Right to Privacy of Communications and Correspondence (sec 3) disguised as free speech, for the exercise of said right cannot
be used to impair the independence and efficiency of courts or
GR: A persons Right to Privacy and Communication
shall be inviolable
This protection extends to all forms of information, even the
ones posted in social media, the information sent through e-mail
and text messages.
XPT:
A. Lawful order of the court
B. Public Safety requires as provided by law
Effect of violation of a persons right tp privacy.
Evidence obtained shall be deemed INADMISSIBLE.
A Person must have a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
to invoke a violation of his right to privacy.
1. to determine if a person has reasonable expectation of
privacy in social media (such as facebook), the test is to see
if the information posted online was made available to the
public. If it was, then such post is not covered by the
constitutional protection. Thus, any information obtained
where the setting was not set to me only shall be
considered validly obtained. (disini v. Sec of Justice)
2. Detained and convicted prisoners have a diminished
expectation of privacy rights. Thus, the letters addressed to
the detainees (soldiers who took part of the Oakridge issue,
where they took down an apartment complex and even
spread explosives) could be validly opened by the
government officials. (In re: Alejano)
3. When an employee was dismissed based on evidence found
in a letter addressed to said employee, which another co-
employee opened (of how she jacked up the price of certain
medicines), there was no violation of his right to privacy
since this right cannot be invoked against private
individuals, and there was no reasonable expectation of
privacy since it was addressed to the office and not the
individual employee (Waterous drugs)
However, Take note of the ruling in the case of zulueta.
Where it was held that the right to privacy can be violated
even by private individuals. A wife can not just go through
her husbands private items to search for incriminating
evidence. The evidence she found of her husbands
adulterous adventures were deemed inadmissible for
being violative of his right to privacy. When one marries
another, he does not lose his right to privacy.
One can not use the Right to Privacy and Free Speech
after making contemptuous remarks against the courts.
To prevent liability from attaching on account of his letter, he
invokes his rights to free speech and privacy of communication.
The invocation of these rights will not, however, free him from
liability. As already stated, his letter contained defamatory
statements that impaired public
confidence in the integrity of the judiciary. The making of
contemptuous statements directed against the Court is not an
exercise of free speech; rather, it is an abuse of such right.
Unwarranted attacks on the dignity of the courts cannot be
public respect therefor and confidence therein. Free expression
must not be used as a vehicle to satisfy ones irrational
obsession to demean, ridicule, degrade and even destroy this
Court and its magistrates. (Roxas vs. Zuzuarregei)
Right to Privacy can not be invoked when the
information constitute matters of public character.
The right of privacy or the right to be let alone is not an absolute
right where the person is a public figure and the information
sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him
constitute matters of a public character.
in this case, Enrile asked for an injunction to prohibit the filming
of the movie The Four Day Revolution which was a
documentary on the EDSA Revolution. He invoked his right to
privacy and that of his familys. He lost. (Ayer Productions vs.
Capulong)
LIMITS TO THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
1. Under Revised Penal Code (Art 290- 292)
The following are considered crimes under the RPC:
(a) When a private individual seizes the papers and letters of
another, to reveal its contents (Art 290)
(b) A manager, employer or servant, who learns the secrets of
his master and reveals such secrets (Art 291)
(c) An employee or workman who reveals the industrial secrets
or trade secrets of his master (art 292)
2. Anti- Wire Tapping Law (RA 4200)
Evidence is inadmissible if a private conversation is recorded
w/o consent of all participants of the conversation. This
covers only spoken words (not video)
Prohibited acts
1. to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record
such communication or spoken word by using a device
commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder;
2. knowingly possess any tape record, wire record, disc
record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any
communication or spoken word prohibited by this law;
3. to replay the same for any other person or persons; or to
communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether
complete or partial, to any other person
private conversation
is one where participants would not have talked about this if
they knew others were listening
Cases
1. A conversation recorded in the police station is not covered,
since there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. When
police shot one of the journalists who were arrested in the
police station, It was recorded by the other journalist. Held
1
 admissible since it was not a private conversation, infact it
was very public (People v. Navarro) FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Coverage:
2. if a politician, in the course of his campaign speech, maligns 1. Freedom from Prior Restraint or Censorship
another candidate and the maligning speech was recorded, 2. Freedom from Subsequent Liability (Punishment)
that politician cannot invoke a violation of the Anti-
Wiretapping Act 1) Freedom from Prior Restraint or Censorship
State shall not restrain or prohibit ones freedom of expression.
3. the recording of a telephone call of the wife by husband s
friends in the military (tap their landline in the house, and 2 forms of Restrictions
tried to use this illegally obtained recording as evidence in Content Based Regulation Content- Neutral
an annulment case.) is inadmissible (Salcedo Ortane) Regulation
the content itself is regulated The circumstances and
4. overhearing private conversation through a party-line or manner of delivering speech is
telephone extension is not covered by the Act, because an regulated (time, place)
extension line does not phone in the same category of the Only allowed if there exists Only allowed if there is
devices mentioned in the Act. So admissible. (Gaanan v. clear and present danger of important government
IAC) public safety or security; must interest, as long as it leaves
show that the government has open alternative channels of
ALL parties to the conversation must give consent a compelling or overriding communication.
So even if the one recording the conversation is one of the interest in the subject
parties of the conversation, if the other does not consent to the regulation.
recording, there is still a violation. ( Ramirez v. Court of Appeals)
Mere v. Minnesota; Kingsley Book v. Book
XPN to anti wire tapping: Human Security Act (R.A. A law which prohibited a certain publication from further
9372) publication on the ground of obscenity was held an
- the police/ law enforcement agents may wiretap conversations unconstitutional law for violating FOE. But, confiscation of
or overhear and record conversation between persons belonging periodicals which were deemed obscene, and not prohibition of
to a judicially declared terrorist organization or group of publication, was held valid.
persons suspected to be terrorist.
Cases which showed unconstitutional restraint by the
Terrorism: When someone commits any of the acts mentioned. government
Mutiny, piracy, kidnapping, serious illegal detention, murder, 1. The law that required additional tax for publication
crime involving destruction and by committing any of these exceeding 20,000 copies was deemed restraint, and
crimes, the suspect or suspects created a state of widespread unconstitutional (American Press Circulation)
panic or extraordinary fear among the populace in order to
compel or coerce the government in giving in to unlawful 2. A COMELEC resolution prohibiting cars with stickers in
demands support of electoral parties (adiong v. comelec)

* Period is limited to that specified in the order which is not
more than 30 days, renewable with a non-extendible period of
30 days
* BUT before any wiretapping can be made, a court order is
required, issued by the Court of Appeals
3. A COMELEC resolution prohibiting the playing of jingles in
support of electoral parties (motu v. comelec)
4. a law prohibiting polls during eleciton period; and a Law
prohibiting media from publishing survey results days
before elections (SWS and ABS CBN case)

EXC to the EXC: While wiretapping may be resorted to under 5. Prohibition on playing of hello garci (Chaves v Gonzales)
the provisions of the Human Security Act, this is not allowed in
the guise of Human Security Act, to wiretap or record Cases which upheld the validity
conversations between 1. law prohibiting space for elections in news papers was held
1. Lawyers clients valid, to give equal opportunities for both the rich and poor
2. Physicians patients (National Press Club v COMELEC)
3. Journalists sources
4. Business correspondence 2. Law providing that air time may be procured by COMELEC
free of charge, since this was considered a valid exercise of
Freedom of Speech, Expression, Press, Assembly (sec 4) police power (telecomm and broadcast attorneys v
COMELEC)
I may not agree with what you say, Movie Censorship
But I will defend your right to say it. Movies have greater capacity for evil, thus higher degree of
regulation is need. Thus, MTRCB was created.
Coverage of Protection
This constitutional protection not only covers written or spoken
language, it covers even symbols, for symbols also convey ideas.
2
MTRCB may classify only, not prohibit.
(a) A licensing agreement between the producer of a film and
the public figure which film (Moises Padilla Story) was based
on was entered. This did not constitute a violation of the
producers FOE, since he had every right to express his
thoughs in film and art. There was also no violation of the
public figures Right to Privacy, so long as consent of the
heirs were obtained. (Lagunzad v Gonzales)
(Rizal Museum), the act of the mayor was invalid (Reyes v
Bagalsing)
(c) When the permit for rally was rejected since it was the
height of the Marcos Regime, it was held valid (Villegas)
B. Dangerous Tendency Test
The court shall determine whether or not the utterances will
bring about evil which the state has the right to prevent.

