Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 98

Bill of Rights

History and Purpose of the Bill of Rights

The Preamble and the sovereign will


Bill of rights: protection of guaranteed rights
to liberty, property and other freedoms
(Section 1, Article III, Constitution)

Republic v. Sandiganbayan: Even during the


Martial Law years, the Bill of Rights is
enforced and no one can be deprived of due
process of law without sufficient notice.

Bill of Rights
1. Definition and Purpose of the Bill of Rights:
protection of guaranteed rights to liberty,
property and other freedoms. (Section 1, Article
III, Constitution)
2. Who are protected by the rights: all
citizens, natural-born and naturalized citizens;
aliens within the jurisdiction of the Philippines;
both natural and juridical persons.
3. Doctrines governing interpretation of
laws affecting guaranteed rights:

Void for Vagueness doctrine


Overbreadth doctrine

Preliminaries
Limitations to the enjoyment of the guarantees
under the Bill of Rights:
1. Police Power
2. Power to Tax
3. Power to Expropriate
Who are covered: Both citizens and aliens within
the jurisdiction of the Philippines
Board of Medicine v. Ota: The rule on reciprocity
would apply where a Filipino physician is
allowed to practice medicine in Japan
Kuwait Airways Corp. v. PAL: In commercial
relations, the general principles in
international law must be respected.

Bill of Rights
Government of Hongkong SAR v. Olalia: The
extradition treaty signed by Hongkong
before its turnover to China can no longer
enforced.
Government of the United States of America
v. Puruganan and Mark Jimenez: Extradition
proceedings are not in the nature of
criminal proceedings. Where there is a
conflict between international law
provisions with that of a domestic law, the
latter would prevail.

Bill of Rights
Doctrines in the interpretation of the Bill
of Rights:
Void for Vagueness doctrine
Overbreadth doctrine
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan: S. C. made a
distinction between facial challenge and
overbreadth; former is allowed to a
vague statute but the latter is made due
to its chilling effect to the public.

Bill of Rights
Right to Life, Liberty and Property:
Safeguards of Due Process, Equal
Protection and Non-Impairment Clauses
Right to Life:
Republic v. Kagandahan: As a signatory to
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
the Philippines must accord the individual
the right to the preferred gender (without
medical intervention) so he can live a full
life.
Gamboa v. P/SSupt. Chan et al.: The act of
the PNP in forwarding certain information
to the Zenarosa Commission does violate or
threaten the right to life, liberty or security.

Bill of Rights
Due Process Clause
Types of Due Process: procedural and
substantive
Guaranteed rights: right to be informed of the
nature of the complaint (notice) and the
right to confront the witnesses and present
evidence on ones behalf (hearing)
Tanada v. Tuvera: Publication of law is a pre-
requisite to impose a burden on an
individual.
Corona v. United Harbor Pilots: An instrument
which invests a group of its right to practice
their profession is void if there is
no notice.

Bill of Rights
Instances when no notice and
hearing are required: voluntary
appearance and active
participation in previously
scheduled proceedings bar the
parties from raising the issue of
lack of notice.

Bill of Rights
Due process in judicial proceedings:
Velasco v. Sandiganbayan and the
People of the Philippines, G. R. No.
169253, February 20, 2013: Proceedings
in the Sandiganbayan are criminal in
nature. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is
required to convict and the accused must
be represented by counsel who will ensure
compliance with the rules of procedure.

Bill of Rights
Effect of waiver/estoppel:
The Heirs of Jolly Bugarin v. Republic,
G.R. No. 174431, August 6, 2012: Party
cannot claim denial of due process after
the party had actively participated in the
proceedings.
Right to Counsel:
Carbonel v. CSC, G.R. No. 187689,
September 7, 2010: Where a proceeding
may result to criminal liability, party may
avail of counsel.
Due process in academic and disciplinary
proceedings: Parties are bound by the rules
governing academic requirements and
standards of behavior prescribed by the
educational institutions. Resort to courts is
available to parties.
Viveres and Suzara v. St. Theresas
College, G.R. No. 202666, September 29,
2014. While the issue focused on the right of
the minor students to privacy, the Supreme
Court upheld the right of St. Theresas
College to take disciplinary action over its
students.
Procedural Due Process
Mayor Tolentino v. COMELEC: Due process
simply requires: right to notice; right to
reasonable opportunity to appear;
competent tribunal; and right to a decision
based on evidence and law.
Acuzar v. Apresa: Due process in
administrative proceedings require: notice,
right to be heard; competent tribunal and a
finding supported by substantial evidence;
the administrative case before the PLEB can
proceed independent of the criminal case
against the case against the police
officer.

Bill of Rights
Melendres v. PAGC: Due process, as a
constitutional precept, does not always and
in all situations require a trial-type
proceeding. In administrative proceedings,
it is sufficient that one is informed of the
charges against him and giving him
reasonable opportunity to answer the
accusations against him.
Garcia v. Molina and Velasco: A decision
rendered without due process is void ab
initio and be attacked at any time in a
separate action or resisting such decision in
any action or proceeding where it
is invoked.

