Rights against imprisonment for debt

Spirit: not to penalize poverty

There are still civil remedies

People v. Nitafan
The prohibition is not for decriminalizing estafa or promoting defrauding people

In Re: Habeas Corpus for Benjamin Vergara

Lessor died > contest as to who the proper person to be paid is
The SC held that a person should not be imprisoned due to debt > but the accused was
imprisoned for contempt (opinion)

Ex-post facto Laws/ Bill of Attainder

Wright v. CA
Extradition case
Accused of a crime in Australia
Subsequently an extradition treaty was entered into by the PH and AUS
An extradition proceeding is not a criminal proceeding therefore rights of the accused, as
provided by the constitution, may not be invoked

Double Jeopardy
No person shall be put twice on jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is
punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute
a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
Why: presumption of innocence – the accuser only gets one chance to prove the accused
guilty beyond reasonable doubt

Requisites
a) A valid complaint or information
b) Before a competent court
c) The defendant pleaded to the charge
d) The defendant was acquitted or convicted or the case against him was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without his express consent
Acquittal
- if the court in the beginning has competent jurisdiction, but later loses
competent jurisdiction due to GADALEJ, the right against double jeopardy may
not be invoked (imposes that the elements of double jeopardy have become
incomplete)

Conviction
-
 Dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent
- considered to end prosecution WHEN it is without express consent of the
accused
- with express consent – waived his right against double jeopardy/
estopped from invoking the same

People v. Judge Santiago

Acquitted for illegally building structures on UP’s land—decision was rendered after pre-
trial
When the prosecution was deprived opportunity to present evidence, the decision that
was rendered in disregard of such imperative is void for lack of jurisdiction. It was not a
court of competent jurisdiction when it precipitately rendered a decision of acquittal after
a pre-trial.

People v. Obsania
Information for rape was filed
After arraignment, Accused moved to quash > quash was granted
Republic appealed. Accused invoked double jeopardy
Court said that the dismissal was upon the instance of the accused, hence it was not
dismissed without his consent

*A dismissal that amount to an acquittal does not amount to a waiver*

The application of the sister doctrines of waiver and estoppel requires two sine qua non
conditions
The dismissal must be sought by the accused
The dismissal must be not due to the merits of the case or amount to an acquittal

Melo v People
Accused was charged with frustrated homicide
Pleaded not guilty
After arraignment, the victim died
Prosecution sight to amend the information to make it homicide, accused objected
claiming double jeopardy
This rule of identity does not apply, however, when the second offense was not in
existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the simple reason that in such case there
is no possibility for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be convicted for an
offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where the accused was charged with physical
injures and after conviction the injured person dies, the charge for homicide against the
same accused does not put him twice in jeopardy

Heirs of Rillorta v. Firme

Accused was convicted of slight physical injuries
Victim died after the doctor performed exploratory surgery
Heirs appealed for more by way of damages—appealing the civil action implied in the
criminal action
An appeal of the civil liability of the Accused will not constitute double jeopardy but it
must be limited to the amount, based on the crime found by the trial court to have been
committed

People v. Judge Vergara

Information against the Accused for murder and frustrated murder
Accused sought for reconsideration of the fiscal’s finding of probable cause and the
reviewing fiscal reversed the original finding
Trial fiscal moved to dismiss the case without notice or hearing
Complainant moved to appeal with the DOJ Secretary
The dismissal of the case was without the consent of the accused, therefore the first
jeopardy attached

Privilege of Writ of Habeas Corpus

Moncupa v. Enrile
Moncupa was arrested because of his ties to a rebel
After a petition for habeas corpus was filed, but before it could be heard, he was
conditionally released
A release that renders a petition for a writ of habeas corpus moot and academic must be
one which is free from involuntary restraints. Where a person continues to be unlawfully
denied one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is present a denial of due
process, where x x x

Ilagan v. Enrile
Once an Information is filed, the writ of habeas corpus is deemed moot and academic

Writ of Amparo

A remedy available to any person whose life, liberty and security is violated or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
private individual or entity.

