4as filed , and the accused
4as arrai9ned " da8s after or on Octo2er "!, &'(" . >hen the infor5ation for ho5icide thru
rec?less i5prudence 4as, therefore, filed on Octo2er "F, &'(", the accused 4as alread8 in dou2l8
7eopard8. S.:ette.
People 3. 0orac, F" -C.+ "@! %&'(&)
F6 +ccused 0orac 4as char9ed 4ith sli9ht ph8sical in7uries 2efore the Cit8 Court of Bacolod, the
offended part8 2ein9 La5
Doc? 4ho, accordin9 to the 5edical cerificate issued 28 1r. .o9elio Mulueta, 4as confined since +pril A
&'$A up to the present ti5e for head in7ur8 in Occidental ,e9ros Pro3incial Dspital. +ccused pleaded
9uilt8 on +pril &$, &'$A resultin9 in his 2ein9 penalized to suffer &! da8s for arresto 5enor. On +pril
&A, &'$A, the pro3incial fiscal filed an infor5ation char9in9 the sa5e defendant 4ith frustrated 5urder
arisin9 fro5 the sa5e act a9ainst the aforesaid 3icti5 La5 Doc? for upon further dia9nosis, the healin9
period for the in7uries caused to accused 4as found to 2e lon9er. + 5otion to :uash 4as filed 28 the
accused on the 9round of dou2le 7eopard8.
I--UE6 >C, the defendant, 4ho had alread8 2een con3icted of sli9ht ph8sical in7uries for in7uries
inflicted on La5 Doc? , and had ser3ed sentence therefor, 5a8 2e prosecuted ane4 for frustrated
5urder for the sa5e act co55itted a9ainst the sa5e person
DEL16 ,O.
In order not to 3iolate the constitutional prohi2ition on dou2le 7eopard8, there is the
indispensa2le re:uire5ent of the eEistence of a ne4 fact 4hich super3enes for 4hich the defendant
is responsi2le chan9in9 the character of the cri5e i5puted to hi5 and to9ether 4ith the facts
eEistin9 pre3iousl8 constitutin9 a ne4 and distinct offense.
In this case, there is no super3enin9 fact 4hich occurred to 7ustif8 the non#eEistence of
dou2le 7eopard8. *he 4ound causin9 the dela8 in the healin9 of the in7uries caused to the 3icti5
4as alread8 in eEistence at the ti5e of the first eEa5ination of the doctor. -aid dela8 4as caused
28 the 3er8 superficial and inconclusi3e eEa5ination then 5ade resultin9 to a later findin9 of
fracture. S.:ette.
Barlon9a86 W'en de+ense o+ do.*)e Geo&($d, (v(i)(*)e.FF %&) 1is5issal 2ased on isufficienc8
of e3idenceJ %") dis5issal 2ec. of denial of accusedBs ri9ht to speed8 trialJ %@) accused is
dischar9ed to 2e a state 4itness.
P+/E &&A
W'en de+ense o+ do.*)e Geo&($d, not (v(i)(*)e.FF >hen the case is dis5issed other than on the
5erits upon 5otion of the accused personall8, or throu9h counsel, such dis5issal is re9arded as 4C
eEpress consent of the accused, 4ho is therefore dee5ed to ha3e 4ai3ed the ri9ht to plea dou2le
7eopard8.

B+.LO,/+0 C+-E-6
0ap 3. Lutero, +pril @!, &''
F6 0ap 4as char9ed 4ith rec?less dri3in9 in 3iolation of a cit8 ordinance. Later he 4as char9ed
a9ain in another cri5inal case in the sa5e court 4ith serious ph8sical in7uries throu9h rec?less
i5prudence. 0ap 5o3ed to :uash the latter infor5ation. Mean4hile, petitioner 4as ac:uitted in the first
case.
I--UE6 >C, there 4as dou2le 7eopard8.
.ULI,/6 0E-. Fro5 the 3ie4point of Cri5inal La4, as distin9uished fro5 Constitutional or
Political La4 # the offenses 4ith 4hich petitioner 4as char9ed constitute, strictl8 different offenses,
althou9h, under certain conditions, one offense 5a8 include the other, and accordin9l8, once placed
in 7eopard8 for one, the plea of dou2le 7eopard8 5a8 2e in order as re9ards the other.
*hus, if the in7uries 5entioned in the second infor5ation 4ere not esta2lished 28 the
e3idence, petitioner could 2e con3icted in the first case of the 3er8 sa5e 3iolation of 5unicipal
ordinance char9ed in the first case, unless he pleaded dou2le 7eopard8. C'($o.
/al5an 3. -andi9an2a8an, &FF -C.+ F@
F6 *he petitioners filed an action to nullif8 the proceedin9s on the trial of the +:uino#/al5an du2le
5urder case alle9in9 that respondents *anod2a8an and -andi9an2a8an co55itted serious irre9ularities
constitutin9 5istrial and resultin9 in 5iscarria9e of 7ustice and 9ross 3iolation of the constitutional ri9hts
of the petitioners and the so3erei9n people of the Philippines to due process of la4. *he -C dis5issed.
Mean4hile, the -andi9an2a8an rendered its decision ac:uittin9 all the accused of the cri5e char9ed.
.espondents su25itted that in 3ie4 of the -B decision, the case has 2eco5e 5oot and acade5ic.
Petitioners filed a 5otion for reconsideration of the -C rulin9. *he -C created the Vas:uez Co55isssion
to loo? into petitionersB alle9ations.
.ULI,/6 *he report of the Co55ission re3ealed that Pres. Marcos used the o3er4hel5in9
resources of the /o3ern5ent and his authoritarian po4ers to corrupt and 5a?e a 5oc?er8 of the
7udicial process in this case. *he un4holl8 scenario for the ac:uittal of the accused after the ri99ed
trial 4ould acco5plish the t4o principal o27ecti3es of satisf8in9 the pu2lic cla5or for the
suspected ?illers to 2e char9ed in court and of 9i3iin9 the5, throu9h their ac:uittal, the le9al shield
of dou2le 7epard8.
Do4e3er, dou2le 7eopard8 does not attach 4here a cri5inal trial 4as a sha5. + dictated,
coerced and scripted 3erdict of ac:uittal such as in this case is a 3oid 7ud95ent. In le9al
conte5plation, it is no 7ud95ent. It neither 2inds nor 2ars an8one. *he cri5inal collusion as to the
handlin9 and treat5ent of the cases 28 pu2lic respondents co5pletel8 dis:ualified the5 and 3oided
ab initio the -B 3erdict. 1J cannot 2e in3o?ed 4here the prosecution, 4hich represents the
so3erei9n people in cri5nal cases is denied due process. C'($o.
People 3. O2sania, "@ -C.+ "F'
P+/E &&'
F6 *he infor5ation filed 28 the fiscal alle9ed that throu9h 3iolence and inti5idation, O2sania had
carnal ?no4led9e of one Erlinda 1ollente a9ainst the latterBs 4ill. Later, the fiscal a5ended the
co5plaint to alle9e therein that the offense 4as co55itted 4ith le4d desi9ns. *he accused after pleadin9
not 9uilt8 5o3ed for the dis5issal of the case on the 9round that the first infor5ation 4as fatall8 defecti3e
for failin9 to alle9e =le4d desii9ns,= and that the a5ended infor5ation did not cure the 7urisdictional
infir5it8. *he 5otion of the defense 4as sustained 28 the 7ud9e. Dence this appeal 28 the fiscal.
.ULI,/6 *he failure of the prosecution to alle9e =le4d desi9ns= in the first infor5ation does not
affect the sufficienc8 in su2stance of the infor5ation, for unchaste 5oti3es are dee5ed inherent in
the 3er8 act of rape itself. In an8 case, the lo4er court erred in dis5issin9 the case 28 failin9 to
distin9uish 2et4een the concept of 7urisdiction and insufficienc8 in su2stance of an indict5ent.
+s to the :uestion of dou2le 7eopard8, the follo4in9 re:uisites 5ust ha3e 2een o2tained to
in3o?e the constitutional protection a9ainst it6
%&) a 3alid co5plaint or infor5ationJ
%") a court of co5petent 7urisdictionJ
%@) the defendant had pleaded to the char9eJ and
%F) the defendant 4as ac:uitted, or con3icted, or the case a9ainst hi5 4as dis5issed or
other4ise ter5inated 4ithout his eEpress consent.
*he onl8 re5ainin9 and decisi3e issue in this case see5s to 2e as to 4hether or not the case
4as dis5issed 4ithout the prior consent of the accused.
*he -C ruled that as a 9eneral rule, 4hen the case is dis5issed, other than on the 5erits,
upon 5otion of the accused, such dis5issal is to 2e ra9arded as 4ith the eEpress consent of the
accused and conse:uentl8 he is dee5ed to ha3e 4ai3ed his ri9ht to plead dou2le 7eopard8 andCor he
is estopped fro5 clai5in9 such defense on appeal 28 the /o3ern5ent or in another indict5ent for
the sa5e offense.
*he eEception to this is 4here the dis5issal is sou9ht 28 the accused on the 9round that
the8 4ere denied their ri9ht to a speed8 trial and that the 9o3ern5ent failed to prosecuteJ in 4hich
case dou2le 7eopard8 4ill set in. *he case of herein accused falls under the 9eneral rule. C'($o.
People 3. *urda, "@@ -C.+ (!"
F6 *he accused 4as char9ed 4ith and con3icted of ille9al recruit5ent %under the La2or Code) and
estafa %under the .PC) co55itted 28 hi5 and t4o others. +5on9 others, he contended that the penalt8 of
life i5prison5ent should not 2e i5posed upon hi5 2ecause this 4as i5posed 28 a ne4 la4 not in force
4hen the offense 4as alle9edl8 co55itted.
I--UE6 >hether or not accused should 2e punished 28 life i5prison5ent.
.ULI,/6 0E-. >hen the accused co55itted the acts of ille9al recruit5ent fro5 +u9ust &'A$ to
-epte52er &'A(, the a5end5ents to the la4, 4hich too? effect on Jul8 "A, &'A$, 4ere alread8 in
force and effect.
I--UE6 >hether or not there 4as dou2le 7eopard8.
.ULI,/ 6 ,O. >here t4o different la4s define t4o cri5es, the con3iction of one of the5 is no
o2stacle to that of the other, althou9h 2oth offenses arise fro5 the sa5e facts, if each cri5e
in3ol3es so5e i5portant act 4hich is not an essential ele5ent of the other. *here is dou2le
7eopard8 4hen the t4o offenses are in su2stance precisel8 the sa5e or of the sa5e nature or of the
sa5e species, so that the e3idence 4hich pro3es the one 4ould pro3e the otherJ or if this is not the
case, 4hen the one cri5e is an in9redient of the other. +ppl8in9 this to the case at 2ar, not all acts
4hich constitute estafa necessaril8 esta2lish ille9al recruit5ent, for estafa is 4ider in scope and
P+/E &"!
co3ers deceits 4hehter or not related to recruit5ent acti3ities. More i5portantl8, the ele5ent of
da5a9e, 4hich is essential in estafa cases, is i55aterial in ille9al recruit5ent, and, 4hile estafa is
5alu5 in se, ille9al recruit5ent is malum prohibitum. 4(1.
/onzales 3. C+, "@" -C.+ $$(
F6 + cri5inal co5plaint of :ualified seduction 4as filed a9ainst petitioner +polinario /onzales 4ith
M*C, O2ando Bulacan. De pleaded not 9uilt8. >hen the defense 4as a2out to rest its case, the
prosecution filed a 5otion to instead co55it the accused to a char9e for rape since the e3idence su25itted
indicated that rape, and not :ualified seduction, 4as e3identl8 co55itted. Petitioner opposed the 5otion.
M*C dis5issed the case on the 9round that e3idence presented did not pro3e the cri5e of :ualified
seduction and the cri5e of rape is 2e8ond its 7urisdiction.
Prosecution filed $ separate infor5ations for rape a9ainst petitioner 4hich 4ere later
consolidated. De 9ain pleaded not 9uilt8. On the "nd scheduled hearin9, pri3ate co5plainant and her
counsel did not appear, hence the hearin9 4as postponed 4ith no o27ection frro5 petitioner. On the neEt
hearin9, a postponen5ent 4as a9ain sou9ht 28 prosecution 4hich 4as o27ected to 28 petitioner. De
5o3ed for the dis5issal of the case, clai5in9 the dela8 4ould 3iolate petitionerBs ri9ht to a speed8 trial. +
pro3isional dis5issal 4ith the eEpress consent of the petitioner 4as 9ranted. + MF. 4as filed and M*C
set aside order of dis5issal. *Dis petition 4ith the -C in3o?es dou2le 7eopard8.
DEL16 ,O
For dou2le 7eopard8 to arise, the follo4in9 re:uisites 5ust 2e eEist6 %&) *he pre3ious
co5plaint or infor5ation or other for5al char9e is sufficient in for5 and su2stance to sustain a
con3ictionJ %") *he court has 7urisdiction to tr8 the case J %@) the accused has 2een arrai9ned and
has pleaded to the char9eJ %F) *he accused is con3icted or ac:uitted or the case is dis5issed
4ithout his eEpress consent. >hen all the ele5ents concur, a "nd prosecution for %a) the sa5e
offense, or %2) an atte5pt to co55it the said offense or %c) an8 offense 4hich necessaril8 includes,
or is necessaril8 included in the first offense char9ed, can 2e ri9htl8 2arred.
Dere there is no :uestion that the M*C did not ha3e the re:uisite 7urisdiction to tr8 the
offense of rape 4hich lies 4ith the pro3ince of the .*C. MOreo3er,5 the dis5issal of the case for
:ualified seduction 28 the M*C no onl8 4as pro3isional 2ut li?e4ise 4ith the E;P.E--
CO,-E,* of the petitioner.
*here is no trans9ression of the accusedBs ri9ht to speed8 trial 4ith onl8 " postpone5ents
in the sa5e 5onth entailin9 an inter3al of 7ust ( da8s, the proceedin9s ha3e not 2een unreasona2l8
dela8ed in 3iolation of the ri9ht to speed8 trial. S.:ette.
1. *he pri3ile9e of the 4rit of habeas corpus
A$t. III Se%. 1?. T'e &$ivi)e2e o+ t'e -$it o+ habeas corpus s'()) not *e s.s&ended
e;%e&t in %(ses o+ inv(sion o$ $e*e))ion -'en t'e &.*)i% s(+et, $e/.i$es it.
In case of in3asion or re2ellion, 4hen the pu2lic safet8 re:uires it, the President 5a8, for a
period not eEceedin9 $! da8s, suspend the pri3ile9e of the 4rit of ha2eas corpus...
*he suspension of the pri3ile9e of the 4rit shall appl8 onl8 to persons 7udiciall8 char9ed
for re2ellion or offenses inherent in or directl8 connected 4ith in3asion.
1urin9 the suspension of the pri3ile9e of the 4rit, an8 person thus arrested or detained
shall 2e 7udiciall8 char9ed 4ithin @ da8s, other4ise he shall 2e released. %+rt. VII, -ec. &A.)
P+/E &"&
+ =4rit of heabeas corpus= is a 4rit directed to the person detainin9 another, co55andin9
hi5 to produce the 2od8 of the detainee at a desi9nated ti5e and place, and to sho4 cause 4h8 he
should continue to 2e detained.
*he =pri3ile9e of the 4rit= is the ri9ht to ha3e the i55ediate deter5ination of the le9alit8
of the depri3ation of ph8sical li2ert8.
>hat is suspended is the pri3ile9e of the 4rit, and not the 4rit itself. *he 4rit 4ill al4a8s
issue as a 5atter of course. But 4hen the pri3ile9e of the 4rit is suspended, all the detainin9 office
needs to do 4hen he recei3es the 4rit of habeas corpus is to sho4 to the court that the detainee is
2ein9 detained for an offense co3ered 28 the suspension, and the court cannot in:uire an8 further to
find out if the detention is le9al. Under the Con5stitution, this is so onl8 for @ da8s. +fter @ da8s,
the Court can no4 re:uire the detainin9 officer to produce the 2od8 of the detainees and sho4
cause 4h8 he should not 2e released.
*he suspension of the pri3ile9e of the 4rit applied onl8 to cri5es related to in3asion or
re2ellion. +n eEtensi3e discussion 4as 5ade under the Co55ander#in# Chief clause of the
President, supra. *his rest of the section 4ill 2e confined to habeas corpus as a re5ed8 in all other
offenses.
In 9eneral as alread8 noted a2o3e, the pri3ile9e of the 4rit is an eEtraordinar8 re5ed8 to
:uestion the ille9alit8 of the arrest or detention, or an8 other restraint to li2ert8. >hen all else is
lost, it is the last recourse to 9et so5eone out of his ille9al detention.
&. Functions of the 4rit
Villa3icencio 3. Lu?2an, @' P ((A %&'&')
/abeas corpus is a3aila2le not onl8 for those 4ho are in actual detention 2ut e3en for
those 4hose li2ert8 is 5erel8 restrained. *hus, in Moncupa 3. Enrile, &F& -C.+ "@@ %&'A$), the
-C 9ranted ha2eas corpus to petitioner 4ho, thou9h te5poraril8 released, could not tra3el outside
Metro Manila, could not chan9e his residence, could not 2e inter3ie4ed 28 5edia, and had to
report to the 5ilitar8.
Moncupa 3. Ponce Enrile &F& -C.+ "@@ %&'A$)
F6 Petitioner and others 4ere arrested and t4o separate infor5ations 4ere filed a9ainst hi56 one, for
ille9al possession of firear5s 2efore the CFI .izal and another for ille9al possession of su23ersi3e
5aterials 2efore the Cit8 Court of Puezon Cit8. Dis co5panions 4ere char9ed 4ith su23ersion 2ut he 4as
eEcluded fro5 the char9e. 0et, his 5otions for 2ail 4ere denied. De then filed a petition for habeas corpus
2ut the respondents 5o3ed to dis5iss on the 9round that he had 2een te5poraril8 released fro5 detention.
*he issue 4as 4hether the petition had 2eco5e 5oot and acade5ic in 3ie4 of petitionerBs te5porar8
release.
DEL16 +ttached to petitionerBs te5porar8 release are se3eral restrictions. -uch restrictions li5it
the freedo5 of 5o3e5ent of petitioner. It is not ph8sical restraint alone 4hich can 2e in:uired into
28 5eans of the 4rit of habeas corpus. VV.
". *he 4rit of ha2eas corpus as a post#con3iction re5ed8
P+/E &""
In Cha3ez 3. Court of +ppeals, supra, habeas corpus 4as the re5ed8 of one 4hose
confine5ent 4as the result of a 3oid 7ud9n5ent of con3iction arri3ed at after the 7ud9e 3iolated due
process 28 co5pellin9 hi5 to ta?e the stand and testif8 a9ainst hi5self.
Cha3ez 3. Court of +ppeals, "F -C.+ $@@ %&'A$), supra.