Bill of Rights
Equal Protection: not an absolute guarantee
but assures legal equality; requires valid
classification.
Elements: classification must be germane;
individuals belong to the same class; must
distinction; not temporary

Mirasol v. DPWH: classification based on


practical convenience and common
knowledge.
Santos v. People: classification is done to
prevent undue favor or privilege.

Bill of Rights
Garcia v. Hon. Drilon et al., G.R. No. 179267,
June 25, 2013. R.A. 9262 does not violate the
equal protection clause for the following reasons:
1. The classification rests on substantial
distinctions;
2. The classification is germane to the purpose of
the law; and
3. The classification is not limited to existing
conditions only and apply equally to all
members.
NAPOCOR v. Pinatubo Commercial, G. R. no.
179006, March 26, 2010. The guaranty of the
equal protection clause is not violated by a
legislation based on a reasonable classification.

Bill of Rights
Bases for classification:
age, gender, religion,
economic class, ethnicity,
race, sexual orientation,
economic class,
residence, disability, date
of filing/ effectivity of the
law

Bill of Rights
Standards of Review
Prevailing standards used:
Deferential or Rational Basis Scrutiny
which establishes a rational connection to
serve legitimate state interest.
Middle Tier or Intermediate Scrutiny:
Challenged classification serves important an
important state interest.
Strict Judicial Scrutiny: Burden is on the
state to prove that classification achieves a
compelling state interest.

Bill of Rights
Law non-discriminatory on its face but
discriminatory in its application
Biraogo v. Ochoa: No particular individual
should be singled out under a law or
executive order.
Nicolas v. Romulo: there is no violation of
equal protection clause even if there is a
substantial basis for treatment of US
military personnel under a special
agreement with the two countries.
Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers Union:
labor law is secular, worldly and temporal not
spiritual but exemption based on religion is
valid and reasonable.

Bill of Rights
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services, Inc: the
distinction between domestic workers and
OFWs is valid and substantial.
Quinto v. COMELEC: there is a different
consequence between an elective and an
appointive public officials filing of
Certificate of Candidacy.
C.B. Employees Assn v. BSP: provisions of law
which are initially valid can become
unconstitutional for violating the equal
protection clause. The rank and file
employees can benefit from a later law.

Bill of Rights
To summarize, equal protection clause when
subjected to judicial review is examined by:
1. Strict scrutiny test where government must show
that challenge classification serves a compelling
state interest and that classification is necessary to
serve the interest. (Roe v. Wade case, religion,
denial or dilution of right to vote, access to the
courts);
2. Middle-tier scrutiny test where government must
show that the challenged classification is at least
substantially related to that interest. (gender,
illegitimacy); or
3. Rational or minimum scrutiny test where
government need only to show that the challenged
classification is rationally related to
serving a legitimate state interest.

Bill of Rights
Privacy of Communication: wiretapping or
eavesdropping is a form of intrusion into
ones sacred private precincts.

Salcedo-Ortanez v. Zamora: recording of


telephone conversation cannot be
introduced in evidence if made without
the consent of the parties.

Navarro v. C.A. and People: when the


recorded event was done by person in the
media industry, the same may be
admitted in evidence.

Bill of Rights
Ople v. Torres: the requirement for every
citizen to be issued national
identification card invades the privacy of
individuals as it calls for disclosure of
personal information.

Alejano v. Cabuay: When a


correspondence addressed to detained
persons is not sealed the custodian of
such persons may read the contents of
the correspondence.

Bill of Rights
Freedom of Expression: the right to speak
freely ones mind; right prohibits prior
restraint or censorship; the burden is on the
citizen to prove good motives and justifiable
ends in placing their complaints. Comments
or criticisms.

Estrada v. Sandiganbayan: made a distinction


between facial challenge and overbreadth;
former is allowed to a vague statute but the
latter is made due to its chilling effect.

Bill of Rights
Bases for Protection: Promotion of Truth,
Enhance Principles of Democracy, Expression of
Self- Fulfillment of Citizens.
Why State Restricts and Imposes
Limitations on Freedom of Expression:
Maintenance of Peace, Promotion of Community
Morals, Protection of Individual Dignity.
Scope of Freedom of Speech: Verbal Speech
(print and broadcast media) and Non-verbal
(symbols)
Unprotected Speech/Expression and
Protected Speech/Expression,
distinguished:

Bill of Rights
Unprotected Speech/Expression:
General Guidelines, Obscenity, and
Incitement to National Security, False
or Misleading Advertisement, Libelous
Speech, Hate Speech and
Contumacious Speech.
In re: Macasaet, 561 SCRA 395
Contumacious Speech: Indirect
contempt which merits a monetary
penalty.