(b) Battle between enriles right to privacy and the producers
of the films right to freedom of expression and press
ensued, when the movie A Dangerous Life wanted to
depict the EDSA Revolution, which contained a chunk of
Enriles involvement. FOE won over the Right to Privacy,
since a public figures right to privacy is narrower than that
of ordinary individuals. (Ayer Productions v Judge
Capulong)
This is usually used in the presence of abnormal circumstances
(ex: recent Marawi incident)
People v. Perez
it was valid to convict the municipal clerk who said that Pinoys
shall take up their bolos and cut the head of General Woods
during American Period. This was held as an act of inciting to
sedition

(c) The act of MTRCB in rating as X- rated the show of Iglesia
ni Kristo which compared its religion to the Catholic religion
was held invalid for violating both the FOE and Freedom of
Religion. (INC v CA)
(d) It was a valid act when they classified a movie as For adults
only (Gonzales v Maria Kalaw Katigbak)
2) Freedom from Subsequent Liability (Punishment)
C. Balancing of Interest Test
There must be a balance between the peoples freedom of
expression, and the need of government interference
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Speech protected includes even those not orally uttered.
Ex: picketing - the carrying of placards is also protected under
FOE

(a) An assurance for the individual not to hesitate to speak for Kinds of Speech
fear that he might be held accountable for his speech, or Core Speech (?) Commercial Speech
that he might be provoking for the vengeance of the Covers political/ economical/ Speech use to promote
officials he might have criticized. social speech something for business
(b) This freedom is NOT ABSOLUTE interest
may be properly regulated for the interest of the Protection is Content based.
public. Use the dangerous tendency Compelling state interest test
Shall not be tantamount to/ not be: test to check if government
A. Libel (malicious statement against can interfere. Good ex of states regulation:
another) When it prohibited the
B. Violent commercial which stated
C. Seditious (against the government) nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse
anyos?
Tests to determine Validity of Government Interference
Disini v. Sec of Justice
A. Clear and Present Danger Test There can be no ban of spam e- mails since unsolicited
(a) The court shall determine if the utterance will bring danger advertisements are covered under the protection of FOE.
to society.
(b) You must check the nature or mode of expression, whether Private Speech Public Speech
or not the words will be use in a circumstance that will Covers both core/ commercial Those working for the
create a clear and present danger that they will bring about government or matters
the substantive evils that the State seeks to prevent. relating to the government
(c) The danger must not only be probable, but highly Use clear and present danger
inevitable. rule
You can say whatever you Freedom of expression is not
want to say so long as it is not guaranteed. Leave the
1. Libel position if you can not handle
2. Violent it.
Cases
3. seditious
(a) If mayor rejects the application for permit of holding a rally
during a time when it was peaceful, it was held invalid
Obscene Material
(Fergoso)
These are not protected under the FOE.
(b) when the mayor rejected the application for a permit of a
rally, even if the rally was to be held in an enclosed space
3
Judicial Purpose
To determine whether or not a material is obscene is a judicial
matter. (it is not the role of MTRCB to determine if a material
is obsence or not)
3 tests to determine if obscene
A. Lacks scientific, political, literary or political value;
B. Appeal to prurient taste of man
C. Clearly depicts sexual conducts
PP v. Gupin (cant find it)
Gupin was convicted for violating Art 201 of the RPC, for being
a painter and exhibiting nudes. The conviction was held
constitutional since he did his exhibitions for profit.
U.S. v Kottinger
But where the exhibitions of hald naked humans was for the
purpose of showing the culture of Non - Christian tribes, it was
held valid.
FREEDOM OF PRESS
The protection extends to all forms of mass media
communication.
Cases
One may post election posters to support his candidate in
his car, for it is guaranteed under his right to FOE and right
to property
A COMELEC Resolution which prohibits posting of election
posters within ones own private place was void for
violating a persons FOE (1 utak)
2 ways to Challenge the Constitutionality of Government Act
1. Challenge by Face
Only if the regulation/ government act is
i. Void because vague; or
Lacks comprehensible standards that men
of common intelligence must necessarily
guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application. (what is this law jud?)
Unconstitutional for violating due process,
and for giving the enforcer unbridled
discretion in enforcing the vague law.
ii. Void because overbreadth
Prohibits the government from achieving
its purpose by means that are sweepingly
broad
As distinguished from the vagueness
doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine
assumes that individuals will understand
what a statute prohibits and will
accordingly refrain from that behavior,
even though some of it is protected
*these two tests only apply to violations of
FOE; Shall never be invoked for penal cases
When facial challenge may be used
only statutes on free speech, religious freedom, and other
fundamental rights may be facially challenged. Under no case
may ordinary penal statutes be subjected to a facial challenge.
Disini v. Sec of Justice
The cyber crime law provision on declaring that aiding and
abetting in online libel was held unconstitutional for being
vague, for such phrase may extend to many, and is too general.
2. Challenge as Applied
In the absence of either 2 above, you may only challenge the
act as applied
TN: Distinguished from an as-applied challenge which considers
only extant facts affecting real litigants, a facial invalidation is
an examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and
defects, not only on the basis of its actual operation to the
parties, but also on the assumption or prediction that its very
existence may cause others not before the court to refrain from
constitutionally protected speech or activities.
FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE AND RAISE GRIEVANCES
AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT
Batas Pambansa 880
This is an example of a content - neutral regulation, where a
person is not banned from rallying, however it is subject to
regulation
requisites before one can hold a rally
A. With permit
B. In a public place
XPN to requirement of Permit
A. Rally held in a private place (ex: National EDSA shrine,
since owned by archdiocese of Manila)
B. Rally held in Freedom Parks
C. Rally held within a campus of a State University/ College
Remedy of Denial of Permit
You have within 48 hours to re- apply
2 tests used in determining grant/ denial of permit
1. Purposes test
2. Ospices Test: check who the organizer is
Diocese of Bacolod v COMELEC
Team Patay v Team Buhay tarp was placed inside private
property, to convince people during elections who were for RH
Bill and who were against it. COMELEC ordered for its removal.
SC held that this violated freedom of religion as well as freedom
of expression, since it was done within private premises.
Subayco v. Sandiganbayan
The use of bullets to break up an assembly who were airing our
their grievances was bewailed by the court (Escalante massacre)
Bangalisan v CA
Teachers who staged a strike to air out their grievances were
dismissed, not on the ground that theyre not allowed to strike,
but on the ground that their absences which were successive
and unauthorized were detrimental to their students.
4