In /u5a2on 3. 1irector of Prison, @( -C.+ F"! %&'(&), so5e persons 4ho 4ere char9ed
4ith the co5pleE cri5e of re2ellion 4ith ho5icide, rape, or other co55on cri5es, did not appeal
their con3iction and so 4ere sentenced accordin9l8. *he other accused, ho4e3er, appealed their
con3iction, resultin9 in a ne4 rulin9 in People 3. Dernandez to the effect that there can 2e no
co5pleE cri5 of re2ellion 4ith ho5icide, rape, etc., for these co55on cri5es are a2sor2ed 28
re2ellion. +s a result, 4hile those 4ho appealed 4ere no4 free, those 4ho did not re5ained in 7ail.
*he -C ruled that those 4ho conrtinued to lan9uish in 7ail could a3ail of ha2eas corpus to :uestion
the le9alit8 of their continued detention pursuant to the rulin9 in People 3. Dernandez.
/u5a2on 3. 1irector of Prison, @( -C.+ F"! %&'(&)
Cruz 3. Ponce#Enrile, &$! -C.+ (!" %&'AA)
@. -uspension of the pri3ile9e
A$t. VII Se%. 1@. T'e P$esident s'()) *e t'e Co11(nde$FinFC'ie+ o+ ()) ($1ed +o$%es
o+ t'e P'i)i&&ines (nd -'eneve$ it *e%o1es ne%ess($, 'e 1(, %()) o.t s.%' ($1ed +o$%es to
&$event o$ s.&&$ess )(-)ess vio)en%e inv(sion o$ $e*e))ion. In %(se o+ inv(sion o$ $e*e))ion
-'en t'e &.*)i% s(+et, $e/.i$es it 'e 1(, +o$ ( &e$iod not e;%eedin2 si;t, d(,s s.s&end t'e
&$ivi)e2e o+ t'e -$it o+ habeas corpus o$ &)(%e t'e P'i)i&&ines o$ (n, &($t t'e$eo+ .nde$
1($ti() )(-. Wit'in +o$t,Fei2't 'o.$s +$o1 t'e &$o%)(1(tion o+ 1($ti() )(- o$ t'e s.s&ension
o+ t'e &$ivi)e2e o+ t'e -$it o+ habeas corpus t'e P$esident s'()) s.*1it ( $e&o$t in &e$son o$
in -$itin2 to t'e Con2$ess. T'e Con2$ess votin2 Goint), *, ( vote o+ (t )e(st ( 1(Go$it, o+ ())
its "e1*e$s in $e2.)($ o$ s&e%i() session 1(, $evo9e s.%' &$o%)(1(tion o$ s.s&ension -'i%'
$evo%(tion s'()) not *e set (side *, t'e P$esident. U&on t'e initi(tive o+ t'e P$esident t'e
Con2$ess 1(, in t'e s(1e 1(nne$ e;tend s.%' &$o%)(1(tion o$ s.s&ension +o$ ( &e$iod to *e
dete$1ined *, t'e Con2$ess i+ t'e inv(sion o$ $e*e))ion s'()) &e$sist (nd &.*)i% s(+et,
$e/.i$es it.
T'e Con2$ess i+ not in session s'()) -it'in t-ent,F+o.$ 'o.$s +o))o-in2 s.%'
&$o%)(1(tion o$ s.s&ension %onvene in (%%o$d(n%e -it' its $.)es -it'o.t need o+ ( %()).
T'e S.&$e1e Co.$t 1(, $evie- in (n (&&$o&$i(te &$o%eedin2 +i)ed *, (n, %iti:en t'e
s.++i%ien%, o+ t'e +(%t.() *(sis o+ t'e &$o%)(1(tion o+ 1($ti() )(- o$ t'e s.s&ension o+ t'e
&$ivi)e2e o+ t'e -$it o$ t'e e;tension t'e$eo+ (nd 1.st &$o1.)2(te its de%ision t'e$eon -it'in
t'i$t, d(,s +$o1 its +i)in2.
A st(te o+ 1($ti() )(- does not s.s&end t'e o&e$(tion o+ t'e Constit.tion no$
s.&&)(nt t'e +.n%tionin2 o+ t'e %ivi) %o.$ts o$ )e2is)(tive (sse1*)ies no$ (.t'o$i:e t'e
%on+e$1ent o+ G.$isdi%tion on 1i)it($, %o.$ts (nd (2en%ies ove$ %ivi)i(ns -'e$e %ivi) %o.$ts ($e
(*)e to +.n%tion no$ (.to1(ti%()), s.s&end t'e &$ivi)e2e o+ t'e -$it.
P+/E &"@
T'e s.s&ension o+ t'e &$ivi)e2e s'()) (&&), on), to &e$sons G.di%i()), %'($2ed +o$
$e*e))ion o$ o++enses in'e$ent in o$ di$e%t), %onne%ted -it' inv(sion.
D.$in2 t'e s.s&ension o+ t'e &$ivi)e2e o+ t'e -$it (n, &e$son t'.s ($$ested o$
det(ined s'()) *e G.di%i()), %'($2ed -it'in t'$ee d(,s ot'e$-ise 'e s'()) *e $e)e(sed.

Lansan9 3. /arcia, F" -C.+ FAA %&'(&)
E. +ffir5ati3e ri9hts
&. Free access to the courts
". Protection and enforce5ent of constitutional ri9hts
A$t. III Se%. 17. ;;;
=IA T'e )(- s'()) &$ovide +o$ &en() (nd %ivi) s(n%tions+o$ vio)(tions o+ t'is se%tion (s
+(1i)ies.
A$t. VIII Se%. ?. T'e S.&$e1e Co.$t s'()) '(ve t'e +o))o-in2 &o-e$sD
;;;
=?A P$o1.)2(te $.)es %on%e$nin2 t'e &$ote%tion (nd en+o$%e1ent o+ %onstit.tion()
$i2'ts &)e(din2 &$(%ti%e (nd &$o%ed.$e in ()) %o.$ts t'e (d1ission to t'e &$(%ti%e o+ )(- t'e
Inte2$(ted 4($ (nd )e2() (ssist(n%e to t'e .nde$&$ivi)e2ed. S.%' $.)es s'()) &$ovide (
si1&)i+ied (nd ine;&ensive &$o%ed.$e +o$ t'e s&eed, dis&osition o+ %(ses s'()) *e .ni+o$1 +o$
()) %o.$ts o+ t'e s(1e 2$(de (nd s'()) not di1inis' in%$e(se o$ 1odi+, s.*st(ntive $i2'ts.
R.)es o+ &$o%ed.$e o+ s&e%i() %o.$ts (nd /.(siFG.di%i() *odies s'()) $e1(in e++e%tive .n)ess
dis(&&$oved *, t'e S.&$e1e Co.$t.

A$t. #III Se%. 1@. T'e Co11ission on H.1(n Ri2'ts s'()) '(ve t'e +o))o-in2
&o-e$s (nd +.n%tionsD
;;;
=>A P$ovide (&&$o&$i(te )e2() 1e(s.$es +o$ t'e &$ote%tion o+ '.1(n $i2'ts o+ ())
&e$sons -it'in t'e P'i)i&&ines (s -e)) (s 3i)i&inos $esidin2 (*$o(d (nd &$ovide +o$ &$eventive
1e(s.$es (nd )e2() (id se$vi%es to t'e .nde$&$ivi)e2ed -'ose '.1(n $i2'ts '(ve *een vio)(ted
o$ need &$ote%tion<
;;;
@. Co5pensation to, and reha2ilitation of, 3icti5s of tortures
A$t. III Se%. 17. ;;;
P+/E &"F
=IA T'e )(- s'()) &$ovide +o$ &en() (nd %ivi) s(n%tions +o$ vio)(tions o+ t'is se%tion (s
+(1i)ies.
IV. 3REEDO" O3 E#PRESSION
A$t. III Se%. I. No )(- s'()) *e &(ssed (*$id2in2 t'e +$eedo1 o+ s&ee%' o+
e;&$ession o$ o+ t'e &$ess o$ t'e $i2't o+ t'e &eo&)e &e(%e(*), to (sse1*)e (nd &etition t'e
Gove$n1ent +o$ $ed$ess o+ 2$iev(n%e.
Id. Se%. 1@. =1A No &e$son s'()) *e det(ined so)e), *, $e(son o+ 'is &o)iti%() *e)ie+s
(nd (s&i$(tions.
;;;
+. Philosophical Basis of /uarantees
Free Mar?et Place of Ideas
&. For the disco3er8 of political truth
>hen 5en ha3e realized that ti5e has upset 5an8 fi9htin9 faiths, the8 5a8 co5e to
2elie3e e3en 5ore than the8 2elie3e the 3er8 foundations of their o4n conduct that the ulti5ate
9ood desired is 2etter reached 28 free trade in ideas## that the 2est test of truth is the po4er of the
thou9ht to 9et itself accepted in the co5petition of the 5ar?et, and the truth is the onl8 9round
upon 4hich their 4ishes safel8 can 2e carried out. %Justice Dol5es, +2ra5s 3. United -tates, "!
U.-. $&$. %&'&')
*he theor8 2ehind freedo5 of eEpression is the principle that ours is a de5ocratic societ8,
and so the onl8 4a8 to rule ulti5atel8 is 28, 5eans of pu2lic opinion, 4hich is possi2le onl8 4hen
e3er8one can spea? their 5inds out and co5pete in the free 5ar?et place of ideas.
". For self 9o3ern5ent
United -tates 3. Bustos, @( P (@& %&'&A)
Bur9os 3. Chief of -taff, &@@ -C.+ A!! %&'AF), supra
DEL16 +s a conse:uence of the search and seizure, the pre5ises of the =Metropolitan Mail= and
=>e Foru5= 4ere padloc?ed and sealed, 4ith the further result that the printin9 and pu2lication of
said ne4spapers 4ere discontinued. -uch closure is in the nature of pre3ious restraint or
censorship a2horrent to the freedo5 of the press 9uaranteed under the funda5ental la4 and
constitutes a 3irtual denial of petitionerBs freedo5 to eEpress the5sel3es in print. *his state of 2ein9
is patenl8 anathe5atic to a de5ocratic fra5e4or? 4here a free, alert and e3en 5ilitant press is
essential for the political enli9hten5ent and 9ro4th of the citizenr8. VV.
Corro 3. Lisin9, &@( -C.+ @F& %&'A), supra
P+/E &"
*his case :uoted the sa5e ratio in Bur9os 3. Chief of -taff.
,e4 0or? *i5es 3. -ulli3an, @A! U- & %&'$F)
@. For indi3idual protection
>hitne8 3. California, "(F U- @(, F( -. Ct. $F&, (& L. Ed. &!F %Brandeis, J., concurrin9)
B. Prior .estraints

*hus an8 s8ste5 of prior restraints of eEpression co5es to the Court 2earin9 a hea38
presu5ption a9ainst its constitutionalit8, 9i3in9 the 9o3ern5ent a hea38 2urden to sho4
7ustification for the i5position of such restraint. %,e4 0or? 3. United -tates %&'(&)J also in ,e4
0or? *i5es 3. Penta9on and Banta5 Boo?s 3. Pu2lication of Penta9on Papers).
-anidad 3. COMELEC, &A& -C.+ "' %&''!)
-u2se:uent Punish5ent
+nd e3en su2se:uent punish5ent is te5pered 28 the 9reater interest of pro5otin9 free
pu2lic opinion. *he 5ost si9nificant eEpression is the la4 on li2el.
>e consider this case a9ainst the 2ac?9round of a profound national co55it5ent to de2ate
on pu2lic issues 2ein9 uninhi2ited, ro2ust and 4ide#open, and that it 5a8 4ell include 3ehe5ent,
caustic, and so5eti5es unpleasantl8 sharp attac?s on 9o3ern5ent and pu2lic officials. *he falsit8
of so5e of the factual state5ents and alle9ed defa5ations do not :ualif8 the role. +nd 7ust as
factual error afforded no 4arrant for repressin9 speech that 4ould other4ise 2e free, the sa5e is
true of in7ur8 to official reputation. %,e4 0or? *i5es 3. -ulli3an, @A! U.-. & %&'$F)
*he interest of societ8 and 9ood 9o3ern5ent de5ands a full discussion of pu2lic affairs.
>hether the la4 is 4isel8 or 2adl8 enforced is a fit su27ect for proper co55ent. Pu2lic polic8,
4elfare of societ8, and the orderl8 ad5inistration of 9o3ern5ent ha3e de5anded protection for
pu2lic opinion. *he ine3ita2le and incontesta2le result has 2een the de3elop5ent and adoption of
the doctrine of pri3ile9e. GJustice Malco5, United -tates 3. Bustos, (@& %&'&A).H
>hile, uncer the .e3ised Penal Code, an8 defa5ator8 state5ent is presu5ed to 2e
5alicious %5alice#in#la4), 4hen the defense pro3es that the co55unication is pri3ile9ed, such a
presu5ption of 5alice does not arise 2ecause of the 9reater pu2lic interest in3ol3ed.
If the co55unication is a2solutel8 pri3ile9ed %as in parlia5entar8 freedo5 of speech), the
prosecution cannot e3en pro3e 5alice#in#fact.
If the co55unication is onl8 :ualifiedl8 pri3ile9ed %+rt. @F enu5erates the " instances6
fair and true reportin9 of an official proceedin9J le9al 5oral or social dut8), the 2urden is shifted
on the prosecution to pro3e 5alice#in#fact, 4hich the defense can o3erco5e 28 pro3in9 the truth of
P+/E &"$
the defa5ator8 state5ent %4hich in the case of pu2lic officials 5a8 or 5a8 not constitute a cri5e,
so lon9 as related to the conduct of his office) and 9ood 5oti3e.
C. Content#Based .estrictions
&. *est of 3alidit8 of content#2ased restrictions
*he U.-. -upre5e Court and, 28 haphazard i5itation, the Philippine -upre5e Court, ha3e
e3ol3ed certain tests to re9ulate the contents of speech.
.angerous Tendency Test6 >hen the le9islati3e 2od8 has deter5ined 9enerall8, in the
eEercise of its discretion, that utterances of a certain ?ind in3ol3e such dan9er of a su2stanti3e e3il
that the8 5a8 2e punished, the :uestion 4hether an8 specific utterance co5in9 4ithin the
prohi2ited class is li?el8, in and itself, to 2rin9 the su2stanti3e e3ils, is not open to consideration.
In such cases, the 9eneral pro3ision of the statute 5a8 2e constitutionall8 applied to the specific
utterance if its natural and pro2a2le effect 4as to 2rin9 a2out the su2stanti3e e3il 4hich the
le9islati3e 2od8 5i9ht prohi2it. G/itlo4 3. ,e4 0or?, "$A U- $" %&'").H
EEa5ple6 +rt. &F". Incitin9 to sedition. >hen the le9islature has decided that one 4ho
ad3ocates a certain conduct is 9uilt8 of a cri5e, the court cannot intrude. +s it e3ol3ed, this test
4as supposed to appl8 4hen there is a statute, in contrast to the clear and present dan9er rule
4hich applies 4hen the speech is not prohi2ited 28 statute.
Clear and &resent .anger Test6 *he :uestion in e3er8 case is 4hether the 4ords used are
used in such circu5stances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present dan9er that
the8 4ill 2rin9 a2out the su2stanti3e e3ils that Con9ress has a ri9ht to pre3ent. It is a :uestion of
proEi5it8 and de9ree. G-chenc? 3. United -tates, "F' U- F( %&'&').H
*he e5phasis of the test is the nature of the circu5stances under 4hich it is uttered. *he
speech itself 5a8 not 2e dan9erous. +s Dol5es said6 =Man8 thin9s that 5i9ht 2e said in ti5e of
peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance 4ill not 2e endured so lon9 as 5en
fi9ht.= Or sa8in9 =Fire= in a cro4ded 5o3ie house.
)ravebutimprobable danger8 >hether the 9ra3it8 of the e3il, discounted 28 its
i5pro2a2ilit8, 7ustifies such an in3asion of free speech as is necessar8 to a3oid the dan9er. G1ennis
3. United -tates, @F& U- F'F %&'&), :uotin9 Jud9e Learned Dand.H
*his test 4as 5eant to supplant the clear and present dan9er. *he8 2oth e5phasize the
circu5stances of the speech, 2ut this latter test consider the 4ei9hin9 of 3alues.
.irect Incitement Test6 *he consitutional 9uarantees of free speech and press do not
per5it a -tate to for2id or proscri2e ad3ocac8 of the use of force or of la4 3iolation, eEcept 4here
such ad3ocac8 or peech is directed to incitin9 or producin9 i55inent la4less action, and is li?el8 to
incite or produce such action. GBranden2ur9 3. Ohio, @' U.-. FFF %&'$'), cited in -alon9a 3.
Cruz Pano, &@F -C.+ F@A %&'A).H
*he test e5phasizes the 3er8 4ords uttered6 %a) >hat 4ords did he utterI %2) >hat is
the li?el8 result of such utteranceI It criticizes the clear and present dan9er test for 2ein9 top
dependent on the circu5stances. -pea?er 5a8, 4hen tested sho4 no incite5ent 2ut 8ou ?no4 the
spea?er is incitin9 to sedition.
P+/E &"(
Balancing of Interest Test6 *he court 5ust underta?e the delicate and difficult tas? of
4ei9hin9 the circu5stances and appraisin9 the su2stantialit8 of the reasons ad3anced in support of
the re9ulation of the free en7o85ent of ri9hts. G+5erican Co55unication +ssBn 3. 1ouds, @@' U-
@A@ cited in /onzales 3. COMELEC, "( -C.+ A@ %&'$'+)H
*he test applied 4hen t4o le9iti5ate 3alues not in3ol3in9 national secuirt8 cri5es
co5pete. In3ol3es an appoint of the co5petin9 interest. %/onzales 3. Co5elec)
In +3er 3. Capulon9 and Enrile, for instance, it is a :uestion of 2alancin9 the freedo5 of
eEpression of the producer and the ri9ht to pri3ac8 of Enrile.
Balancing of 'actors Test8 *he truth is theat the clear#and#present dan9er test is o3er#
si5plified 7ud9e5ent unless it ta?es into account also a nu52er of other factors6 %&) the relati3e
seriousness of the dan9er in co5parison 4ith the 3alue of the occasion for speech or political
acti3it8, %") the a3aila2ilit8 of 5ore 5oderate controls than those the -tate has i5posed, and
perhaps %@) the specific intent 4ith 4hich the speech is launched. %Freund, :uoted in 1ennis 3.
United -tates in the concurrin9 opinion of Justice Fran?furter).
". +pplications of tests in 3arious conteEts
a. Freedo5 of eEpression and national securit8
Espeulas 3. People, '! P "F %&'&)

Ba2st 3. ,ational Intelli9ence Board &@" -C.+ @&$ %&'AF)
F6 Petitioners are 7ournalists and colu5nists. On different dates in Jul8 &'A!, the8 4ere su55oned
28 5ilitar8 authorities for interro9ation re9ardin9 their 4or?, feelin9s, senti5ents, 2eliefs, associations
and e3en pri3ate li3es. In addition, one of the5 4as char9ed 4ith li2el 28 a /eneral 4ho sou9ht to reco3er
P&! 5illion in da5a9es. *he8 2rou9ht an action for prohi2ition to stop the ,IB fro5 :uestionin9 the5
and fro5 filin9 li2el suits on 5atters that had 2een the su27ect of in:uir8 28 the ,IB.