Bill of Rights
Protected Speech/Expression: all those
excluded from unprotected expression may
include utterances critical of public conduct,
ordinary commercial speech, satirical
speech/parody.
Flor v. People, 454 SCRA 440(2005)
Misuse of Public Funds must be proved by
competent evidence.
Vasquez v. Court of Appeals, 314 SCRA
460 Misconduct of a Public Official
PHCAP v. Duque III, supra, - Ordinary
Commercial Speech as part of a marketing
strategy.

Bill of Rights
How Government Restricts Freedom of
Expression
Content Based Restrictions distinguished
from Content Neutral Restrictions as
gleaned from Justice Carpios concurring
opinion in Chavez v. Gonzalez, summarized
below:
a. Any content-based prior restraint on
PROTECTED expression is unconstitutional.
b. Only unprotected expression is subject to
prior restraint.
c. Prior restraint presumes that the
expression is unconstitutional.
d. Government has the burden of proof
every time it exercises censorship.

Bill of Rights
Standards of Review
OBrien Test on Content-Neutral Restrictions
Social Weather Station v. COMELEC, 357
SCRA 504 (2001): right to information
Miller Test on Indecent Speech
Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79: use of
offensive language
Roth Test on Obscenity
Gonzales v. Kalaw- Katigbak, 137 SCRA 717
: :prurient interest test
Clear and Present Danger Test
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo, 489 SCRA 160
(2006) right of the state to protect
itself

Bill of Rights
Doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth and
vagueness
Southern Hemisphere Engagement
Network, Inc., v. Anti-Terrorism Council,
et al., G.R. No.178552, October 5, 2010 :
The doctrines of strict scrutiny, overbreadth
and vagueness are analytical tools developed
for testing on their faces statutes in free
speech cases. They cannot be made to do
service when what is involved is a criminal
statute.

Bill of Rights
Libel as a Criminal Offense (Article
354, Revised Penal Code)
GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos,
504 SCRA 638 (2006) Libelous
Statement
Binay v. Secretary of Justice, 501
SCRA 312 (2006) - Defamatory
Statement

Bill of Rights
Chavez v. Gonzalez: Freedom of speech
covers both entertaining and instructive
or informative matters. Press freedom is
the source of current events. Four
aspects of press freedom: Freedom from
prior restraint, freedom from
punishment subsequent to publication,
freedom of access to information and
freedom of circulation.

Bill of Rights
Content-neutral regulation distinguished
from Content-based restraint or censorship:
In the former, substantial government
interest is required for its validity and not
subject to strictest form of judicial scrutiny
while in the latter, it is given the strictest
judicial scrutiny in the light of their inherent
and invasive impact. The latter bears a
heavy presumption of invalidity and is
measured against the clear and present
danger rule.

Bill of Rights
THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD v. COMELEC( G.R. No.
205728 January 21, 2015)
In upholding the Petition, the Court relied on a the
definition of the right as elucidated by a prominent
political theorist -
T]he theory of freedom of expression involves more
than a technique for arriving at better social
judgments through democratic procedures. It
comprehends a vision of society, a faith and a whole
way of life. The theory grew out of an age that was
awakened and invigorated by the idea of new society
in which man's mind was free, his fate determined
by his own powers of reason, and his prospects of
creating a rational and enlightened civilization
virtually unlimited. It is put forward as a
prescription for attaining a creative, progressive,
exciting and intellectually robust community. It
contemplates a mode of life that, through
encouraging toleration, skepticism, reason and
initiative, will allow man to realize his full
potentialities. It spurns the alternative of a society
that is tyrannical, conformist, irrational and stagnant
Bill of Rights
Emergence of new technology and social
media has introduced new consequences in
the field of communication.
The adoption of the Cyber Crime Law may
serve deterrent to commission of crimes
which rely on modern forms of
communication.
Disini v. Secretary of Justice: Liability is
limited to the person who actually posted
the libelous material in the internet.

Bill of Rights
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Carpio:
Exceptions to prior restraint: pornography,
false or misleading advertisement, advocacy
of imminent lawless action and danger to
national security.
Only unprotected expression may be subject
to censorship: Prior restraint is presumed
unconstitutional and government bears the
heavy burden of proving the
constitutionality of the restraint.

Bill of Rights
Soriano v. La Guardia: guarantee of speech or
religious freedom does not include the
utterance of foul language. Proximity and
degree of danger/evils can be measured by
applying the principle of balancing of interests.

David v. Macapagal-Arroyo: Freedom of assembly


is not to be limited, much less be denied, except
on a showing of a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil that the state has a right to
present. The overbreadth doctrine is not
intended to test the validity of a law.

Bill of Rights
PHCA v. Duque: An absolute ban on
advertising of milk formula violates the
right of free speech and access to
information. The laudable concern for
promotion of health of infants and young
children cannot justify the absolute ban.