GSIS v Kapisanan ng mga Manggagawa sa GSIS
Public Employees CAN NOT engage in strike.
Freedom to Criticize Judges and Justices
this is allowed, but not in excess. If remarks become offensive,
one may be held liable for contempt and can no longer hide
under the mantle of FOE (See Roxas case mentioned in previous
topic)
Freedom of Press is subordinate to the decision, authority,
integrity, independence of the judiciary and the proper
administration of justice.
Freedom to Criticize Official Conduct (Public Officials)
This is allowed, since public figures have less degree of privacy
compared to an ordinary citizen.
Limit to Criticizing Public Officials
The comment must be a fair comment on matters relating to
public interest. Which means that the comment must be true,
or if false, expresses the real opinion of the author based upon
reasonable degree of care and on reasonable grounds. This
does not protect publications tainted with bad faith or
malice.
Students Freedom of Speech within School Premises
NOT ABSOLUTE
While the Campus Journalism Act provides that a student shall
not be expelled or suspended solely on the basis of articles he
wrote, the same shall not infringe on the schools right to
disciplines its students. If the utterances materially disrupt
class work or involves substantial disorder or invasion
of rights of others, then it may warrant disciplinary
action. (Miriam College Foundation v CA - in this case, students
published erotic articles in their school newspaper)
Malabanan v Ramento
The act of the school of suspending students who staged an
assembly against a proposed merger within the school, which
disrupted ongoing classes, was held a violation of FOE. Though
their assembly was conditioned that they stage it only after
obtaining a permit, which they did (but it occurred in a different
setting other than that placed in the permit), the school still
violated their right to FOE since the punishment was not
proportional to the offense they committed.
Freedom of Religion (sec 5)
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No
religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.
NON ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
The state can not compel you to follow a certain religion, nor
can it prohibit you from exercising a particular religion. The state
can not set up a church, nor pass laws which aid one religion,
aid all religion, or prefer one religion over another, nor force nor
influence a person to go to or prefer religion over another, nor
influence a person to go to or remain away from church against
his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.
It is important to remember, however, that the wall of
separation shall not result to a wall of hostility.
Constitutional Provisions Supporting this
1. Separation of Church and State (Sec 6, Art 2)
2. No appropriation of funds for sectorial purpose (Sec 29, Art
6)
3. No religious political party (Art 6)
Constitutional Provisions Providing Exemptions
1. Real property tax exemption for properties actually,
directly, exclusively used for religious purpose (Sec 28, Art
6)
2. Disbursement of funds for priests in AFP, orphanage,etc.
(Sec 29, Art 6)
3. Optional Religious Instruction, provided with written
consent of parents and taught only during class hours (sec
3, art 14)
4. Private Educational Institutions may be owned soley by
foreigners (Sec 4, Art 14)
2 Aspects of Freedom of Religion
A. Freedom to Believe
This freedom is ABSOLUTE.
No one can ever dictate what you should believe in. Thus,
it cannot be regulated and restricted by the state.
B. Freedom to Act on Ones Belief
This is NOT ABSOLUTE
It may be regulated or restricted by the state, should it run
afoul with our established laws.
Example: you may believe in Satan, the state can never
question that.
But, once you start offering virgins to Satan, the state can
prohibit that.
Cases which upheld the Freedom of Religion
1. When it ruled that the schools act of expelling the students
who were members of Jehohvahs Witness for refusing to
honor the Philippine flag (Ebralinag v Schools of Cebu)
2. Escritor, a court interpreter, was administratively charged
with Gross and immoral conduct for living with a man
without benefit of marriage.She secured a Declaration of
Pledging Faithfulness, indicating their churchs approval of
their union in accordance with the beliefs of the Jehovahs
Witness. SC held that state shall not interfere in this case,
for the state is in no position to judge morality. Benevolent
neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality
based on religion, provided it does not offend
compelling state interest. (estrada v escritor)
3. a tax imposed on the distribution of bibles was held invalid
(american bible society)
4. it found a grave violation of the non-establishment clause
for the COMELEC to utilize the Bible and Koran to justify the
exclusion of AngLadlad. The Court held that moral
disapproval is not a sufficient governmental interest to
justify exclusion of homosexuals from participation in the
party list system. (Ang Ladlad)
5

5. State cannot compel you to perform abortion if you do not
want to: The Supreme Court is of the view that the
obligation to refer imposed by the RH Law violates the
religious belief and conviction of a conscientious objector.
Once the medical practitioner, against his will, refers a
patient seeking information on modem reproductive health
products, services, procedures and methods, his conscience
is immediately burdened as he has been compelled to
perform an act against his beliefs. As Commissioner Bernas
has written, "at the basis of the free exercise clause is the
respect for the inviolability of the human conscience.
(Imbong vs Ochoa)
6. State recognizes marriages celebrated in conformity with
the rites of Mohammed religion (Adong v Cheong Seng)
7. RA 3350 exempting members of a certain religion from
joining labor unions was upheld (Victorian v Elizalde)
Cases showing valid intrusion of govt with FOR
1. Freedom of religion does not prohibit imposition of a
generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of
religious materials by a religious organization. For the
purpose of defraying cost of registration. (Tolentino v sec
of finance)
2. The printing and selling of stamps commemorating the
celebration of the Eucharistic Congress does not violate the
separation of church and state, for it also serves the
purpose of promoting Philippine Tourism. Thus, the writ of
prohibition shall not be granted. (Aglipay v Ruiz)
3. It was an invalid act for the school to prepare a prayer to
be mandatorily recited in public schools, for students in
public schools shall not be compelled to follow a certain
religion under the Sep of Church and State. ( USA case -
Engel v Vitale)
4. It was wrong for the executive body to pass an EO
classifying food as halal or not, because such is a matter
left to the religion of Muslims (Islamic Dawah Council v.
Office of Executive Secretary)
5. When government prohibited a rally from ensuing for it was
merely disguised as a religious rally, when in truth and in
fact, it was a political rally (german v. barangan)
State can NOT interfere with PURELY ECCLESTIAL
MATTERS
These refer to the relationship between the church and its
members, which relate to faith, religious doctrines, worship and
governance.
This involves issues on proceedings of excommunication,
ordination of religious ministers, administration of sacraments,
etc
The following are not purely ecclestial, so state may intervene
1. Dispute involving Property Rights of the Religious
Group If it involves property rights, and not the exercise of
religion, then such dispute may now be under the
jurisidiction of civil courts (Gonzales v CA; Fonacier v CA)
2. Dispute involving labor: when a minister was dismissed
on ground of misappropriation of funds, it involved the
relationship of the church as an employer and the minister
an employee, thus, cognizable by our civil courts (Austria v
NLRC)
3. Dispute involving excommunication: The state has no
business to interfere when the church excommunicates a
member of its church. The church shall resolve its own
affairs. Thus, the courts shall not entertain a case for
damages filed by those excommunicated. (Taruc v Bishop
Cruz)
Imbong vs. Ochoa
Conception refers to the moment of fertilization and the
protection of the unborn child upon fertilization. Only those
contraceptives that kill or destroy the fertilized ovum would be
prohibited. Section 7 of RH law which excludes parental consent
in cases where a minor undergoing a procedure is already a
parent or has had miscarriage is antifamily and violates Section
12 of Art. II. Also, Section 23(a)(ii) is unconstitutional as it
denies the right of parental authority in cases where what is
involved is non-surgical procedures.
Q: Practice of Cebu in appropriating funds in support of
the Sinulog celebration?
Valid. This is not violative of the Sep of Church and State, since
sinulog ceases to become a purely religious activity, it was
become a tradition of promoting tourism of Cebu.
Q: Granting Holidays for Religious Grounds?
Still valid so long as benefits the whole community
Christmas and Rammadan - since no class for all
X request of Muslims that students/ workers will be late
during Ramaddan due to fasting - not valid since
benefits only them
Liberty of Abode and Travel (sec 6)
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within
the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired except upon
lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety,
or public health, as may be provided by law.
LIBERTY OF ABODE
GR: You are free to choose where you want to reside
The state can not compel you to live somewhere
XPT: Upon lawful order of the courts
Ex: residents of Marawi can not be compelled by the
state to leave their homes. But in current times, in the
exercise of its police power, the state may be allowed
to order such for the safety of its people
6
Cases
1. Employment agency can not detain a maid, or lock her up
on the basis of her failure to pay debt (Caunca v Salazar)
2. It was an invalid act for the mayor to ship 170 prostitutes
from manila to davao and give them work, to eliminate the
evils of prostitution. This violated the womens right to
abode. (villavicencio v lukban)
3. it was valid for the Province of Mindoro to require members
from a certain non- Christian tribe to reside only within the
reservation, to promote their better education,
advancement and protection (Rubi v Provincial Board of
Mindoro)
LIBERTY TO TRAVEL
GR: You are free to travel where ever you want to go.
XPT:
1. Interest of National Security
2. Public Safety
3. Public Health
Cases on valid intrusion of govt in your right to travel
Temporary ban on deployment of female OFWs due to
rampant abuse cases abroad (Service Exporter case)
Ban on return of remains of Marcos in the Phils since it was
still the time of political instability (Marcos v Maglapis)
Right to Information (sec 7)
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of
public concern shall be recognized. Access to official records,
and to documents and papers pertaining to official acts,
transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research
data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
2 Rights Protected
a) Right to Information
b) Right to Access Information
GR: Once Public Information, must disclose to public
Custodians have no discretion, they must release the
information.
There is no limit to right to information, but there is a limit to
ones right to access
XPT: Limits on Right to Access of Public Information
The following information can not be accessed by public
A. Matters of National Security
B. Diplomatic Secrets
C. Military Secrets
D. Ongoing Criminal Investigations before prosecution
E. Banking and Trade Secrets
F. Trade and Industrial Secrets
G. Executive Privilege
(Chavez v. PEA; Garcia v Board of Investments)