DEL16 *he petition has 2eco5e 5oot and acade5ic. Be that as it 5a8, it is not idle to note that,
4hile ordinaril8, an in3itation to attend a hearin9 and ans4er so5e :uestions is not ille9al or
constitutionall8 o27ectiona2le, under certain circu5stances, ho4e3er, such an in3itation can easil8
assu5e a different appearance as 4hen it co5es fro5 a po4erful 9roup co5posed predo5inantl8
of ran?in9 5ilitar8 officers and the desi9nate interro9ation site is a 5ilitar8 ca5p.
*eehan?ee, J., dissentin96 *he -C should rule s:uarel8 or at least la8 do4n the authoritati3e and
controllin9 doctrines on the 3ital issues of upholdin9 the freedo5s of speech and of the press. VV.
2. Freedo5 of eEpression and criticis5 of official conduct6 *he *est of
=+ctual Malice=
.ead .e3ised Penal Code, +rticles @@#@F and @$&#@$"
A$t. >?>. (efinition of libel.-- A )i*e) is ( &.*)i% (nd 1()i%io.s i1&.t(tion o+ ( %$i1e
o$ o+ ( vi%e o$ de+e%t $e() o$ i1(2in($, o$ (n, (%t o1ission %ondition st(t.s o$
P+/E &"A
%i$%.1st(n%e tendin2 to %(.se t'e dis'nono$ dis%$edit o$ %onte1&t o+ ( n(t.$() o$ G.$idi%()
&e$son o$ to *)(%9en t'e 1e1o$, o+ one -'o is de(d. =Revised Pen() Code.A
A$t. >?I. Requirement of publicity.FF Eve$, de+(1(to$, i1&.t(tion is &$es.1ed to *e
1()i%io.s even i+ it *e t$.e i+ no 2ood intention (nd G.sti+i(*)e 1otive +o$ 1(9in2 it is s'o-n
e;%e&t in t'e +o))o-in2 %(sesD
1. A &$iv(te %o11.ni%(tion 1(de *, (n, &e$son to (not'e$ in t'e &e$+o$1(n%e o+ (n,
)e2() 1o$() o$ so%i() d.t,< (nd
7. A +(i$ (nd t$.e $e&o$t 1(de in 2ood +(it' -it'o.t (n, %o11ents o$ $e1($9s o+
(n, G.di%i() )e2is)(tive o$ ot'e$ o++i%i() &$o%eedin2s -'i%' ($e not o+ %on+identi() n(t.$e o$ o+
(n, st(te1ent $e&o$t o$ s&ee%' de)ive$ed in s(id &$o%eedin2s o$ o+ (n, ot'e$ (%t &e$+o$1ed
*, &.*)i% o++i%e$s in t'e e;e$%ise o+ t'ei$ +.n%tions. =)bid.A
A$t. >61. Proof of the truth.FF In eve$, %$i1in() &$ose%.tion +o$ )i*e) t'e t$.t' 1(,
*e 2iven in eviden%e to t'e %o.$t (nd i+ (&&e($s t'(t t'e 1(tte$ %'($2ed (s )i*e)o.s is t$.e
(nd 1o$eove$ t'(t it -(s &.*)is'ed -it' 2ood 1otives (nd +o$ G.sti+i(*)e ends t'e
de+end(nts 1(, *e (%/.itted.
P$oo+ o+ t'e t$.t' o+ (n i1&.t(tion o+ (n (%t o$ o1ission not %onstit.tin2 ( %$i1e s'())
not *e (d1itted .n)ess t'e i1&.t(tion s'()) '(ve *een 1(de (2(inst Gove$n1ent e1&)o,ees
-it' $es&e%t to +(%ts $e)(ted to t'e dis%'($2e o+ t'ei$ o++i%i() d.ties.
In s.%' %(ses i+ t'e de+end(nt &$oves t'e t$.t' o+ t'e i1&.t(tion 1(de *, 'i1 'e s'())
*e (%/.itted.
A$t. >67. /ibelous remar%s.FF Li*e)o.s $e1($9s o$ %o11ents %onne%ted -it' t'e
1(tte$ &$ivi)e2ed .nde$ t'e &$ovisions o+ ($ti%)e >?I i+ 1(de -it' 1()i%e s'()) not e;e1&t t'e
(.t'o$ t'e$eo+ no$ t'e edito$ o$ 1(n(2in2 edito$ o+ ( ne-s&(&e$ +$o1 %$i1in() )i(*i)it,.
Co5pare +ct ,o. "'"A, March "$, &'"! and Co5. +ct ,o. @A", -ept. $, &'@A
+ct ,o. "'"A
Co5. +ct @A", -ept. , &'@A
COMMO,>E+L*D +C* ,O. @A"
+, +C* *O +1OP* *DE O.I/I,+L +U*DE,*IC FO.M OF *DE PDILIPPI,E ,+*IO,+L
+,*DEM +,1 *O +PP.OP.I+*E FU,1- FO. I*- P.I,*I,/ +,1 F.EE 1I-*.IBU*IO,.
*o preser3e the 5usical adaptation and 5oti3e in the ori9inal authentic co5position of the
Philippine ,ational +nthe5 as set 28 its author, Julian Felipe, and to attain unifor5 perfor5ance thereof
in the Philippines6
Be it enacted by the 0ational %ssembly of the &hilippines8
-ec. &. *he 5usical arran9e5ent and co5position of the Philippine ,ational +nthe5 as set 28
its author, Julian Felipe, is adopted.
-ec. ". *here is appropriated, out of the unappropriated funds in the ,ational *reasur8, the su5
of fi3e hundred pesos for the preparation, printin9 and free distri2ution of copies of the Philippine
,ational +nthe5 as ad7usted to its ori9inal authentic outline.
-ec. @. *he ,ational Li2rar8 of the Philippines is entrusted 4ith the acco5plish5ent hereof.
-ec. F. *his +ct shall ta?e effect on its appro3al.
P+/E &"'
+ppro3ed, -epte52er , &'@A.
Freedo5 of eEpression and li2el
Freedo5 of speech 3ersus ri9ht to reputation. Li2el is the 5ost co55on for5 of
su2se:uent punish5ent. +lthou9h one cannot 2e pre3ented fro5 sa8in9 so5ethin9 2efore he
actuall8 sa8s it, one can 2e held lia2le for 4hat one has said if it causes da5a9e to the ri9hts of
others.
-oli3en 3. Ma?asiarJ Beltran 3. Ma?asiar, &$( -C.+ @'@ %&'AA)
F6 *he President of the Philippines filed a co5plaint for li2el a9ainst the petitioners, 4ho 4ere the
pu2lisher and colu5nist of the Philippine -tar, 2ased on the follo4in9 state5ent in BeltranBs colu5n of
Oct. &", &'A( totle =*he ,er3ous Officials of the +:uino +d5inistration=6 =If 8ou recall, durin9 the
+u9ust "' coup atte5pt, the President hid under her 2ed 4hile the firin9 4as 9oin9 on # perhaps the first
Co55ander#in#Chief to do so.= Beltran did not su25it a counter affida3it and instead, 5o3ed to dis5iss
the co5plaint. *he fiscal denied his 5otion. *hus, this petition for certiorari.
DEL16 EEE
%@) +s re9ards the contention of petitioner Beltran that he could not 2e held lia2le for li2el
2ec. of the pri3ile9ed character of the pu2lication, the Court reiterates that it is not a trier of facts
and that such a defense is 2est left to the trial court to appreciate after recei3in9 the e3idence of the
parties. +s to petitioner BeltranBs clai5 that to allo4 the li2el case to proceed 4ould produce a
=chillin9 effect= on the press freedo5, the Court finds no 2asis at this sta9e to rule on the point.
VV.
Manuel 3. Cruz#Pano, &(" -C.+ "" %&'A')
-ibel suits based on official criticisms should be dismissed outright unless made in bad faith
F6 Petitioner 4rote the Chair5an of the +nti#-5u99lin9 +ction Center denouncin9 a2uses alle9edl8
co55itted 28 +-+C a9ents a9ainst petitionerBs clients. Petitioner said the a9ents su27ected ,9 >oo Da8 to
indi9nities and too? her nec?lace and 2racelet and her sonBs 4rist4atch plus DKT (!. But the a9ents 4ere
eEonerated so petitioner filed cri5inal char9es of ro22er8. Petitioner found prosecutors uns85pathetic so
he filed a ci3il action for da5a9es a9ainst the a9ents. Later, the Bulletin *oda8 pu2lished a ne4s ite5
2ased on petitionerBs letter to +-+C. *his 2eca5e the 2asis of an action for li2el 2rou9ht a9ainst petitioner
and his clients. Petitioner 5o3ed to :uash the case 2ut his 5otion 4as denied.
DEL16 Fro5 the 3ie4point of procedural and su2stanti3e la4, the char9e is defecti3e. *he letter
constitutes pri3ile9ed co55unication. It 4as sent 28 petitioner in his capacit8 as la48er in the
dischar9e of his le9al dut8 to his clients. De could also in3?e his ci3ic dut8 as a pri3ate indi3idual
to eEpose ano5alies in the pu2lic ser3ice. *he co5plaint 4as addressed to the official 4ho had
authorit8 o3er the5 and could i5pose proper disciplinar8 sanctions. +s an indeE of 9ood faith, the
letter 4as sent pri3atel8, directl8 to the addressee 4ithout an8 funfare nor pu2licit8. +s for the ne4s
report, it is difficult to 2elie3e that the petitioner, an ordinar8 citizen 4ithout ?no4n ties to
ne4spaper, could ha3e 28 hi5self caused the pu2lication. It does not appear either that the report
4as paid for li?e an ad3ertise5ent. +t an8 rate, the ne4s ite5 is a true and fair report of a 7udicial
proceedin9, 5ade in 9ood faith and 4ithout co55ents or re5ar?s. VV.
,e4s4ee? Inc. 3. I+C &F" -C.+ &(& %&'A$)
P+/E &@!
F6 Petitioner 4as sued for li2el in connection 4ith the pu2lication in the Fe2. "@, &'A& issue of
,e4s4ee? of the article =+n Island of Fear.= *he plaintiffs, su9ar planters of Bacolod, co5plained that the
article portra8ed the5 as eEploiters of su9ar 4or?ers. Petitioner 5o3ed to dis5iss the co5plaint on the
9round that the article 4as not li2elous since it did not sin9le an8 particular indi3idual. *he trial court
denied the 5otion and petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the I+C 4hich 4as dis5issed. *hus, this
appeal to the -C.
DEL16 >here the defa5ation is alle9ed to ha3e 2een directed at a 9roup or class, it is essential
that the state5ent 5ust 2e so s4eepin9 or all#e52racin9 as to appl8 to e3er8 indi3idual in that
9roup or class, or sufficientl8 specific so that each indi3idual in the class or 9roup can pro3e that
the defa5ator8 state5ent specificall8 pointed to hi5, so that he can 2rin9 the action separatel8 if
need 2e. *he disputed portion 4hich refers to plaintiff -ola ne3er sin9led out -ola. *he ne4s report
5erel8 stated that the 3icti5 had 2een arrested 28 5e52ers of a special police unit 2rou9ht into the
area 28 -ola, the 5a8or. Dence, the report referrin9 as it does to an official act is 4ithin the real5
of pri3ile9ed and is protected 28 the constitutional 9uarantees of free speech and press. VV.
,otes6 -ince the ,e4s4ee? artciles =Island of fear in the Visa8as= did not specif8 an8
indi3idual, it cannot 2e li2elous. +n article 5ust 2e sufficientl8, specific or at least s4eepin9 as to
appl8 to all 5e52ers of a 9roup, in order to 2e dee5ed li2elous.
Lopez 3. Court of +ppeals, @F -C.+ &&$ %&'(!)
*he pictures of a for5er 5a8or 4as inad3ertentl8 pu2lished and 5ista?en for another 5an
4ho 4as a sanitar8 inspector and fooled the authorities a2out the Ba2u8an Islands, clai5in9 of
5urders there, so the8 could 9o and he could 2e rescued. +n erratu5 4as pu2lished 28 the *his
>ee? 5a9azine. *he -C, :uotin9 Puisu52in9 3. Lopez, ho4e3er, found for plaintiff, 2ut 4ith
reduced da5a9es, since the error in in this case could ha3e 2een chec?ed considerin9in9 that this
4as a 4ee?l8 5a9azine and not a dail8.
Puisu52in9 3. Fernando, '$ Phil &! %&')
,e4spapers should 2e 9i3en lee4a8 and tolerance to ena2le the5 to coura9eousl8 and
effecti3el8 perfor5 their i5portant role in our de5ocrac8. In the preparation of stories, press
reporters and editors usuall8 ha3e to race to their deadlinesJ and consistentl8 4ith 9ood faith and
reasona2le care, the8 should not 2e held to account, to a point of suppression, for honest 5ista?es
or i5perfection in the choice of 4ords.
.
Mercado 3. CFI of .izal &&$ -C.+ '@ %&'A")
F6 Petitioner 4as accused of li2el on the 2asis of a tele9ra5 4hich he sent to the -ecretar8 of Pu2lic
>or?s re:uestin9 in3esti9ation of Mrs. Vir9inia Mercado of the Pu2lic -er3ice Co55ission =as 4e ha3e
reason to 2elie3e that she has enriched herself thru corrupt practices EEE.= De filed a 5otion to dis5iss on
the 9round that his co55unication 4as pri3ile9ed, 2ut his 5otion 4as denied. De filed another 5otion
4hich 4as also denied. *hus, this petition for certiorari, mandamus and prohi2ition in the -C.
DEL16 U- 3. Bustos is a land5ar? decision antedatin9 28 fort8 8ears a si5ilar decision of the U-
-upre5e Court to the effect that a li2el prosecution 5ust sur3i3e the test of 4hether or not the
offendin9 pu2lication is 4ithin the 9uarantees of free speech and free press. Do4e3er, Justice
Malcol5 in U- 3. Bustos 4as careful to point out that :ualified pri3ile9e and this is one instance
5a8 2e =lost 28 proof of 5alice.= >hat casts dou2t on the 9ood faith of petitioner is his conduct,
3is#U#3is pri3ate respondent. *he tenacit8 4ith 4hich petitioner had pursued a course of conduct on
P+/E &@&
its face 4ould see5 to indicate that a dou2t could reasona2l8 2e entertained as the 2ona fides of
petitioner. *he prosecution should 2e 9i3en a chance to pro3e 5alice. VV.
Elizalde 3. /utierrez, ($ -C.+ FFA %&'(()
+ pu2lication of a dispatch co5in9 fro5 the Philippine ,e4s +9enc8 28 the sensationalist
ne4spaper E3enin9 ,e4s a2out the Ma99ie dela .i3a rape case in3ol3in9 pro5inent indi3iduals is
not li2elous. Courts 5ust 2e careful not to unnecessaril8 prosecute 5e52ers of the press if it finds
the prosecution to 2e 2aseless, the8 should i55ediatel8 dis5iss the case and not allo4 the editor
and pu2lisher to 2e derailed fro5 their 4or? 28 2ein9 dra99ed into trial.
c. Freedo5 of eEpression and the ri9ht to pri3ac8
La9unzad 3. /onzales, '" -C.+ F($ %&'(')

F6 La9unzad fil5ed the Moises Padilla stor8 2ased on a 2oo? 4ritten 28 .odri9uez. EEE ,ell8
+5ane 4ho 4as a half#sister of Padilla o27ected to the 5o3ie on the 9round that it contained a portra8al
of PadillaBs pri3ate and fa5il8 life, includin9 scenes a2out his 5other, Maria -oto 3da. de /onzales, and a
certain =+urin9= as PadillaBs 9irl friend. -u2se:uentl8, ,ell8 +5ante, to9ether 4C her sister and 5other,
a9reed to allo4 petitioner to =eEploit, use and de3elope the life stor8 of Moises Padilla for purposes of
producin9 the pictures,= in consideration of P"!,!!!. Petitioner paid P,!!! 2ut as he failed to pa8 the
2alance a9reed upon, he 4as sued. Jud9e5ent 4as rendered a9ainst hi5 28 the trial court, 4Cc 4as
affir5ed 28 the C+. Petitioner appealed to the -C contendin9 that he 4as forced to enter into the
a9ree5ent onl8 to a3oid financial loss caused 28 dela8 in the sho4in9 of the 5o3ie and the relati3es of
Padilla did not ha3e a propert8 ri9ht in the life of M. Padilla since Padilla 4as a pu2lic fi9ure.
DEL16 PetitionerBs a3er5ent is not 4ell ta?en. Bein9 a pu2lic fi9ure does not auto5aticall8
destro8 in toto a personBs ri9ht to pri3ac8. *he ri9ht to in3ade a personBs pri3ac8 to disse5inate
pu2lic infor5ation does not eEtend to fictional or no3elized representation of a person, no 5atter
ho4 a pu2lic fi9ure he or she 5a8 2e. In the case at 2ar, 4hile it is true that petitioner eEerted
efforts to present the true#to#life stor8 of Moises Padilla, petitioner ad5its that he included a little
ro5ance in the fil5 2ec. 4Co it, it 4ould 2e a dra2 stor8 of torture and 2rutalit8.
Freedo5 of eEpression, indeed, occupies a preferred position in the hierarch8 of ci3il
li2erties. It is not, ho4e3er, 4Co li5itations. In the particular circu5stances presented and
considerin9 the o2li9ations assu5ed 28 petitioner under the a9ree5ent, the 3alidit8 of such
a9ree5ent 4ill ha3e to 2e upheld particular 2ec. the li5its of freedo5 of eEpression are reached
4hen eEpression touches upon 5atters of pri3ate concern. GIn the a9ree5ent si9ned 28 hi5,
petitioner ad5itted that in the picture produced, he had =eEploited the life stor8 of Moises Padilla
for pecuniar8 9ain, and other profit 5oti3es, and %had) encroached upon the pri3ac8 of Moises
PadillaBs i55ediate fa5il8, and %had) in fact included, in the PIC*U.EBs case, persons portra8in9
so5e of MOI-E- P+1ILL+Bs ?in...=H VV.
+8er Productions Pt8. Ltd. 3. Capulon9 +pril "', &'AA
F6 Pi3ate respondent Juan Ponce Enrile filed an action in the .*C of Ma?ati to en7oin the
petitioners fro5 producin9 the 5o3ie =*he Four 1a8 .e3olution,= a docu5entar8 of the E1-+ .e3olution
in &'A$ on the 9round that it 3iolated his ri9ht to pri3ac8. Petitioners contended that the 5o3ie 4ould not
in3ol3e his pri3ate life not that of his fa5il8. But the trial court issued a 4rit of preli5inar8 in7unction and
P+/E &@"
ordered petitioners to desist fro5 5a?in9 the 5o3ie 5a?in9 reference 4hatsoe3er to Ponce Enrile. *his,
this action for certiorari.