GMA Network, Inc. v. Bustos: In a case of


libel, proof of malice must be positively
established. The use of UP-PGH file photo
was not meant to degrade the institution.

Bill of Rights
Binay v. Secretary of Justice: The intent to
embarrass the daughter of the petitioner for
allegedly having a P1,000 worth of lingerie
is malice under the libel law.

In re: Macasaet: For failure to substantiate


that a female justice of the SC received
boxes of money as bribery, respondent
was found guilty of indirect contempt and
fined P20,000.00.

Bill of Rights
Flor and Ramos v. People: For impeaching,
demeaning the name of Villafuerte, Ramos is
convicted for libel.

Vasquez v. C.A.: For failure to implead the


publisher, editor and reporter, the source of the
libelous statement was exonerated.

Sanidad v. COMELEC: the call for a referendum to


affirm certain amendments to the Constitution
is proper but people must be given access to
information.

Bill of Rights
MTRCB v. ABS-CBN: The MTRCB has the sole
jurisdiction to exercise prior restraint in the
exhibition of Prosti TUITION episode.

SWS v. COMELEC: The right of the public to be


informed of matters of national interest is a
protected right. OBrien test requires that
the restriction exercised by the state is not
greater than is necessary to further
government interests but should not curtail
the fundamental right of expression.

Bill of Rights
Fermin v. People: The prosecution was able to
establish the elements of libel:
1. Evident imputation of the crime, vices or
defects for being a fugitive from law;
2. Attribution made in public; and
3. Victims are identifiable or actually identified

Tulfo v. People: The complainant public officer


was clearly identifed by the accused; and the
defamation was unsubstantiated and made in
bad faith.

Bill of Rights
Bayan Muna v. Ermita: freedom to assemble
is not absolute and may be subjected to
limitations but the government must also
comply with the standard of maximum
tolerance and not employ Calibrated
Preemptive Response.

IBP v. Mayor Atienza: Where it is not


indicated where the applicant wishes to
stage a rally, the mayor cannot substitute
his own judgment without the consent of
the applicant.

Bill of Rights
GSIS and Garcia v. Villaviza et
al: The harsh treatment of
GSIS employees cannot be
condoned since the wearing of
red t-shirts to express their
grievance is protected by the
freedom of expression.

Bill of Rights
RE: LETTER OF THE UP LAW FACULTY ENTITLED
RESTORING INTEGRITY: A STATEMENT BY THE
FACULTY OF THE COLLEGE OF LAW ON THE
ALLEGATIONS OF PLAGIARISM AND
MISREPRESENTATION IN THE SUPREME COURT
(A.M. No. 10-10-4- SC, 2010): The Court has held that
the right to criticize the courts and judicial officers must
be balanced against the equally primordial concern that
the independence of the Judiciary be protected from
due influence or interference. In cases where the critics
are not only citizens but members of the Bar,
jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the authority of
this Court to discipline lawyers whose statements
regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether
judicial or extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair
comment and common decency. The accusatory and
vilifying nature of certain portions of the Statement
exceeded the limits of fair comment and
cannot be deemed as protected free speech.

Bill of Rights
Freedom of religion: includes the freedom to
believe and to practice ones belief.

Estrada v. Escritor: the prescription of morality


under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations
must yield to higher right of the freedom of
religion.

Taruc v. Dela Cruz: matters internal to the ouster


or to discipline of members of a religious sect is
not protected by the freedom of religion.

Bill of Rights
Request of Muslim Employees: the request for
additional privilege not to work from 10am to 2pm
every Friday for prayers cannot be given due course
since this will be violative of the equal protection
clause. Sec.5, Art III covers: non-establishment
clause and free exercise clause.

INC v. C.A. and MTRCB: The right of MTRCB to review


broadcast materials is affirmed but it cannot censor
religious speech which may include criticisms as it is
included in the protected rights of religion and free
speech. For censorship to be sustained, there must
be clear and present danger.

Victoriano v. Elizalde Ropeworkers Union: freedom of


religion prevails over freedom of association.

Bill of Rights
Freedom of Abode and Freedom of Movement: the
right to choose ones domicile; right to travel.
Marcos v. COMELEC: the surviving spouse has the
right to choose her residence other than the
conjugal home.
Aquino v. COMELEC: a lease contract is not
conclusive proof of length of residence to meet
the requirements to run for public office.
Marcos v. Sandiganbayan: humanitarian a persons
right to travel is subject to the usual constraints
imposed by the very necessity of safeguarding
the system of justice. In such cases, whether
the accused should be permitted to leave the
jurisdiction for reasons is a matter of
the courts sound discretion.

Bill of Rights
Freedom of Abode and Freedom of
Movement: the right to choose ones
domicile; right to travel.
Gudani v. Senga: the power of the President
as Commander in Chief was sustained in
restraining officers from testifying before
the Senate.
Fr. Roberto P. Reyes v. Gonzalez: Writ of
Amparo will not lie to overcome an Hold
Departure Order. The Writ of Amparo was
intended to address the intractable
problem of extrajudicial killings
and enforced disappearances.
OCA v. Judge Ignacio B. Macarine, A.M. No.
MTJ-10-1770, July 18, 2012. The Court may
impose travel restrictions on judges.