Q: What if youre on bail for a criminal case? How about Records of Cases?
Your right to travel is restricted. You may only travel abroad GR: Accessible to the public, even if pending case
upon permission from the courts (Manotoc v CA) XPT
1. Case involving minors
A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by 2. Case involving family matters
the Court from leaving the country or, if abroad, 3. Case involving adoption
compelled to return. So it is also that An accused released 4. Draft materials of court in deciding a case (judicial
on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if privilege)
he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior
permission of the Court where the case is pending. (silverio v Cases
CA; defensor santiago v vasquez) 1. Personal data of government employees to determine their
Hold Departure Order qualifications may be accessed (Legaspi v CSC)

A. Issued by Court: absolute ban on travel abroad 2.
B. Issue by Bureau of Immigration: may travel with consent
of BI
3.
What is your remedy if naa kay HDO? (galleon)
Motion to lift HDO
4.
Judges and Court Personnel are Required to obtain
Court Order before they an travel abroad.
OCA Circular No. 49-2003 was held valid, for it does not restrict
but merely regulates, by providing guidelines to be complied by 5.
judges and court [personnel, before they can go on leave to
travel abroad. To restrict is to restrain or prohibit a person
from doing something; to regulate is to govern or direct 6.
according to rule. (Office of the Administrative Service-OCA vs.
Macarine)
Loans entered into by the government may be accesses
(Velmonte)
Copies of the name of party list nominees may be accessed
(Bantay Republic Act v COMELEC)
Voting slips of MTRCB are not confidential and may be
disclosed if asked, since they are made in the exercise of
official functions (Aquino - Sarmiento v Morato)
the manual of implementing lethal injection must be
disclosed to the public (Echegaray)
You may ask for their SALN (Statement of Assets and
Liabilities)

7
Right of Accused vs Right to Information Non- Impairment Clause (sec 10)
In this battle, the rights of the accused shall win.

This case involved the request of the people to broadcast the No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
trial of former president of ERAP. It was held that for the rights
of ERAP as the accused, the request should be denied. He shall NON - IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS AND OBLIGATIONS
be given the right to a fair and impartial trial. (In re: Request This simply means that a subsequent law can not be passed
for Live TV Radio of the plunder Case of ERAP) impairing the contracts or agreements, so long as such contracts
and agreements are not contrary to law.
Article 2 sec 28 VS Art 3 sec 7
Article 2 sec 28 Art 3 sec 7 Contracts
Full Public Disclosure of all Duty to Permit Access to all Includes franchises granted by the government
transactions involving public matters of public concern Does not include marriage contracts, for such are special
interest contracts
mandatory Requires demand to access
first (by person requesting Law
information) Includes statutes, administrative regulations, ordinances, EOs
Involves only transactions Covers a broader scope
involving public interest (anything relating to official When is there an impairment?
communications and public For as long as the law diminishes the rights of the parties to a
documents) contract, that is already an impairment. The law need not
explicitly state that invalidates an existing contract

Right to Form Associations (sec 8) What is the rationale?

We respect the contracts entered into by the parties since they
RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS serve as the law between those parties.

GR: Right to Join includes the Right Not to Join
No one can compel you to be part of a group you refuse to be
part of
XPT: closed shop agreements/ union shop agreements
This is a form of forced membership to a union
Membership in the union may be compelled as a requisite to
employment, or continued employment
XPT to XPT:
1. RA 3350
One can not compel members of a religious organization which
prohibits membership in labor unions, to be part of said union.
2. anti - Subversion Act
The state can validly prohibit formation of unions for the
purpose of subversion
3. Political parties prohibited in SK elections
This is to ensure non- partisanship in the SK elections
(Occena v COMELEC)
4. Managerial Employees can not form and join unions
This is to avoid conflict of interest, since managers may be
placed in a dilemma on which master to serve - the employer or
the union employees (Art 245 of Labor Code)
5. Compulsory membership of Lawyers in IBP
(In re: Edillon)
PRIVATE VS. PUBLIC SECTOR
Private sector Public sector
Has right to both association Has right to association, but
and strike. no right to strike
Limits to Non- Impairment Clause
1. Police Power
2. Eminent Domain
3. Taxation
a) If tax exemption given for free: tax may later be
imposed
b) If tax exemption for consideration: tax exempt always
Ortigas v. Feati Bank
Police power reigns: when a zoning ordinance reclassifies a
land subject of a contract of sale which states that the land must
remain used for residential purposes, the zoning ordinance wins
and the earlier agreement may be overhauled
Non - Imprisonment by reason of Political Beliefs
and Aspirations ; No Involuntary Servitude(sec 18)
NON - IMPRISONMENT BY REASON OF POLITICAL
BELIEFS
This is the reason why subversion was decriminalized. However,
to act on such belief is a different story
NO INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
This is why the RPC punishes slavery (Art 272 RPC) and why
creditors are prohibited from compelling debtors to serve them
as payment of debts (Art 247 RPC)
Valid Involuntary Servitude
1. Punishment imposed for crimes committed
Punishment may be in the form of imprisonment and
manual labor
2. Compulsory Military Service
when a person is sent to military, he cannot leave. If he
does, he can be sent to jail

8
3. Person employed in a merchant ship Cases
During their voyage, they may be prohibited from leaving Where lawyer merely affixed his signature as Saksi
the ship and later testified that he did not assist the accused
during CI, this right was violated (People v Sayaboc)
4. Posse Comitatus
A private person may be compelled by law enforcers to B. Independent lawyer
extend their hand in arresting criminals The lawyer cannot be a specila counsel, public or private
prosecutor, counsel of the police, or municipal attorney
5. Labor Strike and Return to Work Order whose interest is admittedly against the interest of the
When SOLE assumes jurisdiction in an industry accused
indispensable to national interest, and he issues a return
to work order, all those who refuse to return may be Cases
terminated from the job If counsel who assisted was applicant of NBI who was
later appointed, there was violation of accused right
6. Exercise of Parental Authority (Januario)
When parents compel you to do chores, that is a valid form A city legal officer is not an independent counsel
of involuntary servitude (espanola)
A mayor is not an independent counsel (labtan)
Rights of the Accused a retired member of Judges Advocate Office is not
automatically biased (People vs Hernandez)
Rights Before Trial (sec 11- 14) 3. Right to be Informed of his Rights to be silent and
his Right to an independent counsel
1. Free Access to Courts (Sec 11)
It is not enough that the accused read his constitutional rights,
2. Rights during Custodial Investigation (Sec 12) the prosecution must prove that the accused understood his
a) Right to Remain Silent rights.
b) Right to Information
c) Right to Counsel Since it is comprehension sought to be attained, the degree of
3. Right to Bail (sec 13) explanation required will necessary vary and depend on the
education, intelligence, and other relevant personal
Free Access to Courts (sec 11) circumstances of the person under custodial investigation

Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate Waiver of Miranda rights
legal The waiver of the right to be informed and counsel can only
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of be considered valid if:
poverty. a. In writing;
b. Executed and signed in front of a counsel;
This is the reason why PAO exists. Other bodies such as IBP, c. Signed by the accused
Legal Aid Clinics and CLAW exists to help those who can not
afford legal services. Important: However, one can NEVER waive his right to be
informed!

Custodial Rights (sec 12) PARAGRAPH 2: RIGHT AGAINST TORTURE, FORCE,

VIOLENCNE, THREAT AND INTIMIDATION
CUSTODIAL RIGHTS
1. Miranda Rights (Information, Silent, Counsel) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other
2. Right against torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him.

PARAGRAPH 1: MIRANDA RIGHTS Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other

Prospective application: only applies from January 17, 1973 similar forms of detention are prohibited.

1. Right to Remain Silent PARAGRAPH 3: EFFECT OF VIOLATION OF RIGHTS

A person can refuse to answer questions, because
anything you say or do may be used against you
2. Right to Competent and Independent Counsel
You have the right to choose your counsel, and in the
absence of such, to be given a competent counsel
A. Competent lawyer
The duty of the lawyer is not merely to be present, but also
to make sure that the suspect understands the offenses
and consequences of his actions
Exclusionary principle - fruit of poisonous tree
Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against
him.
Inadmissibility does not result to automatic acquittal
It is only when the inadmissible evidence is the sole evidence
held by prosecution can the person arrested by acquitted.
When to raise objection
Before offer of evidence, otherwise, deemed waived and the
evidence will be considered admissible in court

9

EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSIONS
These confessions made outside the court can only be
considered admissible if
1. In writing;
2. Signed by accused;
3. In front of counsel
a) If no lawyer, in front of parents, elber siblings,
spouse, priest, municipal mayor, judge, school
district supervisor
WHEN DO THESE RIGHTS ATTACH?
After arrest is made, or once a person is placed under custodial
investigation, these rights are guaranteed.
Custodial Investigation
Requisites to considered a Custodial Investigation
1. By who: Person questioning is by a law enforcer
2. When questioning occured: Person under CI
First: Person questioning is by a law enforcer
Not all investigations fall under the concept of a C.I. it must be
done by one recognized by law to enforce such law
Cases when no C.I. yet, so an investigation conducted absent
the Miranda Rights is held Valid
Investigation by private employers do not fall under this
protection
Investigation conducted by the Civil Service Commission
(Administrative hearing) (ampong v CSC)
Investigations in the Military
Investigations by audit examiner (navallo v SB)
Cases when C.I. already so an investigation conducted absent
the Miranda Rights is held invalid
Conducted by PNP, NBI
Conducted by a Baranggay Tanod
Conducted by a Bantay Bayan, whose functions are akin 5.
to that of a Baranggay Tanod. (PP v. Lauga)
A confession to a private individual is Admissible
Violation of Miranda Rights may be invoked against public
officers only
Galleons tip: so when you interview, kusgi imong
interview so a private individual may hear the confessions
made by accused.
Cases
1. Confession to media practitioners: When accused
were initially questioned and released for non-
establishment of guilt, then later they returned to the
police station to confess and police asked questions, where
such confession was not properly done in front of counsel,
the accused could have been acquitted. However, since the
accused also confessed to media practitioners out of their
own volition, then they were validly arrested (Pp. Vs
Ordono and Medina)
2. Videotape of confession to media men to elicit
sympathy was also held admissible (pp v endino)
Inapplicability to Administrative Proceedings
While investigations by an administrative body may at times be
akin to a criminal proceeding, a party in an administrative inquiry
may or may not be assisted by counsel, irrespective of the
nature of the charges and of respondents capacity to represent
himself, and no duty rests on such body to furnish the person
being investigated with counsel. (Perez v people)
Second: Person arrested and there is CI na
Occurs when formal questioning is already intiated against an
accused.
Test to determine if CI already
There is formal questioning when the investigation shifts
from inquisitorial to accusatorial (there already exists a
suspect)
Cases showing that CI started, so Rights must be afforded
1. When the accused was questioned in the police car and
admitted to the crime without being afforded of his
miranda rights, after a witness pointed to him as a suspect.
His rights were violated, thus, inadmissible confession (Pp
v. Bollanos)
2. When the suspect was arrested for parricide and he
admitted to the crime and even pointed to where his wife
was burried. He was acquitted (Pp v de la Cruz)
3. when the owner of a restobar killed someone and rushed
to the police station to confess his guilt and later testified
in court, it was held admissible since the police merely
listened and did not interrogate (pp v Dy)
4. when a person is merely invited by police for
questioning and he confessed to killing, he must be
afforded of his rights already especially if he became a
suspect already (pp v domantay)
re- enactment of a crime: when police brings the
accused to the scene of the crime and asks him to re- enact
the crime, that already falls within the ambit of C.I and he
must be afforded his rights
6. during Preliminary Investigation: a person must
already be afforded of her rights since this is CI na (PP v
Sunga) In this case, a co- accused became a state witness,
but his testimony was deemed insufficient to convict the
others. The testimony of a self-confessed accomplice or
co-conspirator imputing the blame to or implicating his co-
accused cannot, by itself and without corroboration, be
regarded as proof to a moral certainty that the latter
committed or participated in the commission of the crime.
The testimony must be substantially corroborated in its
material points by unimpeachable testimony and strong
circumstances and must be to such an extent that its
trustworthiness becomes manifest.
7. when a person was accused of drug possession and was
detained and investigated in HK, and he admitted the
offense in HK, his right was violated
8. made to sign the confiscation receipt/ inventory
receipt for police raids he was already under CI and
must be afforded the rights (pp v pasudag)
10
 XPT: If the signing is not tantamount to an admission
of guilt, such as it was only made as an
acknowledgment of ownership, then not CI pa (de
guzman)
Cases showing that no CI has been initiated yet
1. Police line up where witnesses pointed to him as the
culprit out of all other guys suspected. (gamboa v Cruz)
XPT: In a case where witnesses named a
person as a culprit, and in a police line up,
affirmed that it was him (since he was already a
suspect, thus CI na) (Pp. v. Escordial)
2. Parafin test and mug shots done in the absence of a
counsel is admissible, since it involves no mental activity.
It is a mere physical test, and involves no admission of
guilt.
3. road side questioning in check points still dont fall
under the concept of C.I. thus, any extrajudicial confession
made in this process is deemed admissible (Luz v People)
XPN to Inadmissibility: spontaneous statements
When confession was spontaneous, or coming voluntarily from
the accused, said confession is admissible. It is voluntarily made
if the accused offered the confession in the absence of
interrogation.
Test yourself
Pp v Angan
A person was invited for interrogation after witnesses pointed to
him as accused of a crime of rape with homicide of a nursing
student. He was interrogated by the police without counsel.
Later, he requested for a talk with the mayor, and he confessed
to the mayor about the crime. In the presence of the mayor,
while he was confessing, were other private individuals and
media practitioners. Can he be arrested?
A: Yes. He may be validly arrested.
1. The police interrogation was inadmissible (CI w/o counsel)
2. The confession to the mayor admissible (voluntary
confession in the absence of interrogation)
3. The testimonies of media practitioners is admissible (by
private individuals.)
Pp v Baloloy
An 11 year old child was raped and killed by her neighbor.
During her wake, the Brgy Chairman showed everyone the rope
used in the crime, and the accused voluntarily admitted it was
his. Later, in a private place, he aslo confessed his crime saying
he had no intent to kill the girl, but only to frighten her. Can he
be validly arrested?
A: Yes, he may be validly arrested
1. Confession with Brgy Chairman: admissible, for being a
spontaneous confession, not brought about by
investigation and since no arrest was made at that time
yet
2. Oral testimonies in front of judge: inadmissible
Pp v Maingan
Maingan set the house of his employer on fire. After people
pointed to him as the culprit, he was pursued. He made an
extrajudicial confession to the Brgy. Chairman after he was
caught, not following the form required by law. While behind
bars, he talked to his neighbor and confessed his crime. Both
the chairman and neighbor testified. Are their testimonies
admissible?
A:
1. Testimony of Brgy Chairman is inadmissible, since CI na
2. Testimony of neighbor is admissible (private person)
Other Rights of the Accused during CI: RA 7428
The accused has the right to confer with his immediate
family, medical doctor, priest, etc.
Immediate family
Includes legitimate spouse, parents, fiance, lolo, lola, apo,
siblings, uncles and aunts, guardians, wards, children, nephews
and nieces
If police officer or custodian refuses this right
That custodian may be held criminally liable
Right to Bail (sec 13)
RIGHT TO BAIL
This is the temporary release/ freedom granted to an accused,
subject to the condition of his appearance whenever summoned
by the court
Kinds of Bail
1. Corporate surety bond: surety companies will pay for
you and receive premium (10%). there must be proof that
the surety company is approved by the court
2. Property bond: applies only to real property. Upon failure
of accused to appear, said property shall be attached
3. Cash Bail Bond: if accused is later acquitted, the money
submitted as bond will be returned to the accused.
4. Recognizance: someone will guaranty your appearance.
If there is failure of accused to appear, the person
responsible may be cited in contempt
AMOUNT OF BAIL: discretion of court
circumstances used to determine the amount (sec 9, Rule 114)
A. Financial capacity of accused
B. Nature and circumstance of offense
C. Penalty imposable
D. Character and reputation of accused
E. Age and health of accused
F. Probability of appearance in court
G. Weight of evidence
H. Prior record of jumping bail
I. Accused committed offense while on parole
J. Accused is a fugitive of justice
K. Pendency of other crimes
De la rama v PP; Enrile v SB
Accused was granted bail even if his offense was non - bailable
because he was old and terminally ill, or his service to Phils
before
11
WHEN A PERSON MAY APPLY FOR BAIL c. There exists humanitarian and compelling
Once he is deprived of his liberty, even if no formal charges have reasons
yet been filed d. Will abide with all orders of the court (appear)
(Govt of HK v Judge Ulaya)
FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING GRANT OF
BAIL Military tribunals: bail is also not a matter of right
1. Imposable penalty: won reclusion perpetua or not
2. Weight of evidence: won evidence of guilt is strong Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus or Declaration
of Martial Law by the President: right too bail shall
Situation not be suspended (follow same rules as criminal
1. Evidence of guilt strong Non - bailable procedures)
2. Reclusion perp or - court must dismiss petition for
higher bail Rights During Trial (sec 14 - 23)
1. Evidence of guilt strong May be bailable
2. Lower Reclusion perp A. Presumption of innocence (Sec 14)
1. Evidence of guilt weak May be bailable B. Right to be heard (due process) (Sec 14)
2. Reclusion perp or C. Right to public trial (Sec 14)
higher D. Right to cross- examine (sec 14)
E. Right Against Self- Incrimination (Sec 17)
Remedy if you fall under situation 1
File for a motion for bail hearing, because in this case, hearing Rights of the Accused Under Sec 14 (sec 14)
will be mandatory and prosecution will have to present
evidences that indeed, the evidence of guilt is strong. Even if RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED UNDER SEC 14
prosecution does not oppose to bail hearing, there must be These pertain to Rights of Accused in a Criminal Case
hearing 1. No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT (Sec 14, Rule 114) 2. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty
A. before or after conviction by MTC, MTCC, MCTC 3. the right to be heard by himself and counsel
B. Appeal of letter A with RTC (file this with MTC) 4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
C. before conviction by the RTC + offense not capital accusation against him
5. to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial,
BAIL AS A MATTER OF DISCRETION 6. to meet the witnesses face to face,
Here, there must be a bail hearing so that the judge can 7. to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
determine if the evidence of guilt is strong witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
A. Upon conviction by the RTC + offense not capital 1.) Due Process of Law
But bail must be denied if An accused is entitled to notice and hearing.
a. Recidivist
b. Quasi- recidivist Right to Notice and Hearing in Extradition Proceedings.
c. Habitual delinquent An extraditee shall be afforded his rights to notice and hearing.
d. Previously escaped confinement In this case, the Phil court is under the duty to furnish the
e. Violated conditions of bail extraditee of a copy of the extradition request, and it supporting
f. Committed offense while on probation, parole, papers. He shall also be granted reasonable period within which
conditional pardon to comment.
g. Flight risk, or good chance of committing
offense again The human rights of a person, Filipino or foreigner, and the
B. before conviction by the RTC + offense capital rights of the accused guaranteed in our Constitution should take
TN: If convicted for capital offense na, DENY BAIL! precedence over our treaty rights.s
(Secretary of Justice vs. Lantion)
C. Charged with capital offense where guilt was strong, but
convicted of penalty less than 6 years Right Against Unreasonable Delay
If the ombudsman fails to act on the complaint for six years, this
RIGHT TO BAIL MAY BE WAIVED is a violation of due process and may result to dismissal of
Failure of the accused to call the attention of the court to the complaint (Roque v Ombudsman)
unresolved petition for bail is waiver
Right to Hearing - cases
BAIL ON SPECIAL CASES Re- opening of case w/o giving accused chance to
Extradition cases: being sui generis and not a criminal controvert evidence is a violation of due process (Santiago
case, bail shall not be a matter of right and may only be V SB)
allowed if
a. Clear & convincing evidence that not a flight Plunder Law is constitutional The vagueness doctrine
risk; merely requires reasonable degree of certainty for the law
b. not a danger to society;

12
 to be upheld- not absolute precision or mathematical During trial GR: Presence of Accused is not
exactitude (Estrada vs. Desierto) mandatory
(there may be trial in absentia)
no denial of due process when accused seeked deposition
of witnesses residing abroad and was denied by court. XPT:
Since these testimonies were merely corroborative (there Prosecution witnesses need to identify
were already many witnesses presented) (People v. Webb) him

When Accused Pleas Guilty to an Offense Xpt to XPT: there be a stipulation

The following procedure must be followed (MANDATORY) during pre- trial that if his name is
A. Trial court must conduct searching inqury to check if mentioned, it refers to him
accused voluntarily made plea and understood the Promulgation of Indispensable Presence of Accused,
plea; Judgment unless he was notified, then there can
B. Prosecution must still present evidence be ex- parte promulgation
C. Accused must still present evidence if he desires Appeal if Presence of accused not mandatory
(People v. Sta Teresa) Convicted (since this only involves review of
records of the case)
2.) Presumption of Innocence until Proven Guilty
Burden of proof is with the prosecution to prove guilt beyond Right to Counsel is Indispensable
reasonable doubt If the lawyer later abandons his client, the court can cite
him in contempt.
Equipoise rule But the court is no longer obliged to appoint a counsel de
Where the evidence presented by both prosecution and oficio since this right is only guaranteed in the beginning
defendant is balanced, it shall rule in favor of innocence. This,
acquittal. XPN: When the Accused waives his Right to Counsel
This need not be in writing. (ex: lawyer sad si accused)
Presumption of Innocence can not be overcome by Only waiver of the right to counsel during Custodial
Presumption of Regularity in the Performance of Investigation needs to be in writing, signed by the accused, in
Functions. front of counsel.

Political Offense Doctrine as a Defense of Accused 4.) Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
If the Political Offense Doctrine is invoked as a defense by the accusation against him
accused, the burden of proof now lies with prosecution to This is the reason why his presence during arraignment is
determine whether or not the common crime was done as an mandatory.
element to a political agenda. The purpose of this is to afford the accused the opportunity to
set up a proper defense.
Facts: Members of the CPP/NPA/NDFP were charged with the If accused is deaf - mute
crime of murder, after a mass grave was found (skeletal remains The court must ensure that the charges were successfully
of 67 individuals were discovered). Petitioners invoked the conveyed to the accused, otherwise, the charge may be
Political Offense Doctrine, stating that under said doctrine, dismissed such as when there was no showing that a competent
common crimes such as murder, are absorbed political crimes interpreter was assigned by the court (People v Crisologo)
or crimes against the state, if the common crime was committed
in furtherance of a political agenda. (such as rebellion, in this Complaint must be Complete
case). Information must state the name of accused, nature and
(Ocampo vs. Abando) designation of his offense, the name of the offended party, the
proximate time it was committed, the place of commission
3.) Right to be Heard by Himself and Counsel
the accused has the right to be present in court, and the right Description/ Title of Charge < Allegations/ Definition in
to be assisted by counsel Complaint.
The allegations found in the complaint shall win over the title of
When Presence of Accused Mandatory the case in the complaint. (Ex: if the charge is murder, but the
Arraignment 1. Indispensable presence of complaint only showed elements of homicide, then it is homicide
accused and not murder)
in case he is on bail and he was absent,
the court can compel his presence One may object to a fact that was not alleged in the
complaint.
TN: What may be dispensed is the The rule is that there shall be no substantial changes to the
reading of the charges, but never the complaint after arraignment, unless with leave of court.
presence of the accused
People v. Sandoval
2. indispensable presence of Where the complaint failed to allege the relationship of accused
lawyer with the victim, he can not be sentenced to death. He can only
In his absence, it shall be considered an be held guilty for the crime of simple rape. (tn: one can be
invalid arraignment
13
sentenced to death under RA 7659 if rape was committed to a A. Dying declarations
minor and his relative) B. Child witnesses
C. Trial in absentia
Void for Vagueness Rule D. Supervening death of witness
A law that is vague produces no effect, and binds nobody.
8.) to have compulsory process to secure the attendance
5.) Right to Public Trial of witnesses and the production of evidence in his
A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial; it only behalf.
Implies that the court doors must be open to those who wish to If the accused witnesses refuse to appear on his behalf, the
come, sit in the available seats, conduct themselves with court may compel their attendance through
decorum and observe trial a. Subpoena ad testifucandum
b. Subpoena duces tecum
Why publicized trials are prohibited
This is tantamount to trial by publicity, which violates an Witness who Refuses to Appear
accused right May be cited in contempt. He cannot invoke his Right Against
Self Incrimination - since he can only invoke this once an
RE: PETITION FOR RADIO AND TELEVISION COVERAGE incriminating question is presented.
OF THE MULTIPLE MURDER CASES AGAINST
MAGUINDANAO GOVERNOR ZALDY AMPATUAN, ET AL., Rights Against Self Incrimination (sec 17)
[A.M. No. 10-11-6-SC ]
The impossibility of holding such judicial proceedings in a
courtroom that will accommodate all the interested parties, RIGHT AGAINST SELF - INCRIMINATION (RASI)
whether private complainants or accused, is unfortunate Basic Premise: One can not be compelled to testify against
enough. What more if the right itself commands that a himself
reasonable number of the general public be allowed to witness
the proceeding as it takes place inside the courtroom. 1. RASI in Criminal Cases
Technology tends to provide the only solution to break the a) For accused: accused can invoke this and refuse to
inherent limitations of the courtroom, to satisfy the imperative take the stand; but, once he takes the stand, he can
of a transparent, open and public trial. Thus, the Supreme Court no longer avoid any question asked
PARTIALLY GRANTS PRO HAC VICE the request for live
broadcast by television and radio of the trial court proceedings b) For ordinary witness: an ordinary witness can not
of the Maguindanao Massacre cases, subject to the guidelines refuse to take the witness stand. He may only invoke
outlined therein. this if an incriminating question is asked

6.) Right to speedy Trial Cases of no longer incriminating and must be

No hard and fast rule; depends on the circumstances.
When postponement can be a ground for acquittal
Delay by defense: allowed, court may allow this due to the
rights of the accused to be present
Delay by prosecution: accused can now invoke the
violation of his right to speedy trial, which results to his
acquittal and attaches double jeopardy in the event that a
subsequent case be filed
tn: however, the accused right to speedy trial does not
preclude the peoples equally important right to public justice
7.) right to Impartial Trial
Check notes on due process
8.) right to Cross - Examine
The purpose of this is to give the accused an opportunity to
confront the witnesses presented against his case.
Affidavit of witnesses
A JA of a witness shall be treated as mere scraps of paper in the
absence of the accused right to cross- examine the allegations
of said witness
Thus, a doctors medical certificate shall not be admitted in court
absent cross- examination of said doctor.
answered
Question pertaining to prior case, whether
acquittal or conviction
Question on a criminal liability that has long
prescribed
Question on crime that was granted immunity
can you be compelled to testify against your co-
accused?
As a general rule, no. Except when
a. You are discharged as a state witness; or
b. When your case was earlier terminated from the
others
2. RASI in Civil Cases
One cannot refuse to take the witness stand
Can only refuse to answer an incriminating question
3. RASI in Administrative Cases
One cannot refuse to take the witness stand
Can only refuse to answer an incriminating question
XPN: Admin cases that are criminal in nature
One can refuse to take the stand in the following instances
1. Forfeiture of license in the practice of a profession
2. Forfeiture of property rights

XPNs to Right to Cross - Examine

14
4. RASI in Legislative Proceedings Rule when death penalty is imposed
One cannot refuse to take the witness stand There must be automatic review by the SC
Can only refuse to answer an incriminating question

Failure to appear in a legislative proceeding: contempt! Humane treatment of detainees/ prisoners

employment of physical, psychological, or degrading
RASI, when can one invoke punishment against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
Only protects testimonial compulsion, those that are substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
communicative in nature. conditions shall be dealt with by law.

When is it considered as testimonial? Right Against Double Jeopardy (Sec 21)

When mental faculties are required or involved.
Thus, RASI can not be invoked for purely physical tests, or
mechanical acts that do not require the involvement of mental 2 kinds
faculties 1. Tried for similar offense
a) Identical offense
Cases where one can not invoke RASI b) Any attempted or frustrated version of the crime
Compelled to take pregnancy test c) Any crime which necessarily includes the other
Physical check up to see if he was inflicted with STD 2. Punishment by both law and ordinance
(Pante)
Give sample of hair strands for DNA testing (Pp v Gondero) Disini vs. DOJ Secretary
Giving of blood samples for DNA testing (Pp v Vallejo) online libel as to which charging the offender under both section
Paraphine test (Pp v De Guzman) 4(c) of RA 10175 and Article 353 of RPC is unconstitutional
because it constitutes a violation of the proscription against
Cases where one may invoke RASI double jeopardy. Same with charging the offender under section
Not purely mechanic: Production of ones hand writing 4(c)(2) of RA 10175 and RA 9775 (Anti Child Pornography)
to determine forgery, since there now involves use of his constitute double jeopardy.
mental faculties (Samson v beltran)
Requisites to constitute DJ of the first kind
Intrusive: where a tube was to be inserted in the body of A. First jeopardy attached
the accused to force him to vomit narcotics (USA case) a) Information/complaint must be valid
b) Court had jurisdiction over that complaint
This rights extends to compulsion for the production of c) A valid plea was entered
documents, papers, and chattels. B. First jeopardy terminated
GR: One can not be compelled to produce documents adverse C. Second jeopardy attached
to him
XPT 1) First jeopardy attached
1. State has right to inspect ( ex: books of accounts of
corporations) a) Information/complaint must be valid
2. Peoples right to production of official documents and - thus, where a complaint was quashed, no DJ pa
public records in the custody of government officials b) Court had jurisdiction over that complaint
- thus, if homicide in MTC, no DJ pa
WAIVER c) A valid plea was entered
RASI may be waived (directly or indirectly, by failure to invoke) - thus, if before arraignment, an affidavit of
desistance was filed, no DJ
- no arraignment yet, no DJ can be invoked
Rights After Trial

A. Right Against Double Jeopardy (21) 2) First jeopardy terminated

B. Prohibited Forms of Punishment (sec 19)
the following constitute termination of first jeopardy
Prohibited Forms of Punishment (Sec 19) Acquittal of accused (not appealable!!)
Accused discharged as state witness
Conviction of accused
PROHIBITED FORMS OF PUNISHMENT Motion to dismiss on ground of insufficient evidence
1. Excessive fines (demurrer to evidence granted)
2. cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Terminated without consent of accused
3. death penalty (unless for compelling reasons involving Dismissal on instance of fiscal after realizing that
heinous crimes) the complainants were the real accused, and
defendants merely acted in self defense
Is death penalty constitutional? (termination w/o consent of accused)
Yes, it may be allowed by the state. But currently (As of July 26, Permanent dismissal of cases
2017), the imposition of death penalty was suspended. Thus, Conviction/ acquittal
reclusion perpetua is the highest form of punishment Prosecutions failure to prosecute on time
(violation of speedy disposition of case)
15

The following do not constitute termination of first jeopardy
x Accused sentenced on plea bargaining w/o consent
of fiscal
x Criminal case mistakenly dismissed by court because
hearing was earlier cancelled and removed from
calendar of hearings
x Re- taking of testimony since incomplete transcript of
noted and judge was replaced
x Motion of Withdrawal of appeal was not approved by
court
x Promulgation of only one part of decision (such as
only civil liability) does not bar promulgation of other
parts of the decision
x Provisional dismissal of cases (such as dismissal on
procedural grounds)
x Dismissal not on the basis of merits
Can judgment of accused be appealed?
The prosecution can not appeal that,
unless
1. accused also appeals
2. State was denied of fair opportunity to prosecute
3) Second jeopardy attached
Requisite: the first offense must be identical to the second
offense
This occurs when same evidence is presented
Instances of DJ
Prosecution for same offense arising from same act
Dividing stages of the crime (attempted, frustrated, etc)
Prosecuting for a crime necessarily included in another
GR: this constitutes DJ
XPT: doctrine of supervening event
Ex: physical injuries unta, but victim died, so it can now
be homicide
for 3 years and it is indicated that the case is of simple nature
and was prosecuted for political reasons, it is held that there
was violation of the accuseds right to speedy disposition of
case. Right to speedy disposition extends to preliminary
investigations.
Non- Imprisonment for Non- Payment of Debt (Sec 20)
Sec 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment
of a poll tax.
Is BP 22 valid?
Yes, it is. It does not penalize the non- payment of debt.
Instead, it punishes the act of issuing a bouncing check (Pp v
Mangubang)
No Expos Facto Law or Bill of Attainder (Sec 22)
BILL OF ATTAINDER
This is when a law imposes punishment without granting the
benefit of a trial.
Ynot v IAC
When a law authorized confiscation of carabaos without benefit
of trial or conviction, it was held unconstitutional
Disini vs Sec of Justice
When the cybercrime law created a council who shall determine
violations of the said law, it was not a violation of this provision
since after determination by the council, hearing will still ensue
EXPOS FACTO LAW
Requisites
1. Criminal law is passed
2. With retroactive application
3. Prejudicial to the accused
Cases declared expos facto

Other Rights A. Punishes a crime that was not yet a crime at the
A. Non- Imprisonment for debt (Sec 20) time it was committed
B. Speedy disposition of case (Sec 16) (Ex: smoking now illegal, punishes the ones who smoked
C. Martial Law and Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus (Sec yesterday)
15)
(see notes on executive power - Article 7. you skipped B. Imposes a penalty graver than when it was
nachura) committed
D. Prohibit Expos Facto Law/Bill of Attainder (sec 22)
E. Involuntary Servitude (sec 18) C. Allowance of introduction of evidence less in
degree than what was allowable at the time of
commission
Speedy Disposition of Case (Sec 16)
(ex: reasonable doubt before, karon preponderance)

Speedy Trial (sec 14) Speedy Disposition of Case D. Penalizes an act which was only regulated before
(sec 16) (before, it was allowed that you dont vote. Now, you
Only in criminal case All judicial and quasi- judicial convict those who dont vote)
cases
Dismissal due to delay E. Deprives accused of a protection provided at the
allowed. Refiling results to time of commission of the act
Double Jeopardy Premise:
If law is beneficial to accused, allow retroactive effect.
Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan If prejudicial, expos facto!
Where the case for violation of the Anti-Graft Law was pending
for preliminary investigation with the Office of the Tanodbayan
16
PP v Patoc
The law making the use of an unlicensed firearm a qualifying
circumstance in murder cannot apply retroactively.

No Involuntary Servitude (Sec 18)

2 prohibitions
1. imprisonment solely by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
2. No involuntary servitude in any form

GR: No involuntary servitude

XPT:
1. Punishment for a crime;
2. service in defense of the state
3. naval enlistment;
4. posse comitatus;
5. return to work order;
6. patriapotestas

17