DEL16 Freedo5 of speech and eEpression includes freedo5 to produce 5otion pictures and to
eEhi2it the5. >hat is in3ol3ed is a prior restraint 28 the Jud9e upon the eEercise of speech and of
eEpression 28 petitioners. Because of the preferred character of speech and of eEpression, a
4ei9ht8 presu5ption of in3alidit8 3itiates 5easures of prior restraint. *he Jud9e should ha3e
sta8ed his hand considerin9 that the 5o3ie 4as 8et unco5pleted and therefore there 4as no =clear
and present dan9er.= *he su27ect 5atter of the 5o3ie does not relate to the pri3ate life of Ponce
Enrile. *he intrusion is no 5ore than necessar8 to ?eep the fil5 a truthful historical account. De
is, after all, a pu2lic fi9ure. *he line of e:uili2riu5 in the specific conteEt of the instant case
2et4een freedo5 of speech and of eEpression and the ri9ht of pri3ac8 5a8 2e 5ar?ed out in ter5s
of a re:uire5ent that the proposed 5otion picture 5ust 2e fairl8 truthful and historical in its
presentation of facts. *here 5ust 2e no sho4in9 of a rec?less disre9ard of truth. VV.
,otes6 +8er sou9ht to produce a 5o3ie on the F#da8 re3olution. Enrile, 4ho had
pre3iousl8 2een as?ed for the use of his character in the 5o3ie and had refused the offer, sued to
en7oin the fil5in9 2ecause he did not 4ant an8 5ention of his and his fa5il8Bs na5e. *he -C lifted
the in7unction issued 28 the lo4er court on the 9round that it a5ounted to prior restraint, 4hich is
no 2etter if i5posed 28 the courts than if i5posed 28 ad5inistrati3e 2odies or 28 ecclesiatical
officials.
In +8er, the reference to Enrile is una3oida2le 2ecause his na5e is part of histor8 and this
cannot 2e chan9ed or alteredJ thus his na5e can 2e used so lon9 as onl8 his pu2lic life is d4elled
onl8. But in La9unzad, althou9h Moises Padilla 4as also a pu2lic fi9ure, the 5o3ie dealth 4ith
2oth the pu2lic and pri3ate li3es of Moises Padilla.
d. Freedo5 of eEpression and ad5inistration of 7ustice %conte5pt of
court)
In re E5iliano P. Jurado, +M ,O. '!##"@(@, Jul8 &", &''!
In re .a5on *ulfo, +M ,O. '!#F#&F#!, +pril &(. &''!
Maldi3ar 3. -andi9an2a8an, &(! -C.+ & %&'A')

Ca2ansa9 3. Fernandez, &!" Phil &" %&'()
+ conte5pt i5posed 28 the court on the part8 4ho sent a letter to the Presidential +ction
Co55ittee co5plainin9 a2out the dela8 in the disposition of the a9rarian case, 4as lifted 28 the
-C. It held that althou9h such a letter should ha3e 2een sent to the -C and not the P+C, it 4as
ne3ertheless a 3alid eEercise of speech 4hich did not si9nificantl8 destro8, the orderl8
ad5inistration of 7ustice.
People 3. +larcon, $! Phil "$ %&'@')
P+/E &@@
+ person can 2e held lia2le for 5a?in9 co55ents on a pendin9 case %sub 4udice) 4hich
ha3e the tendenc8 to i5pair or o2struct the orderl8 ad5inistration of 7ustistice. But if the case is
not pendin9, such co55ent is a 3alid eEercise of the freedo5 of eEpression.
e. -852olic EEpression## *he Fla9#2urnin9 case
*eEas 3. Johnson, F'& U- @'(, &!' -. Ct. "@@ %&'A')
'lag burning when done to express dissent is protected speech.
F6 .espondent Johnson participated in a political de5onstration 4here he 2urned an +5erican fla9
4hile protesters chanted. ,o one 4as ph8sicall8 in7ured or threatened 4ith in7ur8, althou9h se3eral
4itnesses 4ere seriousl8 offended 28 the fla9 2urnin9. Johnson 4as con3icted of desecration of a
3enerated o27ect in 3iolation of a *eEas statute 4hich %&) prohi2ited the desecration of, a5on9 other
thin9s, a state or national fla9, and %") defined desecration as the ph8sical 5istreat5ent of such o27ects in
a 4a8 4hich the actor ?no4s 4ill seriousl8 offend one or 5ore persons li?el8 to o2ser3e or disco3er the
act. + state court of appeals affir5ed. *he Court of Cri5inal +ppeals of *eEas re3ersed, holdin9 that the
desecration statute as applied 3iolated the defendantBs ri9ht to freedo5 of speech under the Federal Consti #
tutionBs First +5end5ent, 2ecause the statute %&) 4as too 2road for First +5end5ent purposes as it
related to 2reaches of the peace, and %") 4as not ade:uatel8 supported 28 the stateBs pur ported interest in
preser3in9 a s852ol of unit8.
I--UE6 >hether the fla9 desecration statute is unconstitutional
DEL16 0E-. 1ecision +ffir5ed.
JohnsonBs con3iction 4as inconsistent 4ith the First +5end5ent under the particular
circu5stances 2ecause %&) JohnsonBs conduct 4as sufficientl8 i52ued 4ith ele5ents of
co55unication to i5plicate the First +5end5ent, 9i3en that this fla9 2urnin9 4as the cul5ination
of a political de5onstration and that the state conceded that the protesterBs conduct 4as
eEpressi3eJ %") the stateBs interest in pre3entin9 2reaches of the peace 4as not i5plicated on the
record in this case, since %a) no distur2ance of the peace actuall8 occurred or threatened to occur
2ecause of the fla9 2urnin9, %2) it cannot 2e presu5ed that an audience 4hich ta?es serious offense
at a particular eEpression is necessaril8 li?el8 to distur2 the peace, and %c) the fla9 2urnin9 does
not fall 4ithin the s5all class of =fi9htin9 4ords= that are li?el8 to pro3o?e the a3era9e person to
retaliation and there28 cause a 2reach of the peaceJ and %@) the stateBs asserted interest in
preser3in9 the fla9 as a s852ol of nationhood and national unit8 does not 7ustif8 the con3iction,
since %a) the atte5pted restriction on eEpression is content#2ased, and thus su27ect to the 5ost
eEactin9 scrutin8, 9i3en that the fla9 desecration statute is ai5ed not at protectin9 the ph8sical
inte9rit8 of the fla9 in all circu5stances, 2ut onl8 a9ainst i5pair5ents that 4ould cause serious
offenses to others and is ai5ed at protectin9 onloo?ers fro5 2ein9 offended 28 the ideas eEpressed
28 the prohi2ited acti3it8, and %2) althou9h the state has a le9iti5ate interest in encoura9in9 proper
treat5ent of the fla9, it 5a8 not foster its o4n 3ie4 of the fla9 28 prohi2itin9 eEpressi3e conduct
relatin9 to it and 28 cri5inall8 punishin9 a person for 2urnin9 the fla9 as a 5eans of political
protest.
.ehn:uist, >hite, OBConnor, JJ., .issenting (pinion6
%&) *he *eEas statute is not in3alid under the First +5end5ent as applied in this case,
2ecause %a) the +5erican Fla9 has co5e to 2e the 3isi2le s852ol e52od8in9 our nation and is not
si5pl8 another idea or point of 3ie4 co5petin9 for reco9nition in the 5ar?etplace of ideas, and the
pu2lic 2urnin9 of the +5erican fla9 in this case 4as no essential part of an8 eEposition of ideas
P+/E &@F
and had a tendenc8 to incite a 2reach of the peaceJ and %") the statute is not unconstitutionall8
3a9ue or o3er2road.
-te3ens, J., .issenting (pinion6
%&) -anctionin9 the desecration of the fla9 4ill tarnish its 3alue as a national s852ol, a
tarnish 4hich is not 7ustified 28 the tri3ial 2urden on free eEpression that is occasioned 28 re:uirin9
that alternati3e 5odes of eEpression 2e e5plo8edJ %") the fla9#desecration statute does not
prescri2e orthodoE 3ie4s or co5pel an8 conduct or eEpression of respect for an8 idea or s852olJ
and %@) the defendant 4as prosecuted not for his criticis5 of 9o3ern5e5t policies, 2ut for the
5ethod he chose to eEpress those 3ie4s, and a prohi2ition a9ainst that 5ethod is supported 28 a
le9iti5ate interest in preser3in9 the :ualit8 of an i5portant national asset. Ad(&ted.
Cf. +ct ,o. "'@A, March "$, &'"!
Co5. +ct @A", -ept. , &'@A
COMMO,>E+L*D +C* ,O. @A"
+, +C* *O +1OP* *DE O.I/I,+L +U*DE,*IC FO.M OF *DE PDILIPPI,E ,+*IO,+L
+,*DEM +,1 *O +PP.OP.I+*E FU,1- FO. I*- P.I,*I,/ +,1 F.EE 1I-*.IBU*IO,.
*o preser3e the 5usical adaptation and 5oti3e in the ori9inal authentic co5position of the
Philippine ,ational +nthe5 as set 28 its author, Julian Felipe, and to attain unifor5 perfor5ance thereof
in the Philippines6
Be it enacted by the 0ational %ssembly of the &hilippines8
-ec. &. *he 5usical arran9e5ent and co5position of the Philippine ,ational +nthe5 as set 28
its author, Julian Felipe, is adopted.
-ec. ". *here is appropriated, out of the unappropriated funds in the ,ational *reasur8, the su5
of fi3e hundred pesos for the preparation, printin9 and free distri2ution of copies of the Philippine
,ational +nthe5 as ad7usted to its ori9inal authentic outline.
-ec. @. *he ,ational Li2rar8 of the Philippines is entrusted 4ith the acco5plish5ent hereof.
-ec. F. *his +ct shall ta?e effect on its appro3al.
+ppro3ed, -epte52er , &'@A.
+d5. Code of &'A(, B? I, Chapter F, -ec. &"#&@
f. Mo3ies Censorship
>hile prior restraint is the 9eneral rule, censorship in the 5o3ies is tolerated 2ecause 28
the nature of the 5ediu5, it has a 9reater i5pact on the audience and produces instant reaction for
the ideas it presents, unli?e ne4spapers 4hich are read 28 people separated 28 4alls.
/onzales 3. Kati92a?, &@( -C.+ @$ %&'A)
F6 Petitioner 4as the producer of the 5o3ie Kapit sa Patali5 4hich the Board of .e3ie4 for Motion
Pictures and *ele3isions allo4ed on condition that certain deletions 4ere 5ade and that it 4as sho4n on
adults onl8. *he petitioner 2rou9ht an action, clai5in9 3iolation of their freedo5 of eEpression.
P+/E &@
DEL16 Motion pictures are i5portant 2oth as a 5ethod for the co55unication of ideas and the
eEpression of the artistic i5pulse. *he po4er of the Board is li5ited to the classification of fil5s.
For freedo5 of eEpression is the rule and restrictions the eEception. *he po4er to i5pose prior
restraint is not to 2e presu5ed, rather the presu5ption is a9ainst its 3alidit8. Censorship is
allo4a2le onl8 under the clearest proof of a clear and present dan9er of a su2stanti3e e3il to pu2lic
safet8, pu2lic 5orals, pu2lic health or an8 other le9iti5ate pu2lic interest. *he Board co55itted an
a2use of discretion in su27ectin9 petitioner to difficult8 and tra3ail 2efore the 5o3ie 4as classified
as =For adults onl8= 4ithout deletion. Do4e3er there is not enou9h 3otes to consider the a2use of
discretion 9ra3e as it eEplained that there 4ere reasons for its action 2ecause of the scenes sho4in9
4o5en eroticall8 dancin9 na?ed and ?issin9 and caressin9 each other li?e les2ians. VV.
,otes6 *he 5o3ie in3ol3ed in this case 4as =Kapit sa Patali5= 4hich the censors 4anted
to cut in so5e part and to la2el =For +dults=. *he -C rules that 5o3ies are 4ithin the
constitutional protection of freedo5 of eEpression, so that censorship is presu5ed to 2e 3alid as
constitutin9 prior restraint. *he onl8 case 4he the Board of Censors can order a deletion is 4hen
there is a clear and present dan9er of a su2stanti3e e3il a9ainst national securit8 or pu2lic 5orals
or other pu2lic interest. In all other cases, the Board can onl8 classif8.
But a different standard 5ust 2e follo4ed in tele3ision 2ecause of the per3asi3e and
intrusi3e influence of the 5ediu5 on people 4ho 4atch its pro9ra5s 4ithout ha3in9 to pa8
an8thin9.
On the issue of o2scenit8, the -C held that seE alon9 is not necessaril8 o2scenit8, the test
2ein9 4hether, usin9 conte5porar8 co55unit8 standards, the do5inant appeal us to the prurient
interest. %Miller 3. California). *hus on this score, it found a2use of discretion of the part of the
Board for su27ectin9 the producer to difficult8 and for entertainin9 a narro4 3ie4 of o2scenit8, 2ut
it lac?ed the 3otes to rules that the a2use 4as 9ra3e.
Cruz, CO,-*I*U*IO,+L L+>, &''& ed.6
Tests o+ o*s%enit,D
%&) >hether the a3era9e person, appl8in9 conte5porar8 co55unit8 standards, 4ould find
that the 4or?, ta?en as a 4hole, appeals to the prurient interest.
%") >hether the 4or? depicts or descri2es, in a patentl8 offensi3e 4a8, seEual conduct
specificall8 defined 28 the applica2le la4.
%@) >hether the 4or?, ta?en as a 4hole, lac?s serious literar8, artistic, political or
scientific 3alue. %Miller 3. California, @( L. Ed. "d F&'.)
9. .adio Broadcast
In Eastern Broadcastin9 Corp. 3. 1ans, &@( -C.+ $F(, the -C held that radio 2roadcast
also en7o8s the protection of the freedo5 of eEpression. If closed do4n, the o4ners en7o8 the ri9hts
to due process accordin9 to the standards set in +n9 *i2a8 3. CI..
But radio deser3es 9reater re9ulation than ne4spapers 2ecause it could in3ade the pri3ac8
of e3er8one for no fee, and it is such that one is li?el8 to listen to 4hat is 2ein9 said.
Eastern Broadcastin9 Corp. %10.E) V. 1ans, &@( -C.+ $F( %&'A)
P+/E &@$
F6 *he petitioners filed this action to co5pel respondent 9o3ern5ent officials to allo4 the reopenin9
of .adio -tation 10.E after it had 2een closed for alle9edl8 ha3in9 2een used to incite the people to
sedition. *he petitioner contended that it 4as denied due process 2ecause no hearin9 4as held and no
proof 4as su25itted to esta2lish a factual 2asis for the closure. Do4e3er, 2efore the Court could
pro5ul9ate its decision the petitioner filed a 5otion to 4ithdra4 its action on the 9round that it had sold
the radio station to Manuel Pastrana and that the ,ational *eleco55unications Co55ission had
eEpressed its 4illin9ness to 9rant the re:uisite license.
DEL16 *he case has 2een 5oot and acade5ic. Do4e3er, for the 9uidance of the inferior courts
and ad5inistrati3e 2odies, the follo4in9 9uidelines 5ust 2e o2ser3ed6 &) *he cardinal pri5ar8
re:uire5ents in ad5inistrati3e proceedin9s as laid do4n in +n9 *i2a8 3. CI. should 2e follo4ed
2efore a 2roadcast station 5a8 2e closedJ ") +ll for5s of co55unication are entitled to the 2road
protection of the freedo5 of eEpression clause. ,ecessaril8, the freedo5 of tele3ision and radio
2roadcastin9 is so5e4hat lesser in scope than the freedo5 accorded to ne4spapers and print
5edia. *his li5itation deri3es fro5 the fact the 2roadcast 5edia ha3e a uni:uel8 per3asi3e
presence in the li3es of all FilipinosJ @) *he 9o3ern5ent has a ri9ht to 2e protected a9ainst
2roadcasts 4hich incite listeners to 3iolentl8 o3erthro4 itJ and F) Broadcast stations deser3e the
special protection 9i3en to all for5s of 5edia 28 the due process and freedo5 of eEpression clauses
of the Constitution. VV.
h. Freedo5 of Infor5ation
A$t. III Se%. J. T'e $i2't o+ t'e &eo&)e to in+o$1(tion on 1(tte$s o+ &.*)i% %on%e$n
s'()) *e $e%o2ni:ed. A%%ess to o++i%i() $e%o$ds (nd to do%.1ents (nd &(&e$s &e$t(inin2 to
o++i%i() (%ts t$(ns(%tions o$ de%isions (s -e)) (s to 2ove$n1ent $ese($%' d(t( .sed (s *(sis
+o$ &o)i%, deve)o&1ent s'()) *e (++o$ded t'e %iti:en s.*Ge%t to s.%' )i1it(tions (s 1(, *e
&$ovided *, )(-.
Baldoza 3. 1i5aano, (& -C.+ &F %&'($)
+ccess of official records %the doc?et 2oo?) for an8 la4ful purpose %to loo? into the
cri5inal cases for a report on the peace and order situation of the 5unicipalit8) is 9uaranteed. But
it is su27ect to reasona2le conditions 28 the custodian of the records.
/arcia 3. BOI, &(( -C.+ @(F %&'A')
1. Content#,eutral .estrictions
(;brien test8 + 9o3ern5ent re9ulation is sufficientl8 7ustified if it is 4ithin the
constitutional po4er of the 9o3ern5entJ if it furthers an i5portant or su2stantial 9o3ern5ental
interestJ if the 9o3ern5ental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free eEpressionJ and if the
incidental restriction on alle9ed freedo5 of eEpression is no 9reater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest. GU- 3. OB2rien, @'& U- @$( %&'$A), adopted in +dion9 3. COMELEC,
"!( -C.+ (&" %&''")H
&. .e9ulation of political ca5pai9n
P+/E &@(
,ational Press Clu2 3. COMELEC, "!( -C.+ & %&''")
F6 Petitioners herein 4ere representati3es of 5ass 5edia 4hich 4ere pre3ented fro5 sellin9 and
donatin9 space or air ti5e for political ad3ertise5ents under .+ $$F$.
I--UE6 >hether or not .+ $$F$ constitutes a 3iolation of the constitutional ri9ht to freedo5 of
eEpression.
.ULI,/6 ,O. *he Co5elec has 2een eEpressl8 authorized 28 the Constitution to super3ise or
re9ulate the en7o85ent or utilization of the franchises or per5its for the operation f 5edia of
co55unication and infor5ation. *he funda5ental purposes of such po4er are to ensure =e:ual
opportunit8, ti5e, and space, and the ri9ht to repl8,= as 4ell as unifor5 and reasona2le rates of
char9es for the use of such 5edia facilities, in connection 4ith =pu2lic infor5ation ca5pai9ns and
foru5s a5on9 candidates.=
Of course, the la4 li5its the ri9ht of free speech and of access to 5ass 5edia of the
candidates the5sel3es. *he li5itation ho4e3er, 2ears a clear and reasona2le connection 4ith the
o27ecti3e set out in the Constitution. For it is precisel8 in the unli5ited purchase of print space and
radio and tele3ision ti5e that the resources of the financiall8 affluent candidates are li?el8 to 5a?e
a crucial difference. C'($o.