Bill of Rights
Right of Association: right to form, join and
dissociate from a lawful organization
SSS Employees Assn. v. C.A.: Constitution
guarantees rights of public servants to
form associations and concerted action but
subject to CSC rules.
MPST Assn. v. Carino: mass action should
not interrupt with discharge of public
service.
Dissenting Opinion: Authorities should not
treat employees with disdain and flatly
ignore them with expressed threats
of dismissal.

Bill of Rights
Bayan Muna v. Ermita, 488 SCRA 226 (2006):
The right of the people to assemble is a
constitutionally protected right.
IBP v. Mayor Atienza, G.R. No.175241, Feb.
24, 2010: The mayor has no right to
change venue sought by the requesting
party.
GSIS and Garcia v. Villaviza et al., G. R. No.
180291, July 27, 2010: The Constitution
protects the right of government
employees to express their grievances and
it also upholds their right to due process in
administrative proceedings.

Bill of Rights
Right to Information: right to know
current state of affairs of the
government, need for transparency in
government transactions
Senate v. Ermita: The President cannot
intrude into the constitutional mandate
of legislative inquiry.
Neri v. Senate Committees: Executive
privilege may be invoked under
specific circumstances such the
area of military and foreign relations

Bill of Rights
Right to Information: right to know current
state of affairs of the government, need for
transparency in government transactions
CENPEG v. COMELEC: the people have to
right to be informed of the full aspects of
AES including the source code of the
program.
Antolin v. Abelardo R. Domondon, et al., G.R.
No. 165036. July 5, 2010:where the release
of PRC accountancy board examination
questions require discretion, the writ of
mandamus will not lie. Such action is not
covered by the right to information.

Bill of Rights
What is a valid search warrant
Bayaca v. Ramos: a judge cannot delegate
the determination of probable cause to his
Clerk of Court.
Yao v. People: personal knowledge is
mandatory in issuance of a warrant and not
reliable information.
People v. Nunez: the seizure of items not
particularly described in the search warrant
for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972 must be returned to the accused.

Bill of Rights
What is a valid warrant of arrest?
Valeroso v. C.A.: A valid arrest allows the
seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons
either on the person of the one arrested or
within the area of his immediate control.
People v. Tuazon: search of a moving vehicle
is justified for practical reasons.
People v. Paguio, Jr.: Reliable information
alone, absent any overt act indicative of a
felonious enterprise in the presence and
within the view of arresting officers is not
sufficient to effect a warrantless arrest and
search.

Bill of Rights
When can a warrant be sustained?
Valdez v. People: For warrantless arrest to be
valid two elements must concur: execution
of an overt act and act is committed in the
presence or within the view of the arresting
officers.
Stonehill v. Diokno: warrant must specifically
describe the items/objects sought to be
seized. Document seized from illegal search
is a fruit of a poisonous tree.
NBI and Microsoft Corp v. Hwang: a warrant
may be issued to protect intellectual
property rights. The degree of evidence
required for a civil case is only substantial.

Bill of Rights
SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board: mandatory,
random and suspicious drug testing of
students and employees under R.A.9165 is
valid but not for candidates to public office.
Galvante v. Casimiro: There is no crime as
searching without a warrant. RPC punishes
procuring warrants with malice(Art. 129)
and searching domicile without witnesses
(Art. 130).
UNILAB v. Isip: Plain view doctrine will not
apply when the following cannot be proved:
1. Prior intrusion must be legal;
2. officer must discover the incriminating
evidence inadvertently; and
3. object must be immediately apparent.

Bill of Rights
In Re: Request of Chief PNP Razon to
delegate power to endorse application for a
search warrant: Considering the urgency to
seize items which are probably objects of a
crime, delegation may be granted.

Spouses Marimba v. People: Even if the


application for a search warrant was done
in Manila and the items to be searched are
in Pampanga, the seizure of the items for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act can be
sustained.

Bill of Rights
AAA v. Hon. Carbonell: The judge abused
his discretion when he dismissed the case
for rape for lack of probable cause for
failure of the victim and her witnesses to
take the witness stand. The legal strategy
rests on the prosecution.

Abelita v. Doria: The pursuit of a judge who


fled from the scene of the shooting and
his subsequent arrest as well as the
seizure of a gun while inside the premises
of residence is justified. No warrant was
necessary to effect the arrest and seizure.