The writ shall cover extralegal killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.

Tapuz v. Del Rosario

What it is not, is a writ to protect concerns that are purely property or commercial. X X X

Roxas v. GMA
Can the doctrime of command responsibility be used to determine who to sue in an
Amparo petition?

Although command doctrine if a substantive doctrine that refers to liability it does not
preclude x x x

Not for the purposes of punishing but to

Writ of Habeas Data

Conceptualized as a judicial remedy enforcing the right to privacy, most especially the
right to informational privacy of individuals

Operates to protect a person’s right to control information regarding himself

Freedom of Expression, Assembly, Press and Redress of Grievances

Democracy is about dissent, premised in the belief that in continued debate there is
progress.

History has held that a scrupulous idea can come to be a revolutionary one.

US v. Bustos
An administrative complaint was filed against a justice of peace (MeTC judge)
The justice filed a counter-complaint for libel
The interest of society and the maintenance of good government demand a full discussion
of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the conduct of public men is a scalpel
in the case of free speech.

Three tests to determine allowable restraints

1. Dangerous Tendency test
- the mere dangerous tendency of an utterance is enough to restrain it
2. Clear and present danger of a substantive evil that the State has a right to protect itself
against
- that it is not a mere tendency, but a clear danger
- that there is substantive danger
- that it is present
3. Balancing of Interest Test
- the principle requires a court to take conscious and detailed consideration of the
interplay of interests observable in a given situation or type of situation

Censorship
 Prior Restraint – means official governmental restrictions on the press or other
forms of expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination. Its most blatant
form is a system of licensing administered by an executive officer. Similar to this is
judicial proper restraint which takes the form of an injunction against publication. And
equally objectionable as prior restraint is the imposition of license taxes that renders
publication or advertising more burdensome

Subsequent Punishment – imposition of liability to the individual exercising his

freedom. It may be in any form, such as penal, civil or administrative

Chaves v. Gonzales (prior restraint)

Content-neutral regulation, merely concerned with the incident of the speech, or
one that merely controls the time, place or manner and under well defined
standards

Content-based restraint or x x x

J.B.L. v. Bagatsing (Freedom of Assembly)

Anti-bases coalition applied for a permit to march from Luneta to the US Embassy
Mayor refused to issue the permit on the ground that there are persistent intelligent
reports that subversive and criminal elements will infiltrate the rally
The general rule is that a permit should recognize the right of the applicant to hold their
assembly at a public place of their choice, another place may be designated by the
licensing authority if it be shown that there is a clear and present danger of a substantive
evil
- Mere allegation of a report is not clear nor present evil

In Re: Edillon (Freedom of Association)

Questioned why all lawyers are to be members of the IBP
Lawyers may be compelled to join the IBP of the PH as an exercise of the police power to
regulate a very important profession

Freedom of Religion

Aglipay v. Ruiz (Non-establishment Clause)

A stamp was made by the Bureau of Post containing a map of the Philippines and the
location of the City of manila, and an inscription of some Catholic celebration
Aglipay challenged the constitutionality of the act, claiming it is a violation of the non-
establishment clause
The SC held that the Bureau of Post merely took advantage of a religious event to promote
the Philippines for tourism purposes

Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools (Free Exercise Clause)

Members of the Jehovah’s witnesses refused to salute the flag and recite the Panatang
Makabayan
They were suspended
They claimed it was constitutionally infirm to disallow their practice of their religion
SC held that it was unconstitutional. As long as their religious practice do not disturb the
flag ceremony, their belief in their religious must be respected.

COMPELLING STATE INTEREST

What would the State lose if it does not forego an act supposedly accepted by one’s
religion?
If the State regulates, is it the less intrusive way? If not, it should not be encroached.

No Religious Test
Shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights
Priest ran for politics. Was prohibited by the COMELEC. Admin Code later wa amended.