+dion9 3. COMELEC, "!( -C.+ (&" %&''")
F6 Petitoner, +dion9, a &''" senatorial candidate, assails Co5elec .esolution ,o. "@F( insofar as it
prohi2its the postin9 of decals and stic?ers on 5o2ile places, pu2lic or pri3ate, and li5its their location or
pu2lication to authorized postin9 areas.
I--UE6 >hether or not the resolution is constitutional.
.ULI,/6 ,O. *he prohi2ition undul8 infrin9es on the citizenBs funda5ental ri9ht of free speech.
*here is no pu2lic interest su2stantial enou9h to 4arrant the ?ind of restriction in3ol3ed in this
case. *he postin9 of decals a5d stic?ers in 5o2ile places does not endan9er an8 su2stantial
9o3ern5ent or pu2lic interest. Under the clear and present dan9er rule, not onl8 5ust the dan9er
2e patentl8 clear and pressin9l8 present 2ut the e3il sou9ht to 2e a3oided, 5ust 2e so su2stanti3e as
to 7ustif8 a cla5p o3er oneBs 5outh or a 4ritin9 instru5ent to 2e stilled.
-i9nificantl8, the freedo5 of eEpression curtailed 28 the prohi2ition is not so 5uch that of
the candidate or the political part8. *he re9ulation stri?es at the freedoo5 of an indi3idual to
eEpress his preference and, 28 displa8in9 it on his car, to con3ince others to a9ree 4ith hi5. +
stic?er 5a8 2e furnished 28 a candidate 2ut once the car o4ner a9rees to ha3e it placed on his
pri3ate 3ehichle, the eEpression 2eco5es a state5ent 28 the o4ner, pri5aril8 his o4n and not of
an82od8 else.
More3er, *he restriction is so 2road that it enco5passes e3en the citizenBs pri3ate propert8,
4hich in this case is a pri3atel8 o4ned 3ehicle. In conse:uence of this prohi2ition, another cardinal
ri9ht 9uaranteed under the Constitution is 3iolated 4hich is that no person shall 2e depri3ed of his
propert8 4ithout due proocess of la4. C'($o.
". Freedo5 of +sse52l8
Pu2lic +sse52l8 +ct of &'A %Batas Bl9. A!)
P+/E &@A
+ per5it to hold a rall8 5ust 2e filed 4ith the Office of the Ma8or at least, fi3e 4or?in9
da8s 2efore the da8 of the rall8.
But no per5it fro5 the 5a8or is re:uired in case the rall8 is 9oin9 to 2e held in %i) freedo5
par?s, %ii) inside a pri3ate propert8 %pro3ide 4ith consent of the o4ner), and %iii) ca5puses of state
uni3ersities %4hich are left to uni3ersit8 authorities)
*he application 5ust 2e in 4ritin9 and 5ust include6 %&) na5es of the or9anizers and
leaders, %") date and ti5e, place and street, %@) size %F)5anner of the use of the street, %) sound
s8ste5 to 2e used %$)purpose. It 5ust also ha3e a state5ent of the duties of the rall8ists.
*he 4ritten application is filed 4ith the Office of the Ma8or. +c?no4led9e5et is 9i3en of
its receipt. If the Ma8or refuses to accept the application, then it is enou9h for filin9 purposes if a
cop8 is posted in the pre5ises.
*he Ma8or has " 4or?in9 da8s to act on the application. If he does not act, it is dee5ed
9ranted.
But if he thin?s that the rall8 creates a =clear and present dan9er= to pu2lic peace, order,
health, etc., and he has proof of this, he should not den8 the application ri9ht a4a8. De should hold
a hearin9 durin9 4hich the applicant can 2e heard. If after hearin9 he is still not satisfied that no
dan9er eEists, then he can den8 the application.
*he applicant can then 9o to an8 court other than the -upre5e Court for the re3ie4 of the
decision of denial of the 5a8or. *he courts ha3e "F hours to act on the petition. If the 7ud95ent is
a re3ersal of the denial, or in an8 case if the applicant is satisfied 4ith the decision, the 7ud95ent
2eco5es final and eEecutor8 i55ediatel8, and no appeal can 2e ta?en 28 the local authorities
an85ore.
But if the decision is not satisfactor8 to the applicant, then he has FA hours fro5 receipt to
appeal to the -C.
1urin9 the rall8, the police 5ust 2e li5ited to 5aintainin9 peace and order and so 5ust
sta8 a4a8 28 &!! 5eters fro5 the rall8ists. *he8 5ust 2e in full unifor5, 4ith their na5es 3isi2l8
4ritten. *he8 can carr8 no firear5 eEcept a ni9hstic?, 2ut the8 are allo4ed protecti3e de3ices.
If the8 anticipate trou2le, the police 5ust call the attention of the leader of the rall8ists.
>hen trou2le actuall8 erupts, the police 5ust not disperse the cro4d ri9ht a4a8 2ut first 9i3e a
4arnin9. If 3iolence persists, the8 5ust 9i3e a second 4arnin9. If still 3iolence continues, onl8
then can the8 fi9ht 2ac?.
If a rall8 does not ha3e a per5it, the police can disperse the cro4d, 2ut the8 cannot use
3iolence. Penalt8 is i5posed onl8 on the leaders and or9anizers.
+5on9 the duties of the rall8ists are6 %a) to infor5 the 5e52ers of their dut8 under the
la4, %2) to police their o4n ran?, and %c) to cooperate 4ith local authorities in 5aintainin9 peace
and order.
,otes6 *he freedo5 to use pu2lic places to peacea2l8 asse52le is 2est eEpressed thus6
=>here3er the title or steets and par?s 5a8 rest, the8 ha3e i55e5oriall8 2een held in trust for the
P+/E &@'
use of the pu2lic and, ti5e out of ti5e ha3e 2een used for purposes of asse52l8, co55unicatin9
thou9ht 2et4ee citizens, and discussin9 pu2lic :uestions.= %Justice .o2erts. Da9ue 3. CIO)
+lthou9h under a =per5it s8ste5=, 2efore one can use a pu2lic place, one 5ust first o2tain
prior per5it fro5 the proper authorities, the principle has al4a8s 2een that one has the ri9ht to a
per5it, su27ect onl8 to reasona2le re9ulation. *he 3alidit8 of the per5it s8ste5 has 2een upheld 28
the Court, pro3ided, %a) it is concered onl8 4ith the ti5e, place and 5anner of asse52l8 ad %2) it
does not 3est on the licensin9 authorit8 unfettered discretion in choosin9 the 9roups 4hich could
use the pu2lic place and discri5inate others.
+s held 28 the -C in Pri5icias 3s Fu9oso, A! Phil. (&, the Cit8 Ordinance of Manila
9i3in9 authorit8 to the Ma8or to issue per5its for parades should 2e construed to 2e li5ited to the
ti5e, place, and 5anner of the parades sociall8 to secure pu2lic order, con3enience and 4elfare.
*hus, den8in9 the ,acionalista Part8 a per5it to hold a rall8 at the Plaza Miranda on the 9round
that passions raised 28 the recent national election 4ere still hi9h and a rall8 to protest election
ano5alies could onl8 eEacer2ate the 5atter, 4as o3erturned 28 the court.
Pri5icias 3s Fu9oso, A! Phil. (&
F6 *his is an action for 5anda5us instituted 28 petitioner Pri5icias, ca5pai9n 5ana9er of the
Coalesced Minorit8 Parties, to co5pel Ma8or Fu9oso of the Cit8 of Manila to issue a per5it for the
holdin9 of a peaceful pu2lic 5eetin9 at Plaza Miranda for the purpose of petitionin9 the 9o3ern5ent for
redress of 9rie3ances. *he Ma8or denied the application on the 9round that passions still run hi9h due to
the recent election, and a rall8 to protest election ano5alies 5i9ht threaten 2reaches of the peace and
disruption of pu2lic order.
I--UE6 >Cn the Ma8or can refuse to 9rant the per5it.
.ULI,/6 ,O. *he police po4er 9ranted to the Ma8or under the Ordinance enacted 28 the
Municipal Board pursuant to its authorit8 under the .e3ised +d5inistrati3e Code 4hich pertains
to the use of streets and pu2lic places, can 2e construed onl8 to 5ean the po4er to re9ulate, 4hich
5eans and includes the po4er to control, 9o3ern, and to restrain 2ut cannot 2e construed as
s8non85ous 4ith =suppress= or =prohi2it.=
*he Court :uoted 4ith appro3al the decision in the +5erican case CoE 3. -tate of ,e4
Da5pshire, = a statute re:uirin9 persons usin9 pu2lic streets for a parade or procession to procure
a special license therefor fro5 the local authorities is not an unconstitutional a2rid9e5ent of the
ri9hts of asse52l8 or of freedo5 of speech and press, 4here, as the statute is construed 28 the state
courts, the licensin9 authorities are strictl8 li5ited, in the issuance of licenses, to a consideration of
the ti5e, place, and 5anner of the parade or procession, 4ith a 3ie4 to conser3in9 the pu2lic
con3enience and of affordin9 an opportunit8 to pro3ide proper policin9, and are not in3ested 4ith
ar2itrar8 discretion to issue or refuse license...= C'($o.
But under the sa5e ordinance, the -C, in ,a3arro 3. Ville9as, @& -C.+ (@! %&'(!),
upheld the 5a8orBs refusal to 9rant per5it to a 9roup durin9 4ee?da8s, on a findin9 that e3er8ti5e
there 4as an announced rall8, stores closed and 2usiness 4as 9ra3el8 affected 2ecause of 3iolent
incidents. It found the polic8 of the 5a8or to allo4 rallies onl8 durin9 4ee?ends to 2e reasona2le.
,a3arro 3. Ville9as, @& -C.+ (@! %&'(!)
P+/E &F!
F6 *he petitioner, actin9 in 2ehalf of the Mo3e5ent for a 1e5ocratic Philippines %M1P), an
association of students, 4or?ers and peasants, applied for a per5it fro5 the Ma8or of Manila to hold a
rall8 at Plaza Miranda. .espondent Ma8or denied the application to hold the rall8 on the date and ti5e
specified 28 petitioners in 3ie4 of the e3ents that transpired durin9 the last de5onstration held 28 the5
4hich ended in the destruction of pu2lic and pri3ate propert8, loss of a fe4 li3es, in7uries to a score of
other persons and the closin9 do4n of schools, offices and 5an8 stores. *he Ma8or su99ested that the
M1P utilize the -un?en /ardens near Intra5uros for its rall8 and that the rall8 2e held durin9 4ee?ends
and earlier durin9 the da8 so that it 5a8 end 2efore dar?.
Petitioner challen9ed the action of the Ma8or on the 9round that the sa5e constitutes a 3iolation
of their ri9ht to freedo5 of asse52l8. Petitioner contended that the ri9ht of the people to peaceful asse52l8
and to petition the 9o3ern5ent for redress of 9rie3ances 5a8 2e eEercised 4ithout the prior necessit8 of
securin9 a per5it fro5 the 9o3ern5ent and that such ri9ht cannot 2e full8 en7o8ed 4ithout the
correspondin9 ri9ht to use pu2lic places for that purpose.
I--UE6 >hether or not the Ma8orVs denial to issue a per5it a5ounted to a 3iolation of
petitionerVs ri9ht to freedo5 of asse52l8.
DEL16 ,O.
*he respondent Ma8or has not denied nor a2solutel8 refused the per5it sou9ht 28
petitioner. De has eEpressed 4illin9ness to 9rant the per5it for the peaceful asse52l8 durin9
certain da8s and ti5e, and at a place 4hen the8 4ould not disrupt the nor5al acti3ities of the
co55unit8.
*he respondent 5a8or possesses reasona2le discretion to deter5ine or specif8 the streets
or pu2lic places to 2e used for the asse52l8 in order to secure con3enient use thereof 28 others and
pro3ide ade:uate and proper policin9 to 5ini5ize the ris?s of disorder and 5aintain pu2lic safet8
and order.
Petitioner has failed to sho4 a clear specific le9al dut8 on the part of respondent Ma8or to
9rant their application for a per5it unconditionall8. EEperience in connection 4ith present
asse52lies and de5onstrations ha3e sho4n that the8 pose a clear and i55inent dan9er of pu2lic
disorders, 2reaches of the peace, cri5inal acts, and e3en 2loodshed as an after5ath of such
asse52lies, 4hich, petitioner has 5anifested, it has no 5eans of pre3entin9. C'($o.
In I9nacio 3. Ela, '' Phil. @F$ %&'$), the 5a7orit8 upheld the 5a8orBs denial of per5it to
5e52ers of the Jeho3ahBs >itnesses sect for the use of a ?los? 4ithin the to4n plaza in order to
a3oid an8 unto4ard incident 4ith 5e52ers of the .o5an Catholic Church, 4hose tenets are
opposed to those of the petitioners, and 4hose church is 3er8 near the ?los?.
I9nacio 3. Ela, '' Phil. @F$ %&'$)
F6 *he Ma8or denied a per5it to the 5e52ers of the Jeho3ahBs >itnesses to use the ?ios? in the
to4n plaza for the purpose of holdin9 a pu2lic lecture on the 9round that the per5it, if 9ranted, 5a8 9i3e
rise to distur2ance of the reli9ious cere5onies 2ein9 perfor5ed 28 the Catholic Church 4hich 4as said to
2e 4ithin hearin9 distance fro5 the ?ios? and 4hich 5i9ht lead to an8 unto4ard incident 4ith 5e52ers
of the ri3al deno5ination.
I--UE6 >C, the denial is 3alid.
1issentin96 Concepcion, J.
*he 9round in3o?ed 28 the Ma8or for den8in9 the per5it 4as that the 5e52ers of the
Jeho3ahBs >itnesses 5a8 sa8 or do so5ethin9 tendin9 to distur2 pu2lic order. *o 4arrant denial of
P+/E &F&
the per5it pra8ed for 4ould, in effect, nullif8 the Bill of .i9hts, for all ri9hts are suscepti2le of
a2use and, hence, the possi2ilit8 of such a2use is al4a8s present in the eEercise of an8 ri9ht. In this
connection, it is i5portant to note that petitionerBs afore5entioned re:uest is co3ered 28 the
Constitutional 5andates on due process, freedo5 of speech, freedo5 of asse52l8 and freedo5 of
reli9ion. O23iousl8, a ri9ht of such 5a9nitude as to 2e 9uaranteed 28 no less than four pro3isions
of the funda5ental la4 # and these of the 5ost transcendental and 3ital to the de5ocratic s8ste5
underl8in9 the structure of our .epu2lic # cannot 2e curtailed on the 2asis of an a2stract and
speculati3e possi2ilit8 of a threat to peace or 2reach of peace, 4hich 5a8 or 5a8 not result, if and
4hen, in the eEercise of their reli9ious profession, petitioners should transcend the proper 2ounds,
for 4hich, at an8 rate, the8 could, and 4ould, 2e punished under eEistin9 la4s. C'($o.
In J.B.L. .e8es 3. Ba9atsin9, &" -C.+ @ %&'A@), the -C found no 2asis for the denial
of per5it to the +nti#Bases Coalition to hold a 5arch fro5 Luneta to the street frontin9 the U.-.
E52ass8. It affir5ed the 9eneral rule that the use of streets is free to all. It found the fear
entertained 28 cit8 authorities that the rall8ists 5i9ht 2e a9irated 28 pro3ocateurs to 2e unfounded,
9i3en the report of the ,P1 that ade:uate securit8 5easures 4ere pro3ided 28 the police.
*he Court did not rule on the 3alidit8 of the ordinance of Manila prohi2itin9 an8 rall8
4ithin "!! 5eters fro5 an8 forei9n e52ass8 as a 5eans of co5pl8in9 4ith the /ene3a Con3ention
that re:uires the host countr8 to protect the pre5ises and personnel of the e52ass8.
*hen it 9a3e 9uidelines for the issuance of per5its %no4 in BP 'A!& %i) an8 9roup 4hich
applies 5ust do so 4ithin a sufficient ti5e so the authorit8 can ha3e ti5e to act6 %ii) if a
disa9ree5ent arises o3er a denial of a per5it, the applicant can :uestion the denial in the lo4er
court, 4hich can tr8 :uestions of fact and la4, and %iii) appeal can 2e 5ade to the -C on an
eEpedited procedure.
J.B.L. .e8es 3. Ba9atsin9, &" -C.+ @ %&'A@)
F6 .etired Justice JBL .e8es, on 2ehalf of the +nti#Bases Coalition, sou9ht a per5it fro5 the Cit8 of
Manila to hold a peaceful 5arch and rall8 on Oct. "$, &'A@ startin9 " p.5. fro5 Luneta to the 9ates of the
U- E52ass8. De filed this petition 2ecause as of Oct. "!, there 4as 8et no action on his re:uest to hold a
rall8.
DEL16 Free speech, li?e free press, 5a8 2e identified 4ith the li2ert8 to discuss pu2licl8 and
truthfull8 an8 5atter of pu2lic concern 4ithout censorship or punish5ent. *here is to 2e no
pre3ious retraint 4hether in the for5 of li2el suits, prosecution for da5a9es, or conte5pt
proceedin9s unless there is a =clear and present dan9er of a su2stanti3e e3il that the -tate has a
ri9ht to pre3ent.= *here can 2e no le9al o27ection, a2sent the eEistence of a clear and present
dan9er of a su2stanti3e e3il to the holdin9 of a peaceful rall8 at Luneta. ,either can there 2e
o27ection to the use of the streets up to 9ates of the U- E52ass8. + statute re:uirin9 persons to
secure a special license to use pu2lic streets for a procession is not unconstitutional. *he licensin9
of authorities are strictl8 li5ited to the consideration of the ti5e, place and 5anner and the
authorities are not in3ested 4ith ar2itrar8 discretion to issue or refuse a per5it. VV.
In .uiz 3. /ordon, &"$ -C.+ "@@ %&'A@), the -C reiterated its rulin9 in .e8es 3. Ba9atsin9,
and la5ented the fact that if onl8 or9anizers of the Olon9apo rall8 too? the effort to find out if the
5a8or appro3ed the application instead of proceedin9 4ith the rall8, there 4ould ha3e 2een 5ore
order in the rall8.
.uiz 3. /ordon &"$ -C.+ "@@ %&'A@)
P+/E &F"
F6 *his is a petition for 5anda5us to co5pel the respondent Ma8or of Olon9apo to issue a
per5it for the holdin9 of a pra8er#rall8 and a parade throu9h the streets of Olon9apo Cit8 on 1ec.
F, &'A@. *he petition 4as filed on ,o3. ", &'A@. It alle9ed that se3eral 9roups, represented 28 the
petitioner, had filed an application for per5it 4ith the Ma8orBs office on ,o3. "&, &'A@ 4ithout
indicatin9 4hat action the Ma8or had ta?en. It turned out the Ma8or actuall8 9ranted the per5it
t4o da8s 2efore the mandamus suit.
DEL16 *he -C dis5issed the petition for mandamus after statin9 that =this action could ha3e
2een o23iated if onl8 petitioner too? the trou2le of 3erif8in9 4hether or not a per5it had 2een
issued.= VV.