Bill of Rights
Validity of Arrest/ Action to Suppress: The
accused is stopped from assailing the
validity of his arrest if he fails to raise the
issue or to move for quashal of the
information against him based on this
ground, before arraignment; Warrantless
arrest may be effected under circumstances
allowed under Rule 113, Sec.5(a) of the
Rules of Court; When the search warrant
did not target the residence or premises of
the offices of the movant, the latter may file
a motion to suppress the use of the seized
items as evidence against it for failure of
the party requesting for issuance of the
search warrant to comply with the
constitutional requirements

Bill of Rights
To summarize:
Searches and Seizures: freedom from
unwarranted and unreasonable intrusions;
right upholds privacy; as general rule search
and arrest must covered by warrant
Warrant must be issued by a judge; existence of
probable cause; personal examination of
complainant, witnesses and documents;
addressed to law enforcers for service
Exceptions: search incident to a lawful arrest (in
flagrante delicto, hot pursuit and escaped
prisoners), search of moving vehicles, plain
view doctrine and airport searches ; and all
circumstances set forth in the Rules in
Criminal Procedure.
Bill of Rights
Writ of Habeas Corpus

In cases allowed by law, the right to bail shall not


be impaired even when the writ of habeas
corpus is suspended. (Sec. 13, Art. III)
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall
not be suspended except in cases of invasion or
rebellion when the public safety requires it.
(Sec. 15, Art. III )
The President, in proper cases, may suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. (Sec. 18,
Art. VII)
Villavicencio v. Lukban: the right of women not be
excluded from the City of Manila by virtue of
their work.

Bill of Rights
Villavicencio v. Lukban: the Mayors order that
some 170 individuals be put in custody and be
dispatched to Davao City for work is a valid
subject of a writ of habeas corpus. Freedom of
abode is guaranteed for ours is a government
of laws and not of men.

Secretary of Defense v. Manalo: The writ of


amparo is legal relief for victims of enforced
disappearances to protect their rights of life,
liberty and security. It is both preventive and
curative in nature as it breaks the expectation
of impunity and facilitates subsequent
punishment.

Bill of Rights
Writ of Amparo and Writ of Habeas Data

Both writs were issued by the Supreme


Court to check on possible abuses of law
enforcers and agents of government
which impair the lives and property of
individuals.

Both writs may be availed of at any hour


by an individual without payment of
docket fees.

Bill of Rights
Razon, Jr. v. Tagitis: Writ of Amparo is a
protective remedy against the violations or
threats against the rights of life, liberty and
security with the context of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Rubrico v. Macapagal-Arroyo: The President will
not be held liable for custody of a person when
there is no positive proof that she has personal
knowledge of detention. The doctrine of
Command Responsibility will not apply to the
case.
Canlas v. Napico Homeowners Assn: Issuance of
writ of amparo will not apply to informal
settlers who are subjects of an eviction order.

Bill of Rights
Free access to the Courts (Sec. 11, Art. III)

Every person is entitled to free access to the


courts.

Legal assistance shall not be denied to any


person by reason of poverty.

Role of public prosecutors and PAO lawyers;


and legal aid program of the IBP.

Bill of Rights
Free access to the Courts (Sec. 11, Art. III)
People v. Hon. Azarraga and Prevendido, G. R.
No. 187117, October 12, 2011: there is no
denial of the constitutional guarantee if a drugs
case is heard by a regular court.
Costs of Litigation
Re: Query of Mr. Roger C. Prioreschi re
Exemption from Legal and Filing Fees of the
Good Shepherd Foundation, Inc., 596 SCRA 401
(2009): Rule on indigent litigants will apply
Re: Request of IBP National Committee on Legal
Aid Clients from Paying Filing, Docket and other
Fees, A.M. No. 08-11-7 SC, August 28, 2009:
Legitimate legal aid cases of the IBP are exempt
from payment of docket fees.

Bill of Rights
Appropriate representation
assures the individual that his
rights will be protected.

On costs of litigation: Clients are


expected to shoulder the costs of
litigation. Indigent or pauper
litigants are entitled to certain
reliefs on the costs of litigation.

Bill of Rights
Rights of Suspects (Sec. 12, Art. III)
1. The right to be informed of his right to
remain silent;
2. The right to a competent and
independent counsel preferably of his
choice;
3. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be
provided with one.
4. The foregoing rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in presence of
counsel. (Miranda rights/ warnings)
Effect of waiver of the right
Bill of Rights
When will Miranda Rights apply

1. One must be in the custody of law


enforcers;
2. One must be under investigation for
a commission of an offense; and
3. The information sought is
testimonial in nature.

Bill of Rights
When will Miranda Rights will not
apply

1. The proceeding is not custodial


in nature;
2. One is not under restraint; and
3. The information sought is not
testimonial in nature.

Bill of Rights
People v. Lucero, G.R. No. 188705,
March 2, 2011: Even as the
circumstances lead to the inevitable
conclusion that accused-appellant
committed the crime, Lucero claims
that since spermatozoa was found on
the deceased, a DNA test should have
been conducted by the prosecution so
as to erase all doubts as to the
identity of the perpetrator. The Court
rejected this claim.

Bill of Rights
Ho Wai Ping v. People, G.R. No. 176229,
October 19, 2011: Infraction of the rights of
an accused during custodial investigation or
the so-called Miranda Rights render
inadmissible only the extrajudicial
confession or admission made during such
investigation. "The admissibility of other
evidence, provided they are relevant to the
issue and is not otherwise excluded by law
or rules, is not affected even if obtained or
taken in the course of custodial
investigation."

Bill of Rights
People v. Lauga, G.R. No. 186228, 15
March 2010: It may be added that the
self-serving defense of appellant
cannot prevail over the positive and
straightforward testimony of AAA.
Settled is the rule that, "alibi is an
inherently weak defense that is
viewed with suspicion because it is
easy to fabricate.

Bill of Rights
Distinguish between custodial investigation
and preliminary investigation: In the
former, one is under restraint by law
enforcers; the prosecutor does not abdicate
upon himself the rights, obligations or
liabilities of parties since his power is
purely inquisitorial in nature; A complainant
does not have a vested right to file a Reply
in preliminary investigation because under
Sec. 3(d), Rule 112, the prosecutor may
resolve the complaint even without a
counter-affidavit.

Bill of Rights
Rights of the Accused
1. The right to substantive and procedural
due process
2. The right to be presumed innocent
3. The right to be heard by himself and
counsel
4. The right to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him
5. The right to bail when circumstance
warrants

Bill of Rights
Rights of the Accused

6. The right to have a speedy, impartial and


public trial
7. The right to meet the witnesses face to
face
8. To have compulsory process to secure tha
attendance of witnesses and the production
of evidence in his behalf
9. The right against self-incrimination
10. The right against double jeopardy

Bill of Rights
Basis of Right to Bail, Article III, Section 13,
Constitution
When Bail is allowed
When Bail is a matter of right (Rules on
Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 4) or
a matter of discretion on the part of the court (Rule
on Criminal Procedure, Rule 114, Section 5)
Herras Teehankee v. Rovira, 75 Phil., 634
(1945)
Right to Bail - Sec. 9, Rule 114 provides for
guidelines for the court to consider in fixing the
amount of bail. The court may still require the
prosecutor to answer questions in order to ascertain
not only the strength of the states evidence but also
the amount of bail. The grant of bail where allowed
by law is left to the sound judgment of the court.

Bill of Rights
Nature of Criminal Due Process
Jurisdiction over Criminal
Offenses
Criminal Immunity: Disini v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
180564, June 22, 2010:
Government may enter into an
agreement to grant immunity
provided grantee will become a
state witness.
Bill of Rights
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
The right to speedy trial may be
defined as one free from vexatious,
capricious and oppressive delays. Its
salutary objective being to assure
that an innocent person may be free
from the anxiety and expense of
court litigation or, if otherwise, of
having his guilt determined within
the shortest possible time. It is
further emphasized that Speedy
Trial is a relative term and
necessarily a flexible concept.
Bill of Rights
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
Roquero v. The Chancellor, U.P. College
of Manila, G.R. no. 181851, March 9,
2010. The constitutional guarantee to
a speedy disposition of cases is not
limited to the accused in criminal
proceedings but extends to all
parties, including civil and
administrative case, and in all
proceedings, including judicial and
quasi-judicial hearings.

Bill of Rights
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
Dela Pea v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 412
Phil. 921, 929 (2001). The Court laid down
certain guidelines to determine whether the
right to a speedy disposition has been
violated, as follows:
(1) the length of the delay;
(2) the reasons for the delay;
(3) the assertion or failure to assert such right
by the accused; and
(4) the prejudice caused by the delay.

Bill of Rights
JACOB v. SANDIGANBAYAN (G.R. No.
162206, 2010): The Court held that an
accuseds right to have a speedy,
impartial, and public trial is guaranteed
in criminal cases by Section 4(2), Article
III of the Constitution. In determining
whether the right of the accused to a
speedy trial was violated, the delay
should be considered, in view of the
entirety of the proceedings. Indeed,
mere mathematical reckoning of the
time involved would not suffice as the
realities of everyday life must be
regarded in judicial proceedings which,
after all, do not exist in a vacuum.
Bill of Rights
PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE
JEOPARDY
Acquittal/Recantation The extinction
of penal action does not carry with it the
extinction of civil liability where the
acquittal is based on reasonable doubt
as only preponderance of evidence is
required in civil cases; Recantation or
desistance does not necessarily result in
the dismissal of the case if there is
independent proof to still establish the
guilt of the accused.

Bill of Rights
PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE
JEOPARDY
Demurrer to evidence Motion must be filed
within the non-extendible period of 5 days
after the prosecution rests its case stating
specifically upon what ground(s) the motion
is filed. This period runs only after the trial
court has ruled on the formal offer of
evidence of the prosecution. The grant of the
motion is tantamount to an acquittal and
may no longer be appealed because
double jeopardy will set in.

Bill of Rights
Nature of right: People v. Dante Tan G.R.
No. 167526, July 26, 2010: In People v.
Sandiganbayan, the Supreme Court
explained the general rule that the grant
of a demurrer to evidence operates as an
acquittal and is, thus, final and
unappealable. The demurrer to evidence
in criminal cases is "filed after the
prosecution had rested its case," and
when the same is granted, it calls "for
an appreciation of the evidence adduced
by the prosecution and its sufficiency to
warrant conviction beyond reasonable
doubt, resulting in a dismissal of the
case on the merits, tantamount to an
acquittal of the accused."

Bill of Rights
The rule on double jeopardy,
however, is not without exceptions.
In People v. Laguio, Jr., the Supreme
Court stated that the only instance
when double jeopardy will not attach
is when the RTC acted with grave
abuse of discretion.

Bill of Rights
When right will not apply: Braza v.
Sandiganbayan, G. R. No. 195032,
February 20, 2013: Having given his
conformity and accepted the
conditional arraignment and its legal
consequences, Braza is estopped
from assailing its conditional nature
just to conveniently avoid being
arraigned and prosecuted of the new
charge under the second information.

Bill of Rights
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v.
People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and
176864, January 18, 2011: To
reconsider a judgment of acquittal
places the accused twice in jeopardy
of being punished for the crime of
which he has already been absolved.
There is reason for this provision of
the Constitution

Bill of Rights
In criminal cases, the full power of the
State is ranged against the accused.
If there is no limit to attempts to
prosecute the accused for the same
offense after he has been acquitted,
the infinite power and capacity of the
State for a sustained and repeated
litigation would eventually
overwhelm the accused in terms of
resources, stamina, and the will to
fight.

Bill of Rights
Exception, when invoked: Lejano v.
People, G.R. Nos. 176389 and
176864, January 18, 2011: To
reconsider a judgment of acquittal
places the accused twice in jeopardy
of being punished for the crime of
which he has already been absolved.
There is reason for this provision of
the Constitution. In criminal cases,
the full power of the State is ranged
against the accused.

Bill of Rights
Mistrial as ground for exception: People v.
C.A.., G.R. No. 198589, July 25, 2012:
The Court reiterated that mistrial is the
only exception to the well-settled, even
axiomatic, principle that acquittal is
immediately final and cannot be
appealed on the ground of double
jeopardy. The Court was categorical in
stating that a re-examination of the
evidence without a finding of mistrial
will violate the right to repose of an
accused, which is what is protected by
the rule against double jeopardy.

Bill of Rights
Requisites of Double Jeopardy
Ivler v. San Pedro, G.R. No. 172716,
November 17, 2010
1. Identity of the elements of the
crime committed as set forth in the
information.
2. Accused has entered his plea.
3. Prosecution and the defense have
presented evidence.
4. The court has ruled on the merits.
5. The decision has become final and
executory.

Bill of Rights
Effect of Acquittal based on Demurrer to
Evidence
Bangayan, Jr., v. Bangayan, G.R. No.
172777, October 19, 2011: It is well-
settled that in criminal cases where the
offended party is the State, the interest
of the private complainant or the private
offended party is limited to the civil
liability. Thus, in the prosecution of the
offense, the complainant's role is limited
to that of a witness for the prosecution.
If a criminal case is dismissed by the
trial court or if there is an acquittal, an
appeal therefrom on the criminal aspect
may be undertaken only by the State
through the Solicitor General.

Bill of Rights
Crimes and Punishments
1. No detention for political beliefs or
aspirations (Sec. 18 (1), Art. III)
2. Exceptions to involuntary servitude (Sec.
18(2), Art. III)
3. Rational behind the imposition of death
penalty (Sec. 19 (1), Art. III)
conditions: for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes and when
Congress provides for it

Bill of Rights
Crimes and Punishments
4. Non-imposition of excessive fines (Sec.19 (1),
Art. III)
5. Prohibition against cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment (Sec. 19 (1), Art. III)
6. Prohibition against the employment of
physical, psychological, or degrading
punishment; or use of substandard penal
facilities under subhuman conditions (Sec. 19
(2), Art. III
7. Non- imprisonment for debt or poll tax (Sec.
20, Art. III)

Bill of Rights
Sufficiency of Information: People v.
Balao, et al., G.R. 176819, January 26,
2011: The Court held that the
fundamental test in determining the
adequacy of the averments in an
information is whether the facts alleged,
if hypothetically admitted, would
establish the essential elements of the
crime. Matters extrinsic or evidence
aliunde should not be considered

Bill of Rights
Ban on Ex Post Facto Law and Bill of
Attainder
General Rule: A law must be given a
prospective effect but a law which
favors an accused may be given a
retroactive effect.
No new law which punishes an act
before its effectivity may render an
individual liable under any of its
provisions.

Bill of Rights