In /er5an 3. Baran9an, &@ -C.+ &F %&'A), the -C upheld the po4er of the cit8
authorities to close JP Laurel -treet frontin9 Malacanan9 fro5 all rallies as a for5 of =area
restriction=, in order to protect the President and his fa5il8, 2ased on the incident in the earl8 (!s
4hen the 9ates of the palace 4ere al5ost stor5ed. *he rall8ists in this case purported to 5erel8
4orship at -t. JudeBs.
In case a rall8 is held in a pri3ate place, no per5it fro5 the 5a8or is re:uired. Do4e3er,
the consent of the o4ner of the place 5ust 2e ac:uired.
/er5an 3. Baran9an @ -C.+ &F %&'A)
F6 On Oct. ", &'AF the petitioners 4ho 4ere 2usiness5en, students and e5plo8ees, 5et on JP Laurel
-treet in Manila for the ostensi2le purpose of hearin9 5ass at the -t. Jude Chapel 4hich ad7oins the
MalacaNan9 9rounds. *he8 4ore 8ello4 *#shirts and, 4ith clenched fists, 5arched on the street and
shouted anti#9o3ern5ent in3ecti3es. *he8 4ere stopped fro5 proceedin9 to the chapel 28 the Presidential
-ecurit8 Co55and. *he8 2rou9ht an action for mandamus.
DEL16 *he 8ello4 *#shirts 4orn 28 so5e of the 5archers, their fists clenched and chants of anti#
9o3ern5ent in3esti3es support the 9o3ern5entBs clai5 that the petitioners purpose 4as not reall8 to
4orship at the chapel 2ut to hold an anti#9o3ern5ent de5onstration close to the residence of the
President. *he restricted use of JP Laurel -treet is 7ustified. *he need to secure the safet8 of heads
of states cannot 2e o3ere5phasized. *he threat to their li3es is constant and felt throu9hout the
4orld. *he petitioners 4ere not restrained in their freedo5 of reli9ion 2ut onl8 in the 5anner 28
4hich the8 had atte5pted to translate the sa5e into action. VV.
In Mala2anan 3. .a5ento, &"' -C.+ @' %&'AF) and +rreza 3. /+UP, &@ -C.+ 'F
%&'A), the -C upheld the ri9ht to eEpression of students 4ho held a rall8 in a pri3ate uni3ersit8.
But since the8 held it 2e8ond the ti5e 9ranted in a place other than the one allo4ed 28 the
ad5inistration, their suspension 4as condoned.
Mala2anan 3. .a5ento, &"' -C.+ @' %&'AF)
F6 Petitioners 4ere officers of the -upre5e -tudent Council of the /re9orio +raneta Uni3ersit8
Foundation. *he8 4ere 9ranted a per5it to hold a 5eetin9 to protest the 5er9er of t4o units of the
uni3ersit8. On the scheduled date, the students continued their 5eetin9 2e8ond the scheduled ti5e and
held it in a different place fro5 that indicated in the per5it. *he8 eEpressed in a 3ehe5ent lan9ua9e their
opposition to the 5er9er and as a result, classes and office 4or? 4as distur2ed. Petitioners 4ere placed
P+/E &F@
under pre3enti3e suspension. On appeal, the8 4ere found 9uilt of holdin9 an ille9al asse52l8 and oral
defa5ation. *he8 4ere suspended for one acade5ic 8ear. *he8 filed a petition for certiorari in the -C.
DEL16 *he petititon 5a8 2e considered 5oot and acade5ic considerin9 that the *.O issued 28
the -C allo4ed the students to enroll. But there is a need to pass s:uarel8 on the constitutional
:uestion. .espect for the constitutional ri9hts of peacea2le asse52l8 and free speech calls for the
settin9 aside of the order of suspension. -uspendin9 the5 for one 8ear is out of proportion
considerin9 that the 3i9orous presentation of 3ie4s 4as eEpected. *he eEcite5ent of the occasion,
the propensit8 of spea?ers to eEa99erate and the eEu2erance of the 8outh should 2e ta?en into
consideration. VV.
+rreza 3. /+UP, &@ -C.+ 'F %&'A)
F6 Petitioners 4ere officers and 5e52ers of the -tudent Council of the /re9orio +raneta Uni3ersit8
Foundation. *he8 4ere refused enroll5ent for ha3in9 led a rall8 on -ept. "A, &'A".
DEL16 +s held in Mala2anan 3. .a5ento6 =If in the course of such de5onstration, 4ith an
enthusiastic audience 9oadin9 the5 on, utterances, eEtre5el8 critical, at ti5es e3en 3itriolic, 4ere
let loose, that is :uite understanda2le. *he8 4ould 2e ineffecti3e if durin9 the rall8 the8 spea? in
the 9uarded and 7udicious lan9ua9e of the acade5e. +t an8 rate, e3en a s85pathetic audience is not
disposed to accord full credence to their fier8 eEhortations. *he8 ta?e into account the eEcite5ent
of the occasion, the propensit8 of spea?ers to eEa99erate, the eEu2erance of 8outh. EEE= *he
refusal of the uni3ersit8 to enroll the students is a hi9hl8 disproportionate penalt8. VV.
,otes6 ,ote that 4hile the per5it s8ste5 is not allo4ed in the case of pu2lication, it is
allo4ed in the case of asse52l8. In pu2lication, censorship is presu5pti3el8 unconstitutional.
*here is 3er8 little possi2ilit8 or 7ustification for the re9ulation of ne4s. *he re5ed8 in this case is
prosecution or su2se:uent punish5ent.
But in asse52l8 re9ulation is allo4ed 2ecause it is needed 28 the 3er8 nature of the
eEpression, 4hen people use streets, the8 5a8 depri3e other 9roups 4hich 4ant to use the streets
too. -o as lon9 as onl8 the incidents of speech are re9ulated, the 5easure is constitutionall8
accepta2le.
,estle Phils. Inc. 3. -anchez &F -C.+ F& %&'A()
F6 >hile these cases 4ere pendin9 in the -C, the la2or unions in3ol3ed intensified the pic?ets the8
had 2een conductin9 in front of the Padre Faura 9ate of the Court and set up pic?et :uarters, at ti5es
o2structin9 access to and e9ress fro5 the CourtBs pre5ises. >hen re:uired to sho4 cause 4h8 the8 should
not 2e held in conte5pt of court, their la48er apolo9ized and assured that the a2o3e incident 4ould not 2e
repeated.
DEL16 *he Court 4ill not hesitate in future si5ilar situations to appl8 the full force of the la4
and punish for conte5pt those 4ho atte5pt to pressure the Court into actin9 one 4a8 or the other
in an8 case pendin9 2efore it. /rie3ances 5ust 2e 3entilated in the proper channels, i.e. throu9h
appropriate petitions or pleadin9s in ?eepin9 4ith the respect due the courts as i5partial
ad5inistrators of 7ustice. Moreo3er, =parties ha3e a constitutional ri9ht to ha3e the causes tried
fairl8 in court 28 an i5partial tri2unal, uninfluenced 28 pu2lication or pu2lic cla5or EEE= *he acts
of respondents are not onl8 an affront to the di9nit8 of this Court 2ut e:uall8 a 3iolation of the
a2o3e#stated ri9ht of the ad3erse parties and the citizenr8 at lar9e. VV.
P+/E &FF
@. Freedo5 of +ssociation and the ri9ht to stri?e in the pu2lic sector
A$t. III Se%. @. T'e $i2't o+ t'e &eo&)e in%).din2 t'ose e1&)o,ed in t'e &.*)i% (nd
&$iv(te se%to$s to +o$1 .nions (sso%i(tions o$ so%ieties +o$ &.$&oses not %ont$($, to )(-
s'()) not *e (*$id2ed.
A$t. I# 4 Se%. 7. ;;;
=?A T'e $i2't to se)+Fo$2(ni:(tion s'()) not *e denied to 2ove$n1ent e1&)o,ees.
A$t. #III Se%. >. ;;;
It s'()) 2.($(ntee t'e $i2't o+ ()) -o$9e$s to se)+Fo$2(ni:(tion %o))e%tive *($2(inin2
(nd ne2oti(tions (nd &e(%e+.) %on%e$ted (%tivities in%).din2 t'e $i2't to st$i9e in (%%o$d(n%e
-it' )(-. T'e, s'()) *e entit)ed to se%.$it, o+ ten.$e '.1(ne %onditions o+ -o$9 (nd ( )ivin2
-(2e. T'e, s'()) ()so &($ti%i&(te in &o)i%, (nd de%isionF1(9in2 &$o%esses (++e%tin2 t'ei$
$i2'ts (nd *ene+its (s 1(, *e &$ovided *, )(-.
;;;
*he inclusion of the ri9ht to unionize in this article is ill#ad3ised 2ecause 4hile the ri9ht to
unionize is an econo5ic and la2or ri9ht, the ri9ht to association in 9eneral is a ci3il# political ri9ht.
1iscussed else4here is the ar9u5ent 4h8 pu2lic e5plo8ees cannot en9a9e in collecti3e
2ar9ainin9 and stri?e.
--- E5plo8ees +ssn 3s C+, &( -C.+ $A$ %&'A')
F6 --- filed 4C the .*C#PC a co5plaint for da5a9es 4C a pra8er for a 4rit of prel in7. a9ainst petitioners
---E+, alle9in9 that the officers and 5e52ers of the latter sta9ed an ille9al stri?e and 2arricaded the
entrances to the --- 2uildin9 pre3entin9 non#stri?in9 e5plo8ees fro5 reportin9 to 4or? and ---
5e52ers fro5 transactin9 2usiness 4C ---. *he Pu2lic -ector La2or#Mana9e5ent Council ordered the
stri?ers to return to 4or? 2ut the stri?ers refused to do so. *he ---E+ 4ent on stri?e 2ec. --- failed to
act on the unionBs de5ands.
Petitioners filed a 5otion to dis5iss the co5plaint for lac? of 7urisdiction, 4Cc 5otion 4as
denied. *he restrainin9 order 4Cc 4as pre3iousl8 issued 4as con3erted into an in7unction after findin9 the
stri?e ille9al. Petitioners appealed the case to the C+. *he latter held that since the e5plo8ees of --- are
9o3t e5plo8ees, the8 are not allo4ed to stri?e.
DEL16 E5plo8ees in the Ci3il -er3ice 5a8 not resort to stri?es, 4al?outs and other te5porar8
4or? stoppa9es, li?e 4or?ers in the pri3ate sector, in order to pressure the /o3t. to accede to their
de5ands. +s no4 pro3ided under -ec. F, .ule III of the .ules and .e9ulations to /o3ern the
EEercise of the .i9ht of /o3t. EEs to -elf#Or9anization 4hich too? effect after the initial dispute
arose, the ter5s and conditions of e5plo85ent in the /o3t, includin9 an8 political su2di3ision or
instru5entalit8 thereof and 9o3t. o4ned and controlled corporations 4ith ori9inal charters, are
9o3erned 28 la4 and e5plo8ees therein shall not stri?e for the purpose of securin9 chan9es
thereof.
*he state5ent of the court in +lliance of /o3t >or?ers 3. Minister of La2or and
E5plo85ent %&"F -C.+ &) is rele3ant as it furnishes the rationale for distin9uishin9 2et. 4or?ers
in the pri3ate sector and 9o3t e5plo8ees 4C re9ard to the ri9ht to stri?eI
P+/E &F
!ince the terms and conditions of govt. employment are fixed by law, govt.
wor$ers cannot use the same weapons employed by wor$ers in the private sector to
secure concessions from their employers. *he principle 2ehind la2or unionis5 in
pri3ate industr8 is that industrial peace cannot 2e secured throu9h co5pulsion of la4.
.elations 2et. pri3ate e5plo8ers and their e5plo8ees rest on an essentiall8 3oluntar8
2asis. -u27ect to the 5ini5u5 re:uire5ents of 4a9e la4s and other la2or and 4elfare
le9islation, the ter5s and conditions of e5plo85ent in the unionized pri3ate sector are
settled throu9h the process of collecti3e 2ar9ainin9. In 9o3t e5plo85ent, ho4e3er, it is
the le9islature and, 4here properl8 9i3en dele9ated po4er, the ad5inistrati3e heads of
9o3t 4Cc fiE the ter5s and conditions of e5plo85ent. +nd this is effected throu9h
statutes or ad5inistrati3e circulars, rules, and re9ulations, not throu9h CB+Bs
EO &A!, 4Cc pro3ides 9uidelines for the eEercise of the ri9ht to or9anize of 9o3t
e5plo8ees, 4hile clin9in9 to the sa5e philosoph8, has, ho4e3er, relaEed the rule to allo4
ne9otiation 4here the ter5s and conditions of e5plo85ent in3ol3ed are not a5on9 those fiEed 28
la4.
/o3t e5plo8ees 5a8, therefore, throu9h their unions or associations, either petition the
Con9ress for the 2etter5ent of the ter5s and conditions of e5plo85ent 4hich are 4Cin the a52it of
le9islation or ne9otiate 4C the appropriate 9o3t a9encies for the i5pro3e5ent of those 4C are not
fiEed 28 la4. If there 2e an8 unresol3ed 9rie3ances, the dispute 5a8 2e referred to the Pu2lic
-ector La2or#Mana9e5ent Council for appropriate action. RA".
E. +cade5ic Freedo5
/arcia 3. Facult8 of +d5ission, $A -C.+ "(( %&'()
F6 *he F+C of the Lo8ola -chool of *heolo98 refused to read5it petitioner, /arcia, in its M.+.
pro9ra5 2ecause the8 felt that =her fre:uent :uestions and difficulties 4ere not al4a8s pertinent and had
the effect of slo4in9 do4n the pro9ress of the classJ= that it 4ould 2e =to the 2est interest %of the
petitioner) to 4or? 4ith a facult8 that is 5ore co5pati2le 4ith her orientation. /arcia assailled her
eEpulsion for 2ein9 unreasona2leJ that the reasons 9i3en therefor 4ere in3alid for no4here did it appear
that her conduct constituted a 3iolation of the schoolBs re9ulations and 9ra3e 5isconduct.
I--UE6 >hether or not the F+C can 2e co5pelled 28 mandamus to read5it petitioner.
.ULI,/6 ,O. *he Constitution reco9nizes the en7o85ent 28 institutions of hi9her learnin9 of the
ri9ht to acade5ic freedo5. *he school decides for itself its ai5s and o27ecti3es and ho4 2est to
attain the5. It is free fro5 outside coercion or interference sa3e possi2l8 4hen the o3erridin9
pu2lic 4elfare calls for so5e restraint. It has a 4ide sphere of autono58 certainl8 eEtendin9 to the
choice of the students.
*he collecti3e li2ert8 of an or9anization is 28 no 5eans the sa5e thin9 as the freedo5 of
the indi3idual 5e52ers 4ithin it. In considerin9 the pro2le5s of acade5ic freedo5, one 5ust
distin9uish 2et4een autono58 of the uni3ersit8, as a corporate 2od8, and the freedo5 of the
indi3idual uni3ersit8 teacher.
*he personal aspect of the freedo5 consists of the ri9ht of each uni3ersit8 teacher to see?
and eEpress the truth as he personall8 sees it, 2oth in his acade5ic 4or? and in his capacit8 as a
pri3ate citizen. *his status of the indi3idual teacher is as i5portant as the status of the institution to
4hich he 2elon9s and throu9h 4hich he disse5inates learnin9.
On other hand, the internal conditions for acade5ic freedo5 in a uni3ersit8 are that the
acade5ic staff should ha3e de facto control of the follo4in9 functions6 %a) ad5ission and
eEa5ination of studentsJ %2) curricula for courses of stud8J %c) appoint5ent and tenure of office of
acade5ic staffJ and %d) allocation of inco5e a5on9 the different cate9ories of eEpenditure. It is the
P+/E &F$
2usiness of a uni3ersit8 to pro3iide that at5osphere 4hich is 5ost conduci3e to speculation,
eEperi5ent and creation. It is an at5osphere in 4hich the four essential freedo5s of a uni3ersit8
pre3ail # to deter5ine for itself 4ho 5a8 teach, 4hat 5a8 2e tau9ht, ho4 it shall 2e tau9ht, and
4ho 5a8 2e ad5itted to stud8.
For the a2o3e reason, mandamus is not a3aila2le for the petitioner. *here is no dut8 on the
part of the -chool to ad5it her to stud8 since the -chool clearl8 has the discretion to turn do4n
e3en :ualified applicants due to li5itations of space, facilities, professors and opti5u5 classroo5
size and co5ponent considerations. *here are standards to 5eet and policies to pursue. >hat a
student possesses is a pri3ile9e rather than a ri9ht. C'($o.
UP 3. +8son, &($ -C.+ $F( %&'A')
F6 In &'(", the UP BO. appro3ed the esta2lish5ent of the UPCB Di9hshool to ser3e, a5on9 others,
=as a la2orator8 and de5onstration school for prospecti3e teachers # pro3ided that UPCBD- 5ust 2e self#
supportin9.= Do4e3er, the 1ept of Professional Education in Ba9uio 4as ne3er or9anized. -o, the BO.
decided to phase out UPCBD- for failin9 to attain the conditions for its creation. *he UPCBD-
Foundation Inc. sou9ht to restrain the Uni3ersit8 fro5 phasin9 out the UPCBD-.
I--UE6 Is secondar8 pu2lic education de5anda2le in an institution of hi9her learnin9 such as the
UPI
.ULI,/6 ,O. UP in3o?es its eEercise of acade5ic freedo5. Pri3ate respondent in3o?es the ri9ht
to :ualit8 education and to free secondar8 education.
*he ri9hts in3o?ed 28 pri3ate respondent 5a8 2e asserted onl8 as a9ainst the /o3ern5ent
throu9h the 1EC-. UP 4as created under its charter to pro3ide ad3anced tertiar8 education. +n
institute of hi9her learnin9 cannot 2e co5pelled to pro3ide for secondar8 education.
It is 2e8ond ca3il that UP as an institution of hi9her learnin9 en7o8s acade5ic freedo5.
UPCBD- 4as esta2lished su27ect to a nu52er of conditionalities. Failin9 on such conditions, UP
can order its a2olition on acade5ic 9rounds. C'($o.
UP 3. C+, Fe2. ', &''@
F6 For5er P+,+MI, Minister Manuel Elizalde and the *asada8 representati3e filed a co5plaint
for da5a9es and declarator8 relief a9ainst UP Professors Jero5e Bailen and Meus -alazar 4ho disputed
the authenticit8 of the *asada8 find and 5ade a proposition in 3arious conferences attended 28 the5 that
Elizalde 5erel8 fa2ricated the disco3er8 of the *asada8s.
UP inter3ened, aasertin9 its dut8 to protect the respondents as facult8 5e52ers for acts and
utterances 5ade in the eEercise of acade5ic freedo5. *he lo4er court denied UPBs 5otion to dis5iss for
failure to state a cause of action. Dence this petition.
.ULI,/6 >ith respect to the pra8er of the co5plaint for =7ud95ent declarin9 the *asada8s to 2e a
distinct ethnic co55unit8, the lo4er court is cautioned that the sa5e is a?in to a pra8er for a
7udicial declaration of Philippine citizenship 4hich 5a8 not 2e 9ranted in a petition for declarator8
relief. *he co5plaint 4as filed 5ainl8 to 3indicate plaintiffBs di9nit8 and honor.
Indeed, it is 2e8ond the pro3ince of the court to 5a?e pronounce5ents on 5atters 2e8ond
its ?en and eEpertise. *o 2e sure, in resol3in9 the co5plaint for da5a9es, the court 5a8 find
con9ruence in 4hat is 7usticia2le and 4hat falls 4ithin the field of the sciences. -till, it is 2est to
?eep in 5ind that its proper role and function is the deter5ination of le9al issues. C'($o.
P+/E &F(
V. 3REEDO" O3 RELIGION
A$t. III Se%. ?. No )(- s'()) *e 1(de $es&e%tin2 (n est(*)is'1ent o+ $e)i2ion< o$
&$o'i*itin2 t'e +$ee e;e$%ise t'e$eo+. T'e +$ee e;e$%ise (nd enGo,1ent o+ $e)i2io.s &$o+ession
(nd -o$s'i& -it'o.t dis%$i1in(tion o$ &$e+e$en%e s'()) +o$eve$ *e ())o-ed. No $e)i2io.s test
s'()) *e $e/.i$ed +o$ t'e e;e$%ise o+ %ivi) o$ &o)iti%() $i2'ts.
+. ,on#Esta2lish5ent Clause
*he clause prohi2its eEcessi3e 9o3ern5ent entan9le5ent 4ith, endorse5ent or disappro3al
of reli9ion GVicoriano 3. Elizalde .ope >or?ers Union, ' -C.+ F %&'(F)J L8nch 3. 1onnell8,
F$ U- $$A %&'AF) %OBConnor, J., concurrin9)J +lle9hen8 Count8 3. /reater Pitts2ur9 +CLU, F'"
U- (F %&'A').H
*he clause prohi2its the -tate fro5 esta2lishin9 a reli9ion. In assessin9 the 3alidit8 of the
la4, the :uestions to 2e as?ed are6
a. Is the purpose of the la4 reli9ious, or is it secularI
2. 1oes it or does it not inhi2it or ad3ance reli9ionI
c. Is its effect to pro5ote or to a3oid an eEcessi3e enta9le5ent 2et4een the -tate and
reli9ious 5atters in reli9ionI

*he ,on#Esta2lish5ent clause is 3iolated 4hen the -tate 9i3es an8 5anifest support to an8
one reli9ion, e3en if nothin9 is done a9ainst the indi3idual.
It is li?e4ise 3iolated if the -tate fa3ors all reli9ions, for there 5a8 2e atheists 4ho are not
so fa3ored.
&. Operation of sectarian schools
A$t. #IV Se%. I. ;;;
=7A Ed.%(tion() instit.tions ot'e$ t'(n t'ose est(*)is'ed *, $e)i2io.s 2$o.&s (nd
1ission *o($ds s'()) *e o-ned so)e), *, %iti:ens o+ t'e P'i)i&&ines o$ %o$&o$(tions o$
(sso%i(tions (t )e(st si;t, per centum o+ t'e %(&it() o+ -'i%' is o-ned *, s.%' %iti:ens. T'e
Con2$ess 1(, 'o-eve$ $e/.i$e in%$e(sed 3i)i&ino e/.it, &($ti%i&(tion in ()) ed.%(tion()
instit.tions.
T'e %ont$o) (nd (d1inist$(tion o+ ed.%(tion() instit.tions s'()) *e vested in %iti:ens o+
t'e P'i)i&&ines.
No ed.%(tion() instit.tion s'()) *e est(*)is'ed e;%).sive), +o$ ()iens (nd no 2$o.& o+
()iens s'()) %o1&$ise 1o$e t'(n oneFt'i$d o+ t'e en$o))1ent in (n, s%'oo). T'e &$ovisions o+
t'is s.*se%tion s'()) not (&&), to s%'oo)s est(*)is'ed +o$ +o$ei2n di&)o1(ti% &e$sonne) (nd
t'ei$ de&endents (nd .n)ess ot'e$-ise &$ovided *, )(- +o$ ot'e$ +o$ei2n te1&o$($,
$esidents.
>hile the o4nership, creation and 5ana9e5ent of educational institutions 5ust 2e in the
hands of Filipinos or $!L Filipino#o4ned corporations, sectarian schools and those run 28
reli9ious 9roups and 5issions 2oard are eEe5pted fro5 these re:uire5ents, pro3ided the
ad5inistration is in the hands of Filipinos, 4ho could 2e sectarian. G+rt. ;IV, -ec. F%").H
". .eli9ious instruction in pu2lis schools
A$t. #IV Se%. >. ;;;
P+/E &FA
=>A At t'e o&tion e;&$essed in -$itin2 *, t'e &($ents o$ 2.($di(ns $e)i2ion s'()) *e
())o-ed to *e t(.2't to t'ei$ %'i)d$en o$ -($ds in &.*)i% e)e1ent($, (nd 'i2' s%'oo) -it'in
t'e $e2.)($ %)(ss 'o.$s *, inst$.%to$s desi2n(ted o$ (&&$oved *, t'e $e)i2io.s (.t'o$ities o+
t'e $e)i2ion to -'i%' t'e %'i)d$en o$ -($ds *e)on2 -it'o.t (ddition() %ost to t'e Gove$n1ent.
.e3. +d5. Code, -ec. '"A
A$t. >?9. T'e 2ove$n1ent &$o1otes t'e +.)) 2$o-t' o+ t'e +(%.)ties o+ eve$, %'i)d.
3o$ t'is &.$&ose t'e 2ove$n1ent -i)) est(*)is' -'eneve$ &ossi*)eD
=1A S%'oo)s in eve$, *($$io 1.ni%i&()it, (nd %it, -'e$e o&tion() $e)i2io.s inst$.%tion
s'()) *e t(.2't (s &($t o+ t'e %.$$i%.).1 (t t'e o&tion o+ t'e &($ent o$ 2.($di(n.
;;; =Civi) Code.A
Pro3ided it is upon the 4ritten petition of the parents and it is at no cost to the -tate
%althou9h this is not entirel8 possi2le, 2ecause the use of classroo5s and electricit8 are costs in the
-tate), reli9ious instruction in pu2lic ele5entar8 and secondar8 schools durin9 class hours, 28 one
appro3ed 28 the authorities of the reli9ion of the child or 4ard is allo4ed. G+rt. ;IV, -ec. @%@).H
.eli9ion can e3en 2e inte9rated in the school curriculu5. GCi3. Code, @' %&).H
@. +nti#e3olution la4s
In Epperson 3. +r?ansas, @'@ U.-. '( %&'$A), the -C held that the teachin9 of the
1ar4inian theor8 of e3olution cannot 2e prohi2ited fro5 pu2lic shools 28 parents 4hose reli9ions
finds the theor8 offensi3e.
Epperson 3. +r?ansas, @'@ U.-. '( %&'$A)
F6 Epperson, an +r?ansas pu2lic school teacher, 2rou9ht this action challen9in9 the
constitutionalit8 of +r?nasasB anti# e3olution statute 4hich 5a?es it unla4ful for a teacher in an8 state#
supported school or uni3ersit8 to teach or use a teEt2oo? teachin9 =that 5an?ind descended fro5 a lo4er
order of ani5als.=
*he -tate -upre5e Court sustained the constitutionalit8 of the statute as co5in9 4ithin the
pur3ie4 of the -tateBs po4er to specif8 the pu2lic school curriculu5.
I--UE6 >hether or not the non#esta2lish5ent clause under the constitution is 3iolated 28 the
statute.
.ULI,/6 0E-. *he o3erridin9 fact is that +r?ansasB la4 selects fro5 the 2od8 of ?no4led9e a
particular se95ent 4hich it proscri2es for the sole reason that it is dee5ed to conflict 4ith a
particular reli9ious doctrineJ that is, 4ith a particular interpretation of the Boo? of /enesis 28 a
particular reli9ious 9roup. *he la4Bs effort 4as confined to an atte5pt to 2lot out a particular
theor8 2ecause of its supposed conflict 4ith the Bi2lical account, literall8 read.
*he /o3ern5ent 5ust 2e nuetral in 5atters of reli9ious theor8, doctrine and practice. It
5a8 not 2e hostile to an8 reli9ion or to the ad3ocac8 of no#reli9ionJ and it 5a8 not aid, foster or
pro5ote one reli9ion or reli9ious theor8 a9ainst the other. *he first a5end5ent 5andates
9o3ern5ental neutralit8 2et4een reli9ion and non#reli9ion. *he ri9ht of the -tate to prescri2e
pu2lic school curriculu5 does not 9i3e it the ri9ht to adopt a la4 that counters to the principles of
the first a5end5ent. C'($o.
P+/E &F'
F. Pra8er and Bi2le#readin9 in pu2lic schools
In En9el 3. Vitale, @(! U.-. F"& %&'$(), the -C disallo4ed the conductin9 of an
interdeno5inational pra8er 2efore the start of classes in pu2lic schools as, 3iolati3e of the ,on#
Esta2lish5ent clause.
En9el 3. Vitale, @(! U.-. F"& %&'$()
F6 *he respondent Board of Education upon the reco55endation of the -tate Board of .e9ents,
directed the -choolBs 1istrict principal to cause the recitation in pu2lic schools of a 2rief,
deno5inationall8 neutral pra8er. Its o2ser3ance on the part of the students 4as 3oluntar8.
.ULI,/6 *he Court ruled that the -tate of ,e4 0or?, 28 usin9 its pu2lic school s8ste5 to
encoura9e the recitation of the .e9entBs pra8er has adopted a practice 4holl8 inconsistent 4ith the
Esta2lish5ent Clause. *he pra8er 4as co5posed 28 9o3t officials as part of a 9o3ern5ental
pro9ra5 to further reli9ious 2eliefs. *he constitutional prohi2ition a9ainst la4s respectin9 an
esta2lish5ent of reli9ion 5eans at least that it is not part of the 2usiness of the 9o3ern5ent to
co5pose official pra8ers for an8 9roup to recite as part of a reli9ious pro9ra5 carried on 28 the
9o3t.
*he clauses of the &st +5end5ent 4hich prohi2it la4s respectin9 an esta2lish5ent of
reli9ion and a2rid9in9 the free eEercise thereof, althou9h o3erlappin9 in certain instances, for2ids
t4o diff ?inds of 9o3ern5ental encroach5ent upon reli9ious freedo5. *he sta2lish5ent clause,
unli?e the free eEercise clause, does not depend upon an8 sho4in9 of direct 9o3ern5ental
co5pulsion and is 3iolated 28 the enact5ent of la4s 4hich esta2lish an official reli9ion, 4hether or
not those la4s operate directl8 to coerce non#o2ser3in9 indi3iduals. It rests on the 2elief that a
union of 9o3t and reli9ion tends to destro8 9o3t and to de9rade reli9ion, and upon an a4areness of
the historical fact that 9o3ern5entall8 esta2lished reli9ion and reli9ious persecutions 9o hand in
hand. C'($o.
In +2in9ton -chool 1istrict 3. -che5p, @(F U.-. "!@ %&'$@), it li?e4ise disallo4ed the
readin9 of a passa9e fro5 the 2i2le 4ithout co55ent in pu2lic schools as contrar8 to the ,on#
Esta2lish5ent clause.
+2in9ton -chool 1istrict 3. -che5p, @(F U.-. "!@ %&'$@)
*he issue 4as 4hether the esta2lish5ent clause 4as 3iolated 28 a Penns8l3ania -tatute or a rule of the
Board of Co55issioners of Balti5ore adopted pursuant to statutor8 authorit8 re:uirin9 the readin9
4ithout co55ent, at the openin9 of each school da8, of 3erses fro5 the Bi2le and the recitation of the
LordBs pra8er 28 the students in unison. *he students and parents 5a8 refuse to participate in the school
eEercises. *hese eEercises 4ere prescri2ed as part of the curricular acti3ities of students 4ho are re:uired
28 la4 to attend school and held in school 2uildin9s under the super3ision and participation of teachers
e5plo8ed in those schools.
.ULI,/6 0E-, the esta2lish5ent clause 4as 3iolated.
*he esta2lish5ent clause prohi2its a state fro5 placin9 official support 2ehind the tenets of
one or all orthodoEies and the free eEercise clause 9uarantees the ri9ht of e3er8 person to freel8
choose his o4n course 4ith reference to reli9ious trainin9, teachin9 and o2ser3ance, free fro5 an8
co5pulsion fro5 the -tate.
P+/E &!
*he test in deter5inin9 4hether a le9islati3e enact5ent 3iolates the Esta2lish5ent clause
4hich 4ithdra4s all le9islati3e po4er respectin9 reli9ious 2elief or the eEpression thereof, is the
PU.PO-E and the P.IM+.0 EFFEC* of the enact5ent. If either is the ad3ance5ent or
inhi2ition of reli9ion, then the enact5ent eEceeds the scope of le9islati3e po4er as circu5scri2ed
28 the First +5end5ent. *o 4ithstand the strictures of the esta2lish5ent clause, there 5ust 2e a
secular le9islati3e purpose and a pri5ar8 effect that neither ad3ances nor inhi2its reli9ion.
*he place of the Bi2le as an instru5ent of reli9ion cannot 2e 9ainsaid. *his is particularl8
so 4here the -tateBs reco9nition of the per3adin9 reli9ious character of the eEercise is e3ident fro5
the ruleBs specific per5ission of the alternati3e use of the Catholic 1oua8 3ersion of the Bi2le as
4ell as fro5 a recent a5end5ent per5ittin9 non#attendance at the eEercises, none of those factors
2ein9 consistent 4ith the contention that the Bi2le is used either as an instru5ent for non#reli9ious
5oral inspiration or as a reference for the teachin9 of secular su27ects. C'($o.
. *aE eEe5ption
A$t. VI Se%. 7@. ;;;
=>A C'($it(*)e instit.tions %'.$%'es &($son(2es o$ %onvents (&&.$ten(nt t'e$eto
1os/.es nonF&$o+it %e1ete$ies (nd ()) )(nds *.i)din2s (nd i1&$ove1ents (%t.()), di$e%t),
(nd e;%).sive), .sed +o$ $e)i2io.s %'($it(*)e o$ ed.%(tion() &.$&oses s'()) *e e;e1&t +$o1
t(;(tion.
*he rulin9 in Bishop of ,ue3a -e9o3ia 3. Pro3incial Board, & Phil. @" %&'"() is
5odified to the eEtent no4 that the propert8 5ust 2e =actuall8, directl8 and eEclusi3el8= used for
reli9ious purposes to 2e eEe5pt.
If not for reli9ious purposes, educational purposes.
Bishop of ,ue3a -e9o3ia 3. Pro3incial Board, & Phil. @" %&'"()
F6 *he plaintiff, the .o5an Catholic +postolic Church, represented 28 the Bishop of ,ue3a
-e9o3ia, is the o4ner and occupant of a parcel of land in -an ,icolas, Ilocos ,orte. On the south siide is a
part of the church 8ard, the con3ent and an ad7acent lot used as 3e9eta2le 9arden. In the center is the
re5ainder of the church8ard and the church. On the north side is an old ce5eter8 and the 2ase of 4hat
4as once a to4er. *he Pro3. Board i5posed a taE on the 4hole land.
I--UE6 >hether or not the taEation is le9al.
.ULI,/6 ,O. *he eEe5ption in the pa85ent of the land taE 5andated in the Constitution in fa3or
of the reli9ious entities refers to the ho5e of the priest 4ho presides o3er the church and 4ho has to
ta?e care of hi5self in order to dischar9e his duties. It therefore 5ust include not onl8 the land
actuall8 occupied 28 the church 2ut also the ad7acent 9round destined for the ordinar8 incidental
uses of 5an.
EEcept in lar9e cities 4here the densit8 of the population and the de3elop5ent of
co55erce re:uire the use of lar9e tracts of land for 2uildin9s, a 3e9eta2le 9arden 2elon9s to a
house and, in the case of a con3ent, its use is li5ited to the necessities of the priest. *herefore,
4hich co5es under the taE eEe5ption.
+s to the lot 4hich 4as for5erl8 the ce5eter8, 4hile it is no lon9er used as such, neither is
it used for co55ercial purposes and, accd9 to the e3idence, is no4 2ein9 used as a lod9in9 house
28 the people 4ho participate in reli9ious festi3ities. *he sa5e constitutes an incidental use in
reli9ious functions. It also co5es 4ithin the eEe5ption. C'($o.
P+/E &&
$. Pu2lic aid to reli9ion
A$t. VI Se%. 79. ;;;
=7A No &.*)i% 1one, o$ &$o&e$t, s'()) *e (&&$o&$i(ted (&&)ied &(id o$ e1&)o,ed
di$e%t), o$ indi$e%t), +o$ t'e .se *ene+it o$ s.&&o$t o+ (n, se%t %'.$%' deno1in(tion
se%t($i(n instit.tion o$ s,ste1 o+ $e)i2ion o$ o+ (n, &$iest &$e(%'e$ 1iniste$ o$ ot'e$
$e)i2io.s te(%'e$ o$ di2nit($, (s s.%' e;%e&t -'en s.%' &$iest &$e(%'e$ 1iniste$ o$
di2nit($, is (ssi2ned to t'e ($1ed +o$%es o$ to (n, &en() instit.tion o$ 2ove$n1ent
o$&'(n(2e o$ )e&$os($i.1.
*he pa85ent or use of pu2lic 5one8 or propert8 for an8 reli9ious institution or cler98 is
not allo4edJ eEcept in those cases pro3ided in the Constitution6 priests assi9ned in the +FP, penal
institution, 9o3ern5ent orphana9e, or leprosariu5. G+rt. VI, -ec. "' %")H
But in +9lipa8 3. .uiz, $F Phil. "!& %&'@(), the -C held that the sta5p printed 28 the
9o3ern5ent sho4in9 the 5ap of the Philippines 4ith a rosar8 to co55e5orate the @@rd
International Eucharistic Con9ress to 2e held in Manila did not 3iolate the ,on#Esta2lish5ent
clause 2ecause its 5ain purpose, 4as to call the 4orldBs attention to Manila as the site of an
international con9ress, and 4hate3er 2enefit it 9a3e the Catholic Church 4as onl8 incidental.
+9lipa8 3. .uiz, $F Phil. "!& %&'@()
F6 *he petitioner, Mons. +9lipa8, Dead of the Phil. Ind. Church, sou9ht to restrain respondent
1irector of Posts fro5 issuin9 and sellin9 posta9e sta5ps co55e5orati3e of the @@rd International
Eucharistic Con9ress. *he 1irector issued the sta5ps under the pro3isions of +ct F!" 4hich appropriates
pu2lic funds for the cost of the plates and printin9 of the sta5ps. Petitioner alle9ed that the issuance of the
sta5ps 4as done in 3iolation of the Constitutional pro3ision that no pu2lic 5one8 or propert8 shall 2e
appropriated for the use, 2enefit or support of an8 sect or reli9ion.
I--UE6 >C, petitionerBs contention is tena2le.
.ULI,/6 ,O. +ct F!" conte5plated no reli9ious purpose in 3ie4. >hat it 9a3e the 1irector of
Posts 4as the discretionar8 po4er to deter5ine 4hen the issuance of special posta9e sta5ps 4ould
2e ad3anta9eous to the 9o3ern5ent.
*he purpose in issuin9 the sta5ps 4as to ad3ertise the Philippines and attract 5ore
tourists to this countr8. *he officials concerned 5erel8 too? ad3anta9e of an e3ent considered of
international i5portance to 9i3e pu2licit8 to the countr8 and its people. *he sta5p contained a 5ap
of the Philippines and the location of Manila, and an inscription as follo4s6 =-eat ;;;III
International Eucharistic Crusade.= >hat 4as e5phasized 4as not the e3ent 2ut Manila.
It 4as o23ious that 4hile the sta5ps 5a8 2e said to 2e insepara2l8 lin?ed 4ith an e3ent of
a reli9ious character, the resultin9 propa9anda recei3ed 28 the .o5an Catholic Church 4as 5erel8
incidental and 4as not the ai5 and purpose of the 9o3ern5ent. C'($o.
In I9nacio 3. Ela, supra, the dissentin9 opinion of Justice Concepcion pointed out that the
5a8or disappro3ed the application for a per5it not so 5uch 2ecause he 4as afraid that 2reach of
peace 4ould ensue 2ut 2ecause he 4ron9l8 thou9h the ?ios? should 2e used for pu2lic purposes
onl8 and not for reli9ious purposes. >hen the Jeho3ahBs >itness 5e52ers use the pu2lic s:uares,
the8 are no different fro5 ordinar8 pedestrians or pro5enaders 4ho use the street6 that the8 are
perfor5in9 reli9ious acts is onl8 incidental. -o lon9 as the use of pu2lic propert8 is onl8
P+/E &"
incidentalall8 and te5porarill8 for reli9ious purposes and so lon9 as the use is such as to 2e
reasona2l8 co5pati2le 4ith the use to 4hich other 5e52ers of the co55unit8 are si5ilarl8
entitled, then the non#esta2lish5ent clause is not 3iolated. *he tests then are %&) Is the use of the
pu2lic facilit8 co5pati2le 4ith 9eneral useI %") Is the resultin9 2enefit to the reli9ious 9roup onl8
incidental.
I9nacio 3. Ela, '' P @F$ %&'$) %Concepcion, J., dissentin9.)
F6 *he Ma8or denied a per5it to the 5e52ers of the Jeho3ahBs >itnesses to use the ?ios? in the
to4n plaza for the purpose of holdin9 a pu2lic lecture on the 9round that the per5it, if 9ranted, 5a8 9i3e
rise to distur2ance of the reli9ious cere5onies 2ein9 perfor5ed 28 the Catholic Church 4hich 4as said to
2e 4iithin hearin9 distance fro5 the ?ios? and 4hich 5i9ht lead to an8 unto4ard incident 4ith 5e52ers
of the ri3al deno5ination.
I--UE6 >C, the denial is 3alid.
1issentin96 Concepcion, J.
*he 9round in3o?ed 28 the Ma8or for den8in9 the per5it 4as that the 5e52ers of the
Jeho3ahBs >itnesses 5a8 sa8 or do so5ethin9 tendin9 to distur2 pu2lic order. *o 4arrant denial of
the per5it pra8ed for 4ould, in effect, nullif8 the Bill of .i9hts, for all ri9hts are suscepti2le of
a2use and, hence, the possi2ilit8 of such a2use is al4a8s present in the eEercise of an8 ri9ht. In this
connection, it is i5portant to note that petitionerBs afore5entioned re:uest is co3ered 28 the
Constitutional 5andates on due process, freedo5 of speech, freedo5 of asse52l8 and freedo5 of
reli9ion. O23iousl8, a ri9ht of such 5a9nitude as to 2e 9uaranteed 28 no less than four pro3isions
of the funda5ental la4 # and these of the 5ost transcendental and 3ital to the de5ocratic s8ste5
underl8in9 the structure of our .epu2lic # cannot 2e curtailed on the 2asis of an a2stract and
speculati3e possi2ilit8 of a threat to peace or 2reach of peace, 4hich 5a8 or 5a8 not result, if and
4hen, in the eEercise of their reli9ious profession, petitioners should transcend the proper 2ounds,
for 4hich, at an8 rate, the8 could, and 4ould, 2e punished under eEistin9 la4s. C'($o.
B. Free EEercise Clause
&. Fla9 -tatute
E2ranila9 3. 1i3ision -uperindentent of -chools of Ce2u, "&' -C.+ "$ %&''@)
Conscientious (b4ectors cannot be compelled to salute the flag.
F6 +ll the ptetitioners in these cases 4ere eEpelled fro5 their classes 28 the pu2lic school authorities
in Ce2u for refusin9 to salute the fla9, since the national anthe5 and recite the patriotic pled9e as re:uired
28 .+ &"$ and 28 1ept. Order ,o. A dated Jul8 "&, &' of the 1EC- 5a?in9 the fla9 cere5on8
co5pulsor8 in all educational institutions.
I--UE6 >C, school childten 4ho are 5e52ers of a reli9ious sect ?no4n as Jeho3ahBs >itnesses
5a8 2e eEpelled fro5 school %2oth pri3ate and pu2lic), for refusin9, on account of their reli9ious
2eliefs, to ta?e part in the fla9 cere5on8 4hich includes pla8in9 %28 a 2and) or sin9in9 the Phil.
,ational +nthe5, salutin9 the Phil. fla9 and recitin9 the patriotic pled9e.
DEL16 ,O.
P+/E &@
*he idea that one 5a8 2e co5pelled to salute the fla9, sin9 the national anthe5, and recite
the patriotice pled9e, durin9 a fla9 cere5on8 on pain of 2ein9 dis5issed fro5 oneBs 7o2 or of 2ein9
eEpelled fro5 school, is alien to the conscience of the present 9eneration of Filipinos 4ho cut their
teeth on the Bill of .i9hts 4Cc 9uarantees their ri9hts to free speech and the free eEercise of
reli9ious profession and 4orship.
EEE
EEE Forcin9 a s5all reli9ious 9roup, throu9h the iron hand of the la4, to participate in a
cere5on8 that 3iolates their reli9ious 2eliefs, 4ill hardl8 2e conduci3e to lo3e of countr8 or respect
for dul8 constituted authorities.
EEE
*he sole 7ustification for a prior restraint or li5itation on the eEercise of reli9ious freedo5
is the eEistence of a 9ra3e and present dan9er of a character 2oth 9ra3e and i55inent, of a serious
e3il to pu2lic safet8, 5oral, health or an8 other le9iti5ate pu2lic interest, that the state has a ri9ht
and dut8 to pre3ent. +2sent such a threat to pu2lic safet8, the eEpulsion of the pets. fro5 the
schools is not 7ustified.
EEE
+lthou9h petitioners do not participate in the co5pulsor8 fla9 cere5on8, the8 do not
en9a9e in eEternal acts or 2eha3ior that 4ould offend their countr85en 4ho 2elie3e in eEercisin9
their lo3e of countr8 throu9h the o2ser3ance of the fla9 cere5on8. *he8 :uietl8 stand at attention
durin9 the cere5on8 to sho4 their respect for the ri9ht of those 4ho choose to participate in the
sole5n proceedin9s. +s there is no disruption, eEpulsion is un4arranted.
Do4e3er, if the8 should co55it 2reaches of peace 28 action that offend the sensi2ilities,
2oth reli9ious and patriotic, of other persons, the school authorities ha3e the po4er to discipline
the5. Ad(&ted.
Co5pare >est V. Board of Education 3. Barnette, @&' U- $"F %&'F@)
F6 *he -tate Board re:uired pu2lic school pupils to salute the fla9 of the United -tates 4hile
recitin9 a pled9e of alle9iance under penalt8 of eEpulsion entailin9 lia2ilit8 of 2oth pupil and parents to 2e
proceeded a9ainst for unla4ful a2sence. +ppellees, 5e52ers of the Jeho3ahBs >itnesses, consider the fla9
as a 9ra3en i5a9e 4hich the8 are for2idden to salute under their reli9ious 2eliefs. *he -tate asserts the
po4er to condition access to pu2lic education.
I--UE6 >C, the co5pulsor8 fla9 salute is 3alid.
.ULI,/6 ,O.
In connection 4ith pled9es, the fla9 salute is a for5 of utterance. It re:uires an affir5ation
of a 2elief and an attitude of 5ind. It is no4 a co55onplace that censorship or suppression of
eEpression of opinion is tolerated 28 the Constitution onl8 4hen the eEpression presents a clear
and present dan9er of action of a ?ind the -tate is e5po4ered to pre3ent and punish. Dere the
po4er of co5pulsion is in3o?ed 4ithout an8 alle9ation that re5ainin9 passi3e durin9 a fla9 salute
ritual creates a clear and present dan9er that 4ould 7ustif8 an effort e3en to 5uffle eEpression.
*o sustain the co5pulsor8 fla9 salute, 4e are re:uired to sa8 that a Bill of .i9hts 4hich
9uards the indi3idualBs ri9ht to spea? his 5ind left it open to pu2lic authorities to co5pel hi5 to
utter 4hat is not in his 5ind.
*he Court applies the li5itations of the Constitution 4ith no fear that freedo5 to 2e
intellectuall8 and spirituall8 di3erse or e3en contrar8 4ill disinte9rate the social or9anization. *o
2elie3e that patriotis5 4ill not flourish if patriotic cere5onies are 3oluntar8 and spontaneous
instead of a co5pulsor8 routine is to 5a?e an unflatterin9 esti5ate of the appeal of our institutions
to free 5inds. C'($o.
P+/E &F
". Freedo5 to propa9ate reli9ious doctrines
+5erican Bi2le -ociet8 3. Cit8 of Manila, &!& P @A$ %&'()
F6 Plaintiff is en9a9ed in the distri2ution and sale of 2i2les and reli9ious articles. *he Cit8 *reasurer
of Manila infor5ed the plaintiff that it 4as conductin9 the 2usiness of 9eneral 5erchandise 4ithout
securin9 the necessar8 license and pa8in9 the re:uisite fee in 3iolation of the Cit8 ordinance. Plaintiff
protested a9ainst this re:uire5ent as constitutin9 a restraint upon the eEercise of reli9ion. It clai5ed that
it is not en9a9ed in 2usiness 4hich necessitates the securin9 of a license as it ne3er 5ade an8 profit fro5
the sale of its 2i2les.
I--UE6 >hether or not the ordinance as applied to petitioner is unconstutional for 2ein9 in
restraint of petitionerBs ri9ht to free eEercise of reli9ion.
DEL16 0E-. *he po4er to taE the eEercise of the pri3ile9e is the po4er to control or suppress its
en7o85ent. *hose 4ho can taE the eEercise of reli9ious practice can 5a?e its eEercise so costl8 as
to depri3e it of the resources necessar8 for its 5aintenance. It is true that the price as?ed for the
reli9ious articles 4as in so5e instances a little 2it hi9her than the actual cost of the sa5e, 2ut this
cannot 5ean that plaintiff 4as en9a9ed in the 2usiness or occupation of sellin9 said =5erchandise=
for profit. *he 5ar? up can onl8 2e treated as contri2utions 28 the faithfuls to the reli9ious cause.
*he Ordinance C+,,O* 2e applied to plaintiff societ8, for in so doin9, it 4ould i5pair its free
eEercise and en7o85ent of its reli9ious profession and 4orship, as 4ell as its ri9ht to disse5inate
reli9ious 2eliefs. C'($o.
@. EEe5tion fro5 union shop
Victoriano 3. Elizalde .ope >or?ers Union, ' -C.+ F %&'(F)
F6 Ben7a5in Victoriano is an e5plo8ee of the Elizalde .ope Factor8. In &'$", he resi9ned fro5 the
respondent la2or union on the 9round that the I9lesia ni Kristo of 4hich he is a 5e52er prohi2its union
5e52ership. +s the union de5anded his dis5issal fro5 e5plo85ent pursuant to a closed shop
a9ree5ent, Victoriano 2rou9ht this action for in7unction. *he CFI ruled in his fa3or eEe5ptin9 fro5 the
closed#shop contracts 5e52ers of reli9ious sects 4hich prohi2it affiliation of their 5e52ers in an8 la2or
or9anization. *he union appealed.
DEL16 *he statute does not 3iolate the ri9hts of association. It does not i5pair the o2li9ation of
contracts for not onl8 are eEistin9 la4s read into contracts in order to fiE the o2li9ation of the
parties 2ut the reser3ation of essential attri2utes of so3erei9n po4er is also read into such
contracts. ,either does the la4 constitute an esta2lish5ent of reli9ion. It has 2een held that in order
to 4ithstand o27ections 2ased on this 9round, the statute 5usr ha3e a secular purpose and that
purpose 5ust not directl8 ad3ance or di5inish the interest of an8 reli9ion. Con9ress acted 5erel8
to relie3e persons of the 2urden i5posed 28 union securit8 a9ree5ents. VV.
F. 1is:ualification fro5 local 9o3ern5ent office
Pa5il 3. *eleron A$ -C.+ F&@ %&'(A)
F6 In &'(&, Fr. Mar9arito /onza9a 4as elected 5a8or of +l2u:uer:ue, Bohol. + petition 4as filed
a9ainst hi5 on the 2asis of section "&( of the .e3ised +d5inistrati3e Code pro3idin9 that =in nocase
shall there 2e elected or appointed to a 5unicipal office ecclesiastics, soldiers in acti3e ser3ice, persons
recei3in9 salaries fro5 pro3incial funds, or contractors for pu2lic 4or?s.= *he CFI dis5issed the petition
on the 9round that the ineli9i2ilit8 has 2een i5pliedl8 repealed 28 section "@ of the &'(& Election Code.
P+/E &
DEL16 *he 3otin9 of the -C 4as inconclusi3e. -e3en 7ustices held that section "&( is no lon9er
operati3e. Justice Fernando held that section "&( i5posed a reli9ious test on the eEercise of the
ri9ht to run for pu2lic office contrar8 to +rt. III of the &'@ Constitution. Justice *eehan?ee held
that section "&( had 2een repealed 28 the Election Code. Fi3e 7ustices held that section "&( is
constitutional. VV.
VI. LI4ERT6 O3 A4ODE AND O3 TRAVEL
A$t. III Se%. 6. T'e )i*e$t, o+ (*ode (nd o+ %'(n2in2 t'e s(1e -it'in t'e )i1its
&$es%$i*ed *, )(- s'()) not *e i1&(i$ed e;%e&t .&on )(-+.) o$de$ o+ t'e %o.$t. Neit'e$ s'())
t'e $i2't to t$(ve) *e i1&(i$ed e;%e&t in t'e inte$est o+ n(tion() se%.$it, &.*)i% s(+et, o$
&.*)i% 'e()t' (s 1(, *e &$ovided *, )(-.
-alon9a 3. Der5oso '( -C.+ &"& %&'A!)
Right to travel
*his is not the first ti5e petitioner Jo3ito -alon9a ca5e to the -C 28 4a8 of a mandamus
proceedin9 to co5pel the issuance to hi5 of a certificate of eli9i2ilit8 to tra3el. In the first case,
-alon9a 3. Madella, the case 2eca5e 5oot and acade5ic. *he present petition is li?e4ise 5oot and
acade5ic. In the 5otion to dis5iss filed 28 the -olicitor /eneral, it 4as stated that the certificate of
eli9i2ilit8 to tra3el had 2een 9ranted petitioner.
,onetheless, in 3ie4 of the li?elihood that this Court 5a8 2e faced a9ain 4ith the sa5e
situation, it is desira2le that respondent *ra3el Processin9 Center should eEercise the ut5ost care
to a3oid the i5pression that certain citizens desirous of eEercisin9 their constitutional ri9ht to tra3el
could 2e su27ected to incon3enience or anno8ance. *he freedo5 to tra3el is one of the 5ost
cherished. EEE VV.
Marcos 3. Man9lapus, &(( -C.+ $$A O &(A -C.+ ($! %&'A')
F6 *his petition for mandamus and prohi2ition as?s the Court to order the respondents to issue
tra3el docu5ents to Mr. Marcos and the i55ediate 5e52ers of his fa5il8 and to en7oin the
i5ple5entation of the PresidentBs decision to 2ar their return to the Philippines. *he case for petitioners is
founded on the assertion that the ri9ht of the Marcoses to return to the Philippines is 9uaranteed under the
pro3isions of the Constitution respectin9 oneBs li2ert8 of a2ode and ri9ht to tra3el. .espondents ar9ue the
pri5ac8 of the ri9ht of the -tate to national securit8 o3er indi3idual ri9hts.
.ULI,/6 *he ri9ht in3ol3ed in this case is not the ri9ht to tra3el fro5 the Philippines to other
countries or 4ithin the Philippines. Essentiall8, the ri9ht in3ol3ed is the ri9ht to return to oneBs
countr8, a totall8 distinct ri9ht under international la4, independent fro5 althou9h related to the
ri9ht to tra3el.
*he ri9ht to return to oneBs countr8 is not a5on9 the ri9hts specificall8 9uaranteed in the
Bill of .i9hts, 4hich treats onl8 of the li2ert8 of a2ode and the ri9ht to tra3el, 2ut it is the CourtBs
4ell considered 3ie4 that the ri9ht to return 5a8 2e considered as a 9enerall8 accepted principle of
international la4, and under our Constitution, is part of the la4 of the land. Do4e3er, it is distinct
and separate fro5 the ri9ht to tra3el and en7o8s a different protection under the Intl. Co3enant of
Ci3il and Political .i9hts, i.e. a9ainst 2ein9 ar2itraril8 depri3ed thereof.
*he re:uest or de5and of the Marcoses to 2e allo4ed to return to the Philippines cannot 2e
considered in the li9ht solel8 of the constitutional pro3isions 9uaranteein9 li2ert8 of a2ode and the
ri9ht to tra3el. It 5ust 2e treated as a 5atter that is appropriatel8 addressed to those residual
P+/E &$
unstated po4ers of the President 4hich are i5plicit in and correlati3e to the para5ount dut8
residin9 in that office to safe9uard and protect 9eneral 4elfare. In that conteEt, such re:uest or
de5and should su25it to the eEercise of a 2roader discretion on the part of the President to
deter5ine 4hether it 5ust 2e 9ranted or not.
1issentin96 /utierrez, Jr. J.
-ec. $ of the Bill of .i9hts states cate9oricall8 that the li2ert8 of a2ode and of chan9in9
the sa5e 4ithin li5its prescri2ed 28 la4 5a8 2e i5paired onl8 upon la4ful order of the court. ,ot
28 an eEecuti3e officer. ,ot e3en 28 the President. -ec. $ further pro3ides that the ri9ht to tra3el,
and this o23iousl8 includes the ri9ht to tra3el out of or 2ac? into the Philippines, cannot 2e
i5paired eEcept in the interest of national securit8, pu2lic safet8, or pu2lic health, as 5a8 2e
pro3ided 28 la4. C'($o.
.+M
@C&AC'$
P+/E &(

Political Law Review Vol 3

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Political Law Review Vol 3

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

POLITICAL LAW REVIEW

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi