constilaw ii transcription

8/18/2019 ConstiLaw II Transcription

1/19

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

© BASONG, CAVALIDA, CONFESOR, DEL ROSARIO, ESTILLORE

COPY OF : KRISTINE CONFESOR

Page 1 of 19 ~2016~

V.

LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL

Article III Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the samewithin 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.

*Abode –the place where you want live you have the right to live anywhere you want to within the limits

prescribed by law or by the courts ex: one is prohibited from living in a park or any public place Liberty of abode can only be regulated if it is upon lawful order of the

court (destierro, imprisonment)

The right to travel in the Philippine context includes the right to travelwithin the country and to depart the country but does NOT i nclude theright to travel back from the outside going into the country

MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS:

Marcos was on his death bed when he expressed the dire to return to thePhilippines so that he could die in his own country. The president at the time,Corazon Aquino, denied him the opportunity to return to the country. Consideringthe guarantee of the right to travel and the liberty of abode, may President Aquinoban the return of Mr. Marcos to Philippines?

SC: The right to travel and the liberty of abode are different from the right to returnto one’s country, as shown by the fact that the Declaration of Human Rights andCovenant on Human Rights have separate guarantees for these. Hence, the rightto return to one’s country is not covered by the specific right to travel and liberty

of abode do not apply. (implicitly, the court says that the right to return, not beingspecifically guaranteed must be treated simply under the general rubric of liberty.Article III, Section 6: the law regarding abode only includes the right to travelaround the country and the right to depart from the country BUT not the right toreturn.

The right to travel cannot be regulated except in the1.

Interest of national security;2.

Public safety; or3.

Public health

SALONGA VS. HERMOSO:

Salonga asked for a certification of eligibility to travel. The Supreme Court orderedthe travel processing centers (this was during the Martial Law) not to cause anyinconvenience or annoyance on the part of the persons traveling abroad. This isprecisely because the right to travel is considered a cherished right and is in factpart of the universal declaration of human rights.

SILVERIO VS. CA:

(note: one’s right to travel takes a backseat if one has several criminal cases filed

against oneself) Silverio was facing a criminal case, he was out on bail, and he hada hold departure order . If there is a hold departure ordered against you, you cannotleave the country. Despite this order, Silverio was able to leave the country severaltimes so the prosecution wanted his passport to be cancelled because he wentabroad without the permission of the court.

SC: If you have a criminal case filed against you, you can only travel abroad if youfile a motion for leave so that you can go abroad. Furthermore, it is part of theinherent power of the court to use all means necessary to carry their orders intoeffect in criminal cases pending before them.

COJUANGCO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN:

Cojuangco was the president of San Miguel Corporation. He wanted to lift the banon his foreign travel because he wanted to oversee the stages of the internationaloperation of SMC.

SC: Cojuangco is allowed to go abroad only if he asks for the permission of the court. Cojuangco has been traveling back and forth and he has always come back andfaced the court when asked by the court. He was thus allowed to go out thecountry.

YAP JR. VS. CA:

Petitioner contests the condition imposed by the Court of Appeals that he secure“a certification/guaranty from the Mayor of the place of his residence that he is a

resident of the area and that he will remain to be a resident therein until fina judgment is rendered or in case he transfers his residence, it must be with prionotice to the court.” Petitioner claims that it violates his liberty of abode and travel

Further, he claims that the hold departure order on him is enough.

SC: The right to change abode and travel within the Philippines being invoked bypetitioner, are not absolute rights. It can be regulated by lawful order . The order othe CA in releasing petitioner on bail constitutes such lawful order ascontemplated by Art. III, Sec. 6. The condition imposed by the CA is simplyconsistent with the nature and function of a bail bond, which is to ensure thatpetitioner will make himself available at all times whenever the Court requires hispresence.

MIRASOL VS. DPWH:

This case involves toll ways. There was a directive issued that regulated the use omotorcycles on toll roads and limited access highways. In short, the motorcyclescould not enter the toll ways so People said that DPWH is limiting their right totravel.

SC: A toll way is not an ordinary road. It is a facility designed to promote fastaccess and fast transportation. This is a valid regulatory measure based on safety

Furthermore, the right to travel does not involve the right to choose any vehicle intraversing the toll way . The right refers to the right to move from one place toanother. Petitioners can traverse the toll way any time as long as they sue aprivate or public four wheel vehicle. Petitioners are free to access the toll way butthe mode by which they wish to travel the toll way can be subjected to thelimitations of the regulation. The right to travel does not include the best transpornor the most convenient route.

REYES VS. CA:

In this case, when you have a hold departure order and your case is dismissedwhat you should do is file a motion to file all departure orders with the court thatissued the hold departure order .The court issued the order so you have to lift it withthe same court. In this case, the motion was filed with the department of justiceso the venue was wrong.

*YOU ARE ALLOWED TO TRAVEL ABROAD IF:

1.

you state the urgency of why you need to travel abroad so the court will lookinto the reasons why you need to tr avel abroad

2.

you have to state the duration (how long your stay will be and when are youcoming back to the country)

VI)

RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS

Rights Of The Accused; Miranda Warning)

Article III, Section 12.

(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense

shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to

have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own

choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must

be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except inwriting and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other

means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret

detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of

detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or

Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.


2/19




Page 2 of 19 ~2016~

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations

of this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of

victims of torture or similar practices, and their families.

this section is otherwise known as the Miranda Warning from the caseof Miranda vs. Arizona

Justice Cruz: more than half of the rights in the Bill of Rights are found to giveprivileges to the accused because they would like to favor the disadvantagedprecisely because of the presumption of innocence.

Q: How does one know when to invoke one’s rights under Section12?

There are three requisites:

1.

The right attaches when the person is under custody or in jail orthis person is deprived of any freedom of action in any significantway.

2.

When the person is under investigation subject to questioning orinterrogation by the law enforcer

3.

The questioning must be in relation to a crime

if the questioning ceases to become a general inquiry and starts tozoom in on crime and the officers are already trying to get aconfession, your right already attaches

Q: Why do we have Section 12?

this is to prohibit the police from coercing confessions and to prohibita police dominated atmosphere where the police would ask questionsleading to the utterance of self-incriminating statements

guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state aswould lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent himfrom freely and voluntarily telling the truth [People v. Ordono]

Q: When are you considered under investigation or under interrogation?

PEOPLE VS. DIMAANO rights under Section 12 can be raised when theinvestigating officers start to question and elicit information or a

confession from the accused.

BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS

UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS:

PEOPLE VS. HATTON:

if it is a police lineup, you are not yet under custodial investigation or interrogation.Here, you do not yet need counsel because you are not yet being questioned andthere is no enforcement officer that is trying to elicit a confession from you. A police lineup is only for the purpose of identification and not for investigation or

interrogation.

PEOPLE VS. ESPEJO:

the person here was being interviewed by a newspaper woman and he confessedto her that he killed the victim. During the trial, the woman was summoned as awitness and she testified that the accused admitted the murder to her. TheSupreme Court said that the testimony of the woman can be used against himbecause custodial investigation refers to an investigation by the police and in this

case, the confession was made to a private person.

PEOPLE VS. BOLAÑOS: he was arrested but before they actually reached the police station, he wasalready asked by the police if he was the one that killed the victim. The issue hereis whether or not he was already under custodial investigation when he was stillon a vehicle going to the station? Yes because the investigating officer wasalready starting to question him in relation to the crime. It does not matter where you are.

*RA NO. 7438: AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF

PERSONS ARRESTED, DETAINED OR FACING

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.

It outlines the duties of the police and the arresting officers as well as providespenalties for violators. Here, it was stated that the right commences when the person is arrested

Once he is arrested , he is given those rights (right to remain silent, right toindependent counsel, the waiver of counsel must be in writing and with theassistance of counsel)

the Miranda rule is not applicable to confessions executed before January17, 1973 (the date when the 1973 constitution took effect).

o This is important because before the 1973 Constitution, there was nomention of the right to remain silent, right to counsel, the right to be givencounsel if you cannot afford one AND the constitution DOES NOT have aretroactive application.

*Evolution of consent

1935 Constitution: there was no definite provision of the Miranda rights. Therewas no right to remain silent and right to counsel.

1973 Constitution: although there was already the right to remain silent and theright to counsel, there was no specific requirement as to any waiver because iyou read the relevant section under the said constitution, there was no mention oany waiver there. How do we know that the waiver is voluntarily made? Theremust be a meaningful transmission of rights. The individual circumstances mus

be considered:1.

Education2.

Cultural Background3.

Level of intelligence

2 c) CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION report shall be1.

reduced to writing by the investigating officer,2. provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the

person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write, itshall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or bythe assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer

3.

in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person,4.

otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of noeffect whatsoever.

2 d) EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION Any extrajudicial confession1.

made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial investigationshall be in

writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel orin the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, in the presence of any of

the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor,the municipal judge, district school supervisor, or priest or minister of thegospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shallbe inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.

HO WAI PANG VS. PEOPLE: There was a flight from Hong Kong to NAIA. The Chinese nationals in this flightwere searched by immigration and it was discovered that they were carryingchocolate boxes but inside there was shabu. They were questioned by the NBI andasked to write statements. This was questioned because during their confessionthey were not assisted by counsel in violation of Section 12. The court said thatthey did not confess to anything. They were caught in flagrante delicto so their rights

under Section 12 were not violated because there was no need to confess to the crime.

LUZ VS. PEOPLE: This was the motorcycle case. The driver was arrested and he was invited to thepolice station. The police found out that he was carrying shabu. In this case, thecourt said that he was not yet under arrest because he was being prosecuted fothe violation of a municipal ordinance. So since he was not under arrest, he couldnot avail of his rights under Section 12.

PEOPLE VS. LARA: this involves a police lineup. In a police lineup, you are notentitled to a lawyer because it is merely for identification.

a) Miranda rule not applicable to confessions executed before January 17,

1973


3/19




Page 3 of 19 ~2016~

PEOPLE VS. RIBADAJO: in the Bilibid, one prisoner stabbed another prisoner andwhen he was investigated, he confessed to the crime. He questioned hisconviction because he claimed that he was not apprised of his right to remainsilent, to have effective counsel, etc. SC: since this case happened on November18, 1971 which means that it happened before January 17, 1973, the accusedcould not avail of his rights because the constitution does not have any retroactive

effect.

FILOTEO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: Filoteo was the mastermind in hijacking a postaldelivery van and he gave an extrajudicial confession but he then claimed that hewas entitled to counsel, etc. The court said that he could not do this because theconstitution does not have any retroactive application. The lawyer of Filoteoargued that Article 22 of the RPC provides that penal laws shall have a retroactiveeffect insofar as they favor a person guilty of a felony who is not a habitualcriminal. SC: a penal law is different from the constitution i tself. It is not applicable.

SANTOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN: they were accused of some banking anomaliesand they were brought to the NBI. They confessed and signed a waiver. Here, thecourt said that under the 1987 Constitution, your rights are found under Section12. Before in the 1973 Constitution, they were under Section 20 and nowhere inthis section was it stated that there is a waiver unlike in Section 12 now.SC: A comparison of these provisions would readily show that the 1973Constitution does not specify the right against uncounseled waiver of the right tocounsel. Under the 1935 and the 1973 Constitution, the Miranda doctrine still did not

apply.

b)

Not applicable to res gestae statements/spontaneous statements

*RES GESTAE – refers to the statements made by the accused because of astartling occurrence. He/she made a statement on a spontaneous basis and theMiranda doctrine does not apply to these statements.

PEOPLE VS. BALOLOY: in this case, a police officer was informed of the name of the suspect who killed alittle girl. The officer then put the suspect in a corner and he showed him the ropethat was used to kill the girl. Upon seeing the rope, Baloloy immediatelyapologized for killing the girl. He voluntarily narrated that he raped and killed thechild. SC : a spontaneous statement because he was not even asked whether hewas the one who raped and killed the girl. The information was volunteered byBaloloy before he was even arrested and placed in custody so the constitutionprovision on custodial investigation does not apply in this case.

JESALVA VS. PEOPLE: Jesalva drove certain persons who were drunk and he was the last person seenwith the victim. When Jesalva was confronted by the mayor, he admitted that hewas the one who killed the victim. SC: if they are spontaneous statements madeby the accused, the Miranda doctrine does not apply.

c)

Not applicable to statements given in administrative investigations

PEOPLE VS. TIN LAN UY:

In this case, there was no suspect yet but he voluntarily gave information but notbefore the police but to an MTC personnel .SC : the rule is not applicable to administrative investigations.

ASTUDILLO VS. PEOPLE:

certain appliances and cash were missing but the accused admitted to theaccountant. SC: His admission to the accountant could be used against himbecause the accountant is not a law enforcement officer thus his right to remainsilent, to have a counsel of his choice, etc could not be used just yet becausethese were private persons.

d)

Custodial Phase of Investigation

–

police lineups

*a police lineup is NOT considered part of custodial investigationsDELA TORRE VS. CA: there were 6 electric meters owned by Cathay Pacific which were missing. DelaTorre was asked to join a police lineup and he was pointed out by the people who

saw him. He said that his rights under Section 12 were violated BUT again, it is no yet under custodial investigation.

PEOPLE VS. PAVILLARE: he was accused of kidnapping an Indian national. He was asked to join a policelineup which he then questioned. The Supreme Court said that he is not yet undecustodial investigation since he Is still in a police lineup.

e)

Tests of Validity of waiver of Miranda rights – right to be informed

*you already have the right to remain silent, the right to competent and effective counsel, AND the right to be informed.

This right refers to the transmission of meaningful information to theaccused that the accused really understood his rights and not just aceremonial recitation of abstract principles.

The police officer has to make sure that the person arrested reallyunderstood his rights

PEOPLE VS. CASIMIRO: there was a buy bust operation and he was arrested. It was then found out thathe officers informed him of his rights but according to them, the accused merelysaid ‘ok’ in a reply .

SC this is not enough. The warning was incomplete because it did not include thestatement that if the accused could not afford counsel, one would be assigned tohim. The warning was perfunctory and was made without any effort to find out if heunderstood it.

PEOPLE VS SAYABOC: there the Supreme Court said that the accused has the right to information or thetransmission of meaningful information rather than just the ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.

PEOPLE VS. BAGNATE: if you ask a person if he understood the rights, you should do so in a languageunderstood by him. If the person does not understand English, the rights undeSection 12 would have no meaning because the accused did not understand hisrights in the first place.

a)

*PRE-GALIT RULE: JAN. 17, 1973-MARCH 20, 1985)

It was said that before the 1973 Constitution there was no right to counsel, noright to be informed but after the 1973 Constitution, there is already a right buthere was no discussion of waivers.The case of Galit then came out. In this case, the Supreme Court categorically saidthat when there is waiver, it must be made in writing and in the presence of counselThe Galit ruling was on March 1985 so if you look at it, the 1973 took effect onJanuary 17, 1973 so until March 20, 1985, you could not claim your rights on Section12 regarding the waiver because there was still no Galit rule that was established by

the SC. After March 1985, you can already use the Galit ruling.

b)

GALIT RULE: MARCH 20, 1985-FEB 2, 1987) In the case, there were long questions followed by monosyllabic answers whichdid not satisfy the requirements of the law that the accused be informed of hisrights under the constitution. His statement did n ot even contain any waiver to theright to counsel and yet during the investigation, he was not assisted by one. This

constitutes a gross violation of his rights.

Because of this ruling, the Supreme Court now requires that if you are going to waive

your right, you have to do so in writing with counsel.

Q: Does the GALIT RULE have a retroactive application?

SANTOS VS SANDIGANBAYAN

• It does not have retroactive effect.SC: Clearly then, the Morales-Galit rulings are inapplicable in these cases as theextrajudicial confessions in question here, were taken on February 13, February 1and March 22, 1982, long before the date of promulgation of the Morales Decisionon April 26, 1983. Prior to this date, the guidelines requiring that waiver of the righ


4/19




Page 4 of 19 ~2016~

to counsel by an accused can be properly made only with the presence andassistance of counsel, had yet to be formulated and pronounced by this Court.

c)

NEW RULE ON WAIVER Feb.2, 1987) Art. III, Section 12 (1); Waiver must be in writing and made in the presence ofcounsel of choice. Under the new constitution, a confession now must satisfy fourfundamental requirements in order to be admissible and for the waiver to be valid:

1.

the confession must be voluntary 2.

the confession must be made with the assistance of competent andindependent counsel

3.

the confession must beexpress

4.

the confession must be inwriting

PEOPLE VS MENDOZA AND PEOPLE VS GONZALES

Your rights under custodial investigation can be waived. In both cases, theconfessions were inadmissible but the defense counsel failed to object to itsadmissibility during the presentation of evidence and during the trial. If you fail toobject to the inadmissibility of the evidence, because it violates your rights undercustodial investigation, these rights can be waived as the court pronounced inboth Mendoza and Gonzales cases.

f)

The burden of proving voluntariness is on the prosecution

PEOPLE v BACOR

In this case, there was a confession to the PAO attorney and SPO3 Ydulzura. Thisconfession, the burden of proving the voluntariness of his confession is on theprosecution.

g)

What can be waived?

1.

Right to remain silent2.

Right to counsel (but such shall be made in writing and in the presence ofcounsel)

What cannot be waived?

1)

Right To Be Informed Of The Miranda Rights

You cannot say “Yah, I already know my rights” I can waive my right to remain

silent and right to counsel but the police still says “Sir, you have the right to remainsilent, anything can and will be used against you in a court of law”, and you say to

the police “Hey, I’m a lawyer. I teach Consti 2, I know Miranda rights. Miranda is

my favorite word.” But this right CANNOT be waived. The police is obliged to st illgive you your Miranda rights, even if you listen or not but the right to be given theMiranda warnings cannot be waived.

h)

Exclusionary Rule

READ EXCULSIONARY RULEHere, you have to remember like in the case of ANDAN, a rape case involving anursing student. She was raped and then killed and was found in a pigpen.What happened was, when he was confronted with the concrete block which heused to hit the head of the woman, and he was shown this concrete block by themayor, he voluntarily confessed his guilt without anyone actually asking him for aconfession, again, this was done in a spontaneous manner so this could not becovered.Read Marcelo- in flagrante delicto

VII)

RIGHT TO BAIL

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses

punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be

released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to

bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of

habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Q: What is bail? A: Sec. 1 of Rule 114THE REVISED RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURESection 1. Bail defined. — Bail is the security given for the release of a person in

custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, to guarantee his appearance

before any court as required under the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be

given in the form of corporate surety, property bond, cash deposit, or recognizance.

Bail is basically the money of the property that you give to the court when you arefacing a certain criminal case to insure that you will be coming back to court iand when required. Is a security, like if you have a hearing in the next few monthsto be sure that you will come back for the hearing, you post bail.

Bail is generally a matter of right

There are many forms of bail, it could be in the form of cash. Usually, when thereis a case filed against you, and the fiscal issues a resolution finding probablecause, in the last part there is a bail recommended because there is now what wecall a bail bond guide- a manual booklet for prosecutors which gives the amountsof bail depending on the case filed. So if it’s put there, 80 thousand you can place

cash. If you don’t have cash you can use a surety or insurance, you go to anaccredited insurance, the insurance will be the one to pay the 80k but you just paya premium for that 80k, usually 10 %. The problem is you have to renew it everyyear and that 8k (10%) will not be given back to you. Whereas if cash, when lateon you were found not guilty, the entire 80k will be given back to you.

It could also be real property, show a Torrens transfer certificate of title that youown a certain land, you have it assessed by the Clerk of Court and they will assesshow much the property is and you can use that property as a bail. ONLY REALPROPERTY because one client said that she had an engagement ring and asked ishe may use it as bond, NO. You can only use real property not personal property.

Finally, you can go out on bail on recognizance (Sec 15). Recognizance is when

you’re facing a case and you are released to a prominent person in society. He wilbe the one to take charge and say that “during the next hearing, I will make sure

that he will come to court”, so you have to be a prominent person in society o

known probity and integrity. Recognizance however is available only for minooffenses, not major.

Who decides what bail he should use?

It’s the accused. The court may say “cash lang, bawal ang property”, no, it’s the

accused’s choice.

The constitutional right to bail is again available to criminal cases the right is notavailable in the military.

1)

When right may be invoked?

PEOPLE v SANDIGANBAYAN

This involves Erap and Jinggoy. They were investigated by the ombudsman andwere later on tried before the Sandiganbayan. To be tried before theSandiganbayan, your salary grade must be 27 and above and the crime must becommitted in relation to your office. Here, Jinggoy was facing a plunder charge(RA 7080) so he wanted to go out on bail, which was opposed. Now, if you’re

facing a capital offense it’s stated in Sec 13 “except those charged with offenses

punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong”, you have a casefor rape or violation of the dangerous drugs act- you are found with 1kilo of shabucan you go out on bail?

You can file a motion for a bail hearing and you have to show to the court that theevidence of guilt is not strong. If evidence of guilt is not strong, you can be grantedbail, if strong no bail. That’s why if you look at Sec 13 “charged with offenses

punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt i s s trong”, if it’s not strongyou can still avail of the right to bail.

SC: Jinggoy was not really a flight risk. Everytime he was asked to go to court, he

would come to court and he was just elected as senator, the court said that itwould be highly improbable that her would forfeit his seat in senate and go abroadand become a fugitive from justice. So he was granted bail because of the sociastanding and the possibility of escape of Jinggoy Estrada.

VALERO V. CA

Milagros was accused of killing her husband, although she did not actually kill himshe was the mastermind, because the man who actually killed him confessedTherefore she was a principal by inducement, she applied for bail but the courtsaid, “No, evidence against you is strong. The person who killed your husband said

you are the master mind so you should not be granted bail”.

TRILLANES VS PIMENTEL


5/19




Page 5 of 19 ~2016~

Oakwood mutiny. Evidence of guilt was strong, they could not avail of the right tobail]

QUI v PEOPLE

Child abuse case, she was convicted in the RTC and pending appeal before theCA, she filed an application for bail, what did the court say? You were alreadyconvicted, all the more we will not give you your right to bail. The right to bail is aright enshrined in the bill of rights, the court should exercise grave cautionbecause you were already convicted of course you will already be a flight risk.

2)

When is bail a matter or right, when is it a matter or discretion, and when is

it not allowed?

Bail is a matter of right

before and after conviction by the municipal trial court before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RT or less or

12yrs &1 day – 20yrs before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RP or death

when evidence of guilt is NOT strong.

Bail as a matter of discretion

if after conviction of offense punishable by imprisonment of 6yrs and1 day – 20 yrs or PC – RT if none of the ff circumstances are notpresent:

Admin Circular 12-94: If the accused is a recidivist , quasi recidivist, or a habitual delinquent; If the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal

confinement or evaded sentence; If the accused committed the offense while on probation or parole or

pardon; That the circumstance of the accused has the ability of flight/ flight

risk; When there is a due risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the

accused may commit another crimeso if the prosecution is able to prove this and the offense is punishable by penaltyof 6yrs and 1 day – 20 yrs, bail is a matter of discretion.

Bail not allowed

if after final judgment by the court- there is already finality, the case isalready finished

before conviction by the RTC for offenses punishable by RP whenevidence of guilt is strong;

after conviction by offenses punishable by RP, death or lifeimprisonment WHEN THE CASE IS ON APPEAL (Qui v PP)

after conviction for an offense punishable by 6yrs and 1 day- 20 yrs andcircumstances under Admin Circ 12-94 are present

3)

Bail in military courts

COMENDADOR VS DE VILLA AND ASWAT VS GALIDO

In both cases, they were members of the military and subject to court martialbecause they violated certain articles of war, the SC is clear:Bail is not available in military courts.

Remember: It is the prosecution that has the burden to prove or present evidencethat bail should be denied. Now in ordinary cases if the penalty is RP or higher, the

prosecution has the burden to prove that evidence of guilt is STRONG. If it is amatter or discretion, it is the prosecution’s burden to prove is that the accused

suffers from those mentioned in Admin Circ 12-94.

Now, if it’s a matter of right (ex. Before conviction by the MTC), the prosecutionhas the burden to prove THE AMOUNT OF BAIL.

4)

Standards in fixing bail

VILLASEÑOR v ABANO

He was facing a murder case and he was admitted on bail for 60,000 pesos, nowhis original bond was reduced to 40k but because he was not able to attend, itwas cancelled and of course if your bail is cancelled you have to file for a MR toreinstate the bail bond. Now in reinstating, the judge said that they question the

amount of the bail, what is the criteria or basis for fixing bail? In this case, thecourt mentioned certain guidelines in fixing bail such as:

1.

the ability of the accused to give bail2.

nature of the offense3.

penalty for the offense charged4. character of the accused5.

health of the accused6.

character and strength of evidence7.

probability of the accused to appear in trial8.

forfeiture of other bonds9.

whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested10.

if the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases.With regard for standard of fixing bail, just look at the case of VILLA SEÑOR VABANO

DE LA CAMARA VS ENAGE

In this case, he was the municipal mayor of Magsaysay and he was facingmultiple murder charges (14) he was given bail but his amount of bail was1,195,200.00.SC: he was basically charged with2 offenses, the amount of bail of 1,195,200.00when evidence of guilt is not strong is excessive and too much the last sentenceof Sec 13 specifically states that “Excessive bail shall not be required”.

YAP JR. VS CA

He was facing an estafa case for 5.5 million his bail bond was also 5.5 million.SC: the amount of 5.5 million is unreasonable, excessive and constitutes aneffective denial of the petitioner’s right to bail. Why? Because you have the right to

bail but because the amount of bail is too much and you cannot afford it, it wilrender nugatory your right in the 1st place. These issues are laid to rest becausewe now have a bail bond guide for prosecutors, for you to know the amount of bafor a specific case.

5)

Right to bail and right to travel abroad

Remember that the right to travel can be impaired if you are out on bail.

MANOTOK VS COURT OF APPEALS

SC: the court has the power to prohibit a person admitted to bail from leaving thePhilippines because this is a necessary consequence of the nature and function oa bail bond. Why? If the accused were allowed to leave the Philippines, he may beplaced beyond the reach of the courts. That’s why because the court has the

inherent power and because of the condition of the bail bond, that you have to bethere if and when required by the court

SANTIAGO VS VASQUEZ

Case of Madam Miriam because of a graft and corrupt practices case when shewas the chairman of the BIR, she allowed certain Indians to come in. Now, shewanted to study in Harvard and had to leave for the US, court said that she will nobe allowed since she was out on bail. Court said that since she was amenable tothe conditions of the bail bond, we can prohibit your right to travel abroad.

6)

Waiver of the right to bail

PEOPLE VS DONATO

Donato was facing a rebellion charge, now when the penalty was higher, thepenalty for rebellion was PM, 6 yrs and 1 day- 12 yrs. If its PM, bail is a matter o

right, what happened here was he was granted bail but the other side said he hasbeen evading the police for 13 years it was only now that they were able tocapture him. His address was unknown, he has been using certain aliases, he hasbeen giving a false address and he even has a reward for his arrest of 250,00.00we should not grant bail.

SC: Since bail is a matter of right and he was not facing a capital offense, despiteall those circumstances the prosecution has presented, he is allowed to go out onbail because bail is a matter of right. With regard to the waiver of bail, in this caseSalas was the one principally charged with rebellion. Salas said “let my girlfriend

go out and I will stay in jail so have my companion released”

so they released herAfter releasing her, Salas said, that he will exercise his right to bail.


6/19




Page 6 of 19 ~2016~

SC: The right to bail is a personal right and since you waived it in exchange for youcompanion being freed, you do not have the right to bail anymore , why? Becauseyou have already waived such right. Therefore, you can waive your right to bailbeing a purely personal right.

VIII)

RIGHTS DURIAL TRIAL

Section 14.(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without

due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed

innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be

heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and

cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial,

and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have

compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the

Production of evidence in his behalf.

However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding theabsence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and

his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

If you look at section 14 of the trial rights of the accused, he has ten rights there.What are these rights?

1.

right to due process2.

right to presumption of innocence3.

right to be heard4.

right to counsel,5.

right to be informed,6.

right to a speedy trial,7. right to have an impartial trial,8. right to a public trial,9.

right to meet the witnesses face to face10.

right to a compulsory process.

Atty. Dela Banda’s notes.

1)

Right to due process, again we already encountered the term due processwhen we discussed section 1. This right of the accused under due processis the biggest right among all of the ten rights. According to Justice Cruz, itis by reason that the right to due process mentioned here, only refers to

procedural due process, substantive due process is not included. Theprocedure laid down by law in trying an accused that has been charged of acrime.

Q: What are the four elements of due process that are applicable to criminal

cases.

PEOPLE V. TONGIO,Marcos here issued a General Order directing that if there are any crimes againsttourist, the case must be tried and finished within 24 days. so Tongio here wascharged for kidnapping Vietnamese tourist. Let’s say on May 12 they were

arrested; May 15, they were charged; May 19, they were arraigned; May 20, theprosecution presented witnesses; may 21, the defendants presented theirwitnesses; May 25, they was judgment and all of them were sentenced to death.This was challenged saying that paspasa ba ani. However the court said here,there was no violation of due process maskin paspas kayo. Why? Because againthe four elements of due process : TJOL

1)

the tribunal is clothed by judicial power who hear and decide the case;2) jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person of the accused and

over the offense;3)

the accused was given a opportunity to be heard; and4)

Judgment rendered upon a lawful hearing.

As long as all the elements are present, there was no violation. Take note the fourelements in the due process of section 14. Anyway, the purpose there was toboost tourism diba you will not commit crime against tourist if you know na inganaka paspas ang trial.

PAGASIAN V. AZURA. The case was against Domo Pagasian was a witness. The case was for theft. Itappears that the cause for the report by the police because it was testified that it

was actually Pagasian. He was not the accused ha, he was the witness but lateon convicted by the judge. Si Domo ang kaso nga theft against him was acquittedso this was challenged. What did the court say? It was a violation of the dueprocess. Why? The Brgy. Captain was not even informed of the court the chargeagainst him. In fact, I think, he was not even the accused. He had no idea that hewas on trial. He did not presented any evidence on his behalf on violation orequirements under due process of Sec. 14.

PAGULIAN V. SECRETARY OF COMMISSION. Pagulian here was a civilian but hewas tried by a Military Tribunal because it was during Martial Law. So civilianunder Military Tribunal. Pagulian went to the SC assailing the validity of hisconviction.SC: the due process in sec. 14 is trial by judicial process and not by executive ormilitary process. Therefore, there was a violation of due process. Even during MartiaLaw, all cases should be tried under civilian courts. Pending cases involvingcivilians in a military tribunal should be transferred to civilian courts when thenational emergency already ceases.

2)

Right to Presumption of Innocence. This is found in section 14. You arepresumed innocent until proven guilty. Have you already discussedDemurrer to Evidence? Wala pa.

Demurer to Evidence

is basically a motionwhich bind if the prosecution unable to establish the guilt beyondreasonable doubt. So there is an insufficiency of evidence. Precisely you filethat motion because you say: “ Ay, I am presumed innocent until proven guilty

and you have not proven my guilt beyond reasonable doubt so I don’t need to present my evidence, I’ll have the court dismiss it base on your evidence laid

down of the prosecution.” That is allowed, that is under the Revised Rules oCourt. So you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, however there arecertain exceptions:Article 217 of RPC , diba if the failure of the officer to produce money in hischarge, is a prima facie evidence of malversation. Presumed innocent kahowever if public officer ka then incharge ka sa money, and it is notaccounted for, it is a prima facie evidence of malversation already; oviolation of Anti-Fencing law, diba kanang kinawat kawaton. Possession ostolen property, in the absence of adequate explanation, you are alreadypresumed to be the author of the crime of the stolen and yet there is apresumption of innocence. So there are certain exceptions.

Does it violate the constitution? Well there is a logical connection betweenthe fact issue and the fact proof and at the same time, all thesepresumptions are still rebuttable. They can still be overcome by evidence.

3)

Right to be heard, this means basically the right to present evidence onone’s behalf. The right to testify on one’s favor, the right to call witnesses

the right to be given reasonable opportunity to present witnesses.

4)

Right to counsel Right to counsel. This means the right to counsel duringtrial. You are entitled to under sec.14, effective representation when you arefacing a criminal case. The court is duty bound to inform the accused thahe has the right to counsel before he is arraigned. So you know whatarraignment is. Now the court must ask the accused in accordance withsec. 14 of his trial rights “oh Mr. Accused, do you wish to secure the services oa private counsel?” If the accused says “yes”, he must be given time to secure

the services of counsel. What if he cannot afford one diba, the court musdecide a counsel de officio for him. And the counsel de officio must assist theaccused. So at all times, the accused has the right to effectiverepresentation under sec. 14. However, the accused can waive this right

The accused may represent himself in fact in any litigation.

PEOPLE V. ONDADO.In this case the judge asked the accused “Do you have an Attorney and are you

going to plead guilty?” against the accused. The accused says I have no lawyer

but I will plead guilty. He was arraigned and later on sentenced. What did the SCsay? The judge did not follow guidelines mentioned. The right of the accused tocounsel was violated because there was no fair hearing, not given an opportunity to be

heard by a counsel. So there was a violation because he did not have counsel.

DELGADO V. CA. In this case, woman charged with estafa but represented by a lawyer . Her lawyefailed to appear despite to prior notice. She was convicted. The problem here wasang iyang lawyer I think si Atty. Icko was not really a member of the Bar. Fake nga


7/19




Page 7 of 19 ~2016~

lawyer. So she said, “Why am I being convicted when my lawyer is not really alawyer. Is that a violation of your right to counsel under sec. 14? SC said yes that’sa violation.

The accused can demand a new trial at the same time, the reason for this is there is a

big danger when a fake lawyer will not be able to present and adequate defense in

behalf of the accused . In this case also, the right of counsel may be raised by theaccused or the prosecution. Because if you look at it, the government will lookstupid if they will raise this issue upon discovery that they will be defeated by afake lawyer. Ulaw pud sa prosecution mapildi ka sa fake nga lawyer. Pati angconstitution muingon nga oy violation na, mag new trial ta diba because you aredefeated by a fake lawyer.

5)

The Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation. The accusedhas the right to be informed the nature of the charge against him. That is thevery purpose of arraignment . The information charged the accused of thecrime must be stated with precision what the accused actually did. Theremust be a specific allegation of the fact and circumstance necessary for thecrime charged. The information has to be read to the accused but not justread. Read in English or in a dialect the accused knows and understand. The purpose of this right is precisely to enable the accused to defend himself and

enable him to avail of the protection against double jeopardy if prosecuted or

charge against second time around for the same offense.

6)

Right to Speedy Trial. The Right to a speedy trial according to one case does

not include the lees appeals. So speedy trial didto lang sa court of origin. If you’re on appeal, you cannot use sec. 14, right to speedy trial because in the fi rst

place that does not already a trial, it’s already an appeal. Now, there is no reallymathematical formula to compute how long really is. Meaning when canyou invoke your right to speedy trial if the case has been dragging on forfour years, five years or so. I think the only guideline put here in the SC is thatas long as it is not a vexatious and capricious, delay is allowed. It depends reallyon the attendant circumstances.

Example, the accused here was charged of statutory rape, the case wasscheduled for hearing, but the prosecutor was absent. So just because theprosecutor was absent, judge dismissed the case. What did the court say,by disposing the criminal case based on the right of the accused to aspeedy trial, the court should carefully weigh the circumstances attendingeach case. They should balance the right of the accused and the state whopunish who violates penal laws. The prosecutor cannot be faulted for hisfailure to attend the hearing because on said date in good faith, he believedthat that date was a Muslim legal holiday when it was really not. The judgeshould not dismiss it automatically. So in using your right your right to speedytrial, you really have to look at the circumstances whether it is good faith and thereason really for the delay and at the same time the invocation of the accused of

such right because this right is also waivable . If the case is already dragging incourt for 20 years but the accused already saying that ah I have the right toa speedy trial, the accused will drag because his right can also be waived, soit has to be invoked by the accused. So we have to look at

1.

the extent of the delay, and2. the reason for the delay and of course3. the invocation of the accused of this right under speedy trial

Of course there is SPEEDY TRIAL ACT now, there is Republic Act. In realpractice now, let’s say, the complainant does not go to court, so the

prosecution does not have evidence against the accused, precisely thecomplainant can no longer be found. The court usually set this to three to

four consecutive meetings. After three to four consecutive meetings, if theprivate complainant fails to appear, that is the time that you will invoke theright of the accused of the speedy trial and the case will be dismissed.

7)

Right to an Impartial Tribunal. Meaning the right to have an impartial judge.The impartiality must not only be in reality but also even in appearance. InLegal Ethics, Diba the judge, there must be a bold neutrality of an impartialjudge. A judge should be like Caezar’s wife, irreproachable. So meaning,dapat he must be fair and he must be impartial and hue must only fair andimpartial in reality, he must be seen as fair and impartial even in appearanceokay. That is the requirement under sec.14. Now cases. There was a case Ihad last week in Manila. There was this judge, he was a private practitionerthen I think the case is for annulment. When he was still a privatepractitioner, his client was Mr. A now when he was the judge, an annulment

case filed by the wife of Mr. A, so when the judge said “Is your husband MrA? Yes . Ah he was my client before when I was still a private practitioner, soI think would have to inhibit because that would violate your right to animpartial trial.” Diba, because he is no longer impartial because there isalready a conflict of interest.

MATTEO V. VILLALUZ.I think the accused here were charged for the offense of robbery in band withhomicide. Robbery in band so daghan sila with homicide. In the meantime, anothesuspect in another case, Reyes was arrested. Reyes executed a extrajudiciaconfession that he signed and swore before a certain judge Villaluz. So heconfessed before judge Villaluz that the petitioners actually committed the crimeof robbery with homicide. So what happened then? It proceed in the sala of judgeVillaluz. Later on he repudiated his statement. Okay ning atras siya. I was reallyforced to sign the confession because I was threatened with violence by certainpolice. So with that, I am repudiating my previous statement and confession. Withthat repudiation, petitioner said “You bring that declaration before the judge

Judge you’re supposed to disqualify yourself because how can you try this case

impartially when you already know the facts and circumstances as mentioned bythe confession of Reyes against us. Judge said no, I will not disqualify myselfWhat did the court say? The petitioners are entitled to the relief sought forRespondent judge could not totally immune to what apparently was assertingbefore him in such extrajudicial statement. It was unlikely that he was not in aslightest bit offended. Oh diba he was offended. Why did you repudiate youstatement, I did not force you. His sense of fairness could be easily be blunted

because he who attested to the execution of the statement it cannot be doubtedthat respondent ruled that such extrajudicial statement was executed freely. Sothat was in violation of their right to an impartial trial, because the judge alreadyapproved of what has happened. Precisely the Reyes confessed before him. So hewas supposed to inhibit himself because it was violation of the right of theaccused to an impartial trial.

8) Right to a Public Trial. Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent theabuses that may be committed by the court to the prejudice of thedefendant. Now you have a right to a public trial. The requirement here inpublic trial is that as long as the court’s doors are open to the public, tha

already suffices the requirement of a public trial. However, there areinstances when the judge can exclude the public from the court roomEspecially if there are sensitive cases involving rape or child abuse. So thisright again belongs to the accused and this is cannot be waived. So the

judge here can exclude the public if it is a sensitive case. Like, I was not heron Wednesday because I have a trial in QC, very funny- rape case. (rape isnfunny)

What happened, on the witness stand, very luoy ba because grade one ograde two lang ang nahuman sa victim. Murag Ilocano man to siya oIlonggo so she was not good in English. So kindly state what happened. Tegidala ko sa sagbutan, okay then the interpreter would interpret- she wasbrought in the grassy area. When she started to depict the scene, there werechildren in the court, so the judge said, op because she was about to tehow she was abused, use a metaphor nalang. Intawon, ning ingon siya ug tegi “metaphor ” ako kaduha. It was really sensitive that the judge said, op do

not use the literal words, use metaphor. Anyway, right to a public trialHehehehehe #metaphor

9)

Right to meet witnesses with a right to confrontation. The right toconfrontation intends to secure the accused the right to be tried so far asthe facts (inaudible) by the witnesses concerned. It was intended to preven

conviction of the accused upon an ex parte affidavit. Meaning, if you werethe accused, you have the right to meet the witnesses against you. Makitagyud nimo bisan pag nag testify against you. Why? Because:

a)

So that you could cross examine the witnesses who said that youallegedly commit the crime and at the same time

b)

so that the judge could examine the demeanor of the witnesswhether he or she is telling the truth.

10)

Right to Compulsory process. This refers to the subpoena. A person accusedcan obtain subpoena from the court in order to compel the attendance of thewitnesses in his behalf . However, you have to remember but you will learnthis later on, if the person resides more than 100 km from the place of thetrial, he was not bound by the subpoena . But this rule only applies to civcases and not to criminal cases. If it is criminal case, crime committed in


8/19




Page 8 of 19 ~2016~

Davao, even if you are from Manila, element of territoriality, crime is here andtried here in the courts of Davao then the witness is in Manila, can you getthe witness? Yes, is it more than 100 km? I think yes, but this is a criminalcase. Comparing it to a civil case, if your witness is in Manila and the civilcase is in Davao, even if you are able to get the subpoena from the court, thewitness cannot be compelled because it is beyond 100 km. And in the Bar itcame out, it was called the VIATORY RIGHT.

It is the an instance where the witness can refuse to follow thesubpoena because either previously, he already went to the trial, butthe expenses were not paid or precisely because he resides more than100 km from the place of the trial.

So basically those are the ten Rights of the Accused under sec. 14. Now the lastsentence under sec. 14 refers to TRIAL IN ABSENTIA,Trial in Absentia, if you’ll try to read the last sentence of sec. 14, can trial proceed

even if the accused is not present? That is the last sentence. However afterarraignment, trial may proceed not withstanding to the absence of the accused

provided that he has duly been notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

THREE REQUIREMENTS a)

the accused has previously been arraigned ;b)

he was notified of the proceedings. Meaning as long as notices weresent to his last known address that is already sufficient; and

c) His failure to appear is unjustified .

Exceptions: 1)

Arraignment. At all times, the accused must be present duringarraignment. Why? He is the one who will be arraigned personally;

2)

During the identification stage at the trial, the one you see in movies“who committed the crime, is he in court can you point him” kana mao

na so that’s the other time when the accused is required to be present;

and3) During promulgation of judgment. If there is judgment the accused

has to be there. Why? If he is not there, he loses all his remedies underthe Rules of Court to appeal of unsa pana atuang mga rights diha nohthat we will learn under criminal procedure. So those are threeexceptions: Arraignment, Identification and Judgment.

GIMENEZ V. NAZARENO. Case against A, B and C, trial continued. While trial was going on C was able toescape but the trial continued with regard to A and B kay naka-escape man si C.On judgment, A and B were found guilty but the judge said okay A and B you areguilty but for C, I will hold his sentence because he has rights under sec. 14 diba.You have the right to counsel, you have the right to present evidence on yourfavor, so I will withhold my judgment as against C. A and B challenged that. SCsaid the judge should also convict C. Why? Because trial in absentia can alreadyset in A, B and C had already been arraigned, notices were sent to A, B and C attheir last known address, he was able to escape therefore his failure to appear isnot justified therefore, trial can still proceed despite the absence of C and heshould be still convicted based on the evidence presented.

IX) PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

SECTION 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against

himself.

This is based onpublic policy

andhumanity.

1.

Public policy. If you place the accused in a situation where he couldnot invoke the privilege you will be under the strong temptation tocommit perjury . If you remove sec. 17 and the accused is on thewitness stand or a witness is there “did you commit the crime?” andyou do not have the right under sec. 17 the accused will just say “No I

did not” and he will commit perjury, he will lie that’s why sec. 17 was

put.

2.

Humanity, precisely to extort the confession of the accused via anyform of duress or violence diba. That is why sec. 17 was included. Youcannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself. Now the scopeof this right, remember this, only covers testimonial incrimination. Sec.17 is only applicable to compulsory oral examination. It is notapplicable to purely mechanical acts. What do you mean by this? If

there is no word uttered, then the privilege does not applied even ifthere is some compulsion.

VILLAFLOR V. SUMMER. The accused committed adultery. Now during trial, the judge ordered the womanto undergo an examination to see if she was pregnant by the other man. Thewoman said “Oy if I am found pregnant by another man that would mean that committed adultery. You know the crime of adultery diba. Diba if you look at thefacts, if ma-positive ko na I am pregnant with another man then I committedadultery so I will become a witness against myself and under sec. 17, I cannot becompelled to be a witness against myself. So she objected. What did the SC say?It is not a violation of your right because again sec. 17, only covers testimonial ocompulsory oral examination or this has even evolved over the years. If one useshis intelligence or imagination he cannot be compelled to such act. But if youssay, purely mechanical act without using anymore your intelligence or youimagination, you can be compelled by the court.

Examples:1)

Accused was prosecuted for (inaudible) then when he ran, he left hisshoe parang Cinderella lang. On trial, he was asked to put on the shoeSo kay perfect match man gyud nah. So the accused said “I will notwear the shoe, I will be a witness against himself.” What did the court

say? That is purely mechanical act. You do not use your intelligence oimagination to put your feet on the shoe. Therefore you can be

compelled to wear the shoe.

2)

Re-enactment of a crime. The accused is asked “could you remembehow you killed this person? “ You are using your intelligence and

imagination, so you cannot do that.

BELTRAN V. SAMSON. In this case, falsification. Falsified ang mga signatures and writing. What did the

judge say “accused can you write on a piece of paper a specimen of you

handwriting?” he said “Why?” “Because I will compare your handwriting with the

falsified writing in evidence. Accused sa id “That’s a violation of my right againsself incrimination. Handwriting is that a purely mechanical act or do you use yourintelligence and imagination when you are handwriting? The court said. That is aviolation of right against self incrimination. Why?

If magsulat ka mechanical ba diay

nah, you think about your writing baya diba, so you use your intelligence, your

imagination

. Use can use your right under sec. 17.

Now coverage of this right, if you look at it, the privilege against self incriminationextends to criminal but also to civil and administrative cases. However, thedifference there is: IN CRIMINAL CASES, THE ACCUSED CAN ALTOGETHERREFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND.Case: People v. A. A can altogether say “I will not take the witness stand” so thprosecution on trial say, “A please go to the witness stand” he can say that “Tha

will violate my right against self incrimination.” Some authors call that a

“Prohibition of Inquiry”

kanag the accused can refuse to take the witness standHowever, with regard to civil cases, and administrative cases, you cannot refuseto take the witness stand but you only have the option to refuse to answer if andwhen the question becomes self incriminating.

When does it become incriminating? When it tends to establish any guilt againstyou, that is when you can say that the question is incriminating. So forcriminal cases, you can refuse to take the witness stand.

In Civil and administrative cases refuse to answer only when the question isincriminating. That is when you can invoke your right. This is applicable to alkinds and types of proceeding.

PEOPLE V. CODILLA.Accused here charged of rape. When he was on the witness stand, he was askedto address himself before the public and not in the private room. According to thecomplainant when she was raped, she struggle against the man and there arescratches and bruises against him. So the court said, okay you undress I will see ithere are bite marks or scratches. Accused said “No if I will undress and if you wisee bite marks and scratches, I will be becoming a witness against myself.

Can he

be asked to remove his clothes?

Again, go to the g uidelines. Removing of clothes, isthat a purely mechanical act or does that involve intelligence or imagination. Coursaid, you can be forced to remove your clothes. That is not a violation of your right.


9/19




Page 9 of 19 ~2016~

Paraffin Test. Diba to know if ikaw ang nagbaril, naa man nay mga certainchemicals that the police used. Can they force you to go to a paraffin test to see ifyou were actually the one who use the handgun? Yes. Because they are notsubjecting you to use your intelligence or imagination. That is

a purely mechanical

act.

CHAVEZ V. CA.Accused here was charged with theft of a motorcycle. The prosecution called theaccused to the witness stand. The judge said okay you can take the witness standand you can only refuse to answer if and when the question becomeincriminating. The accused questioned that. SC said, the accused can altogetherrefuse to take the witness stand because that will be a violation of his rightagainst self incrimination.

USE IMMUNITY V. TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY 1.

TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY, this is the type of immunity grantedwhen if the person is compelled to testify is now (inaudible)to anyliability or the acts under investigation. So if we say transactionalimmunity, just take note, it is an immunity granted wherein a personwho is compelled to testify, diba you cannot be compelled to testifyagainst yourself but if you are granted with immunity, it depends onthe type of immunity. In transactional immunity, the person is nowcompelled to testify but he is free from any and all liability for acts

under investigation. This is granted by the person whose testimony isnecessary and he is now immune from criminal prosecution for anyoffense.

Examples for this are:a)

the Social Justice in Human Rights. The Commission on humanRights can grant immunity.

b) An Act declaring forfeiture in favor of the state.c) The anti-graft and corrupt practices act.

2.

USE AND PROOF IMMUNITY is the type of immunity where a personis forced to testify and answer intimidating questions but thoseanswers cannot be used against him, only what he said but pwedeang other evidence can still be used against him. That is use and proofimmunity. However, he is not free altogether from the liability if thereare other evidences not based on his testimony . Meaning for use andproof immunity, only his testimony, diba he was compelled to testify,what he testified cannot be used against him but others pwede.

Example: A, B, C and D are accused and D is the state witness, if D is granted

use and proof immunity. This testimony cannot be used in any matterwith the criminal prosecution in that particular case and thistestimony cannot be used to convict him but this does not mean thathe cannot be convicted because it is only his testimony that cannot beused, other evidences can still be used against him. So broader gyudang transactional immunity, ang use immunity kadtong what you said,what you testified mao ra to ang dili pwede magamit. Okay!

Review on Privilege against Self-Incrimination : It only applies to compulsorytestimonial self-incrimination and does not include purely mechanical acts

X)

RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

SECTION 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy

disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or

administrative bodies.

This is not a repetition of right to speedy trial under Sec. 14. One of the 10 trialrights of the accused includes the right to a speedy trial. Why is it reflected againin Sec. 16?

If you look at it, Sec. 16 is broader than the right to speedy trial. Why? It is becauseSec. 14 only refers to cases during trial stage. Whereas, section 16 on the right to

speedy disposition of cases does not only apply to criminal cases. It even applieto judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. The right to speedy dispositionof cases, is not only available during trial, but in any stage or in all phases of theproceedings. So this provision is broader. That’s why you also have pertinenconstitutional provisions concerning the right to speedy disposition of cases thaare not only found in the Bill of Rights, but throughout the Constitution. Examplegiven, the ff provisions:

Art. 8 SECTION 15.

1)

All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be

decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submissionfor the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve

months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lowe

courts.

2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution

upon the filing of the last pending, brief, or memorandum required by the

Rules of Court or by the court itself.

3)

Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this

effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be

issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter

and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or

resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.

4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court

without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in

consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted

thereto for determination, without further delay.

Art. 7, SECTION 18, PAR. 3

The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the

sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of

the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision

thereon within thirty days from its filing.

Also, the Constitutional Commissions have their respective mandatory deadlineSo if you look at it, in the cases before the

SUPREME COURT 24 mos

LOWER COLLEGIATE COURTS 12 mos LOWER COURTS 3 mos from the time they

submitted for decision

Again, delays are allowed because of certain reasons. You have to know how longthe delay is, or the reason, malay mo nagkasakit yung judge; or the invocation othe accused, ‘diba, this right is waivable. If the accused does not invoke his right, i

is deemed waive. And the prejudice caused by the delay of the case. Just takenote of the mandatory periods.

These periods are mandatory for the judges; but for the judges, it is merelydirectory. Meaning, if nilampas let’s say, for 12 months. IS the decision no longevalid? The decisions are still valid even if rendered outside of the periods. SC saidthat speedy disposition is characterized as one which is free from vexatiousoppressive, or inordinate delays.

DIMARUCUT V. PEOPLE Criminal case convicting him of frustrated homicide. He asked for time to file briefWala nakafile ug brief. When you’re on appeal, the higher court will ask you tomake of an appellant’s brief. It’s actually a summary of all your arguments in

support of your petition. In this case, he asked for several extensions of time to filebrief citing several reasons, syempre nadugay. In this case, I think it’s more on thegross negligence of counsel. In this case, the party blame his lawyer for the loss othe case. HELD: To constitute negligence as a violation of your right, it must nobe mere simple negligence, but gross negligence on part of the counsel. For aclaim of counsel’s gross negligence to prosper nothing short of clea

abandonment of the clients cause must be shown. Here, petitioners counsel failed

to file the appellants brief. While this omission can plausibly qualify as simple

negligence, it does not amount to gross negligence to justify the annulment of the

proceeding below.

ANGELES V. SEMPIO-DIY


10/19




Page 10 of 19 ~2016~

Case of two judges. Here, It is the stance of the complainant that Judge SempioDiy merely sat on the cases for an unreasonable length of time and failed toresolve them within the constitutionally prescribed 90-day period thereby violatingthe right to speedy disposition of cases. HELD: There was a clear violation of theright to speedy disposition of cases. But again, according to Rule 3.05, Canon 3 ofthe Code of Judicial Conduct, really admonishes all judges to dispose of thecourt's business promptly and decide cases within the period specified under theConstitution. IF you are not able to decide the case within the mandatory periods,you will be subject to disciplinary proceedings. But in most jurisprudence that I’veread, usually they’re just admonished, not really terminated from service. In this

case, respondent Judge Sempio Diy was ADMONISHED to be more circumspectin observing the reglementary period for disposing of motions.

RAYMUNDO V. ANDOY Here, this is a BP 22 case, a hearing on the Motion for Reconsideration. Here, itwas always delayed and reset to further dates. Here, the problem was, BP 22 fallsunder the Rules on Summary Procedure--- What do you mean by that? Summary?Diba with dispatch, fast. And because it was delayed for so long, it went againstthe nature of the proceeding which is supposed to be fast, and yet, because of thedelays, the judge was not able to sign it within the 30-day reglamentary periodafter the last pleading was filed. HELD: The Constitution mandates that all casesor matters filed before all lower courts shall be decided or resolved within 90 daysfrom the time the case is submitted for decision. Judges are enjoined to disposeof the courts business promptly and expeditiously and to decide cases within theperiod fixed by law. Failure to comply with the mandated period constitutes a

serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition oftheir cases a lapse that undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the

judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute. This constitutional policyis reiterated in Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requiresa judge to dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within therequired periods.

XI)

. SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE

A.

What acts cannot be criminalized?

1.

Mere beliefs and aspirations (Sec. 18, p.1)2.

Debts and Civil Obligations (Sec. 20)3.

Acts which when done were innocent (Ex-post Facto Laws; Se c. 22)

SECTION 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

This is included in freedom of thought similar to Freedom of Religion. Freedom tobelieve is absolute, but freedom to act based on such belief is subject to Stateregulations. Because of Sec. 18, just because you engender some political beliefor aspiration, you cannot be detained or imprisoned SOLELY---the word there isSOLELY, if you just believe, it’s okay but if you act upon such belief, that’s anotherstory. Just like if you are a political prisoner, you cannot be detained solely forwhat you believed in. Actually, if you are a member of the communist party of thePhilippines, that in itself alone na communista ka, you cannot be detained solelybecause of that. Like in your criminal law 2, in rebellion, once you act based uponyour belief, now that’s another story. That’s why the RA 1700 was already

repealed. Under this Anti-Subversion Law, mere membership is already punished.But this is already repealed because it violates several constitutional provisionssuch as Sec. 18.

SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-

payment of a poll tax

The meaning of debt here is contractual obligation that is civil obligation. Incommon parlance we here “Ah, wala ma’y makulong sa utang”. That’s what it’s

meant. This section 20. Is that true? Yes, actually. I used to be counsel for certaincredit card companies. Some people ask me “Atty. Why am I imprisoned…” Diba,when you have a credit card, and you don’t pay, usually the credit card companies

through the lawyers, send demand letters and we warn them that they can beimprisoned. Is that true? Yes, partly. Because under the Access RegulationsDevice Act, if you have not declared that you changed your address, that creates apresumption that you are running away from the Credit Card Company. How will

they send you the bill when you’ve already changed your address? That can be aground for imprisonment.

LOZANO V. MARTINEZ

He was convicted for violation of BP22. He challenged said law because he saidthat diba “I have a loan from you, as payment I issued to you a check. Isulod ang

check after 1 month. But when the creditor puts it in the bank, it was dishonoredfor having been withdrawn against insufficient funds”. Some people call it DAIF o

its drawn against closed account. So here, Lozano challenged it saying “Am I no

being imprisoned here, for failing to pay my debt?” HELD: Not a violation. WhyUnder BP 22, you are not being imprisoned or charged because you did not pay adebt. But the gravamen of the offense is the issuance of worthless checksRemember, checks are not mere contracts, but are commercial instrumentswhich the public and the banking system has the right to rely on. Because ofchecks, diba na smoothen ang business transactions, and if you issue worthlesschecks, that will of course affect the commercial or business transactions. That iswhy, under BP 22, you are not imprisoned because you did not pay a debt, bubecause you issued a worthless check.

RE: POLL TAX This refers to residence certificates-yang cedula. You can get thafrom your city hall, sa inyong barangay. But you cannot be imprisoned fornonpayment of polltax.

AGBANLOG V. PEOPLE

Malversation. If you are a public officer charged with the custody of public fundsand you failed to account for that, there is a presumption that you have malversedthe public funds. That is one exemption from presumption of innocence undeSec. 14.

PEOPLE V. NITAFAN Again, BP 22 but this involves a memorandum check. Basically, it is still a checkbut says that the drawer has to pay the payor without any other condition. It’s stil

a check because it is still drawn against the drawee bank. Diba ang check angessence is to tell the bank to pay you. I am the drawer, I will pay you. The draweeis the bank. I will tell the bank to tell the payor. It’s not merely a promissory note

which is basically an “I owe you, and I will pay you soon” which may or may not be

notarized. But in a memorandum check, it’s still a check and still a violation of BP

22. Will this violate section 20? NO. because it only involves civil obligations.

VERGARA V. GEDORIO

Petitioners here are tenants of property. They were cited in contempt for failure toheed the order of the court to pay monthly rentals. They said that they did noknow where to pay the rentals. Despite that the court ordered them to pay a fineand undergo imprisonment until and unless they comply with the orders of thecourt. Violation of Section 20? HELD: . Debt, as used in the Constitution, refers tocivil debt or one not arising from a criminal offense; it means any liability to payarising out of a contract, express or implied. They payment of rentals is coveredby the constitutional guarantee against imprisonment. Just take note of debt andcivil obligations: it only involves obligations that are civil in nature and cannot beinvoked against the State.

SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be

enacted.

2 conceptsa)

Ex post Facto Law

b)

Bill of Attainder

An EXPOST FACTO LAW among others is one which changes the penalty andinflicts a greater punishment than what the law provides annex to the crime whencommitted. There are six instances wherein the SC said that it is an expost factolegislation.

1)

makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and whichwas innocent when done, and punishes such an act;

2)

aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;3)

changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the lawannexed to the crime when committed;

4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less odifferent testimony than the law required at the time of the commissionof the offense;


11/19




Page 11 of 19 ~2016~

5)

assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only , in effect imposespenalty or deprivation of a right for something which when done waslawful; and

6)

deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which hehas become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction oracquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.

Essentially, it is a criminal law with a retroactive effect that is prejudicial to theaccused. It is a law which makes an act criminal when at the time it wascommitted it was not yet criminal. But because of that law, I am prosecuted forviolation of such law.

Example

:A law which prohibits urinating in sidewalks. And then my neighbor saw meurinating last week; and there’s a law which provides “Those who will urinate in

public shall be imprisoned for 10years.” So my neighbor files a case against me.

That law is an expost facto law. Why? At the time that I committed it, it was notyet prohibited/crime.

SALVADOR V. MAPA President Fidel V. Ramos issued Administrative Order No. 13 creating thePresidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans. There was also aMemorandum No. 61 which fixed the functions of the committee on behest loans.

What is a behest loan? Diba, that AO 13 created to look at it. It’s basically a loangranted by the government at the behest of a certain previous government official.Several loan accounts were referred to the Committee for investigation, includingthe loan transactions between Metals Exploration Asia, Inc. (MEA), now PhilippineEagle Mines, Inc. (PEMI) and the Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP). Afterexamining and studying the documents relative to the loan transactions, theCommittee determined that they bore the characteristics of behest loans, asdefined under Memorandum Order No. 61 because the stockholders and officersof PEMI were known cronies of then President Ferdinand Marcos; the loan wasunder-collateralized; and PEMI was undercapitalized at the time the loan wasgranted. AO 13 is challenged for being an expost facto law. ‘

HELD: No. It was not a criminal law. The constitutional doctrine that outlaws an expost facto law generally prohibits the retrospective penal laws. Penal laws arethose acts of the legislature which prohibit certain acts and establish penalties fortheir violations; or those that define crimes, treat of their nature, and provide fortheir punishment. The subject administrative and memorandum orders clearly donot come within the shadow of this definition. Administrative Order No. 13 createsthe Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on Behest Loans, and providesfor its composition and functions. It does not mete out penalty for the act ofgranting behest loans. Memorandum Order No. 61 merely provides a frame of

reference for determining behest loans. Not being penal laws, Administrative Order No.

13 and Memorandum Order No. 61 cannot be characterized as ex post facto laws.

PEOPLE V. CASTA

The crime of murder was committed by Casta on August 20, 1989 which wasbefore the effectivity of Republic Act No. 7659 on December 31, 1993 amendingArticle 248 of the Revised Penal Code on murder, raising the penalty to RP todeath from RTMax-Death. Prior to its amendment the penalty for the crime ofmurder under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion temporal in itsmaximum period to death.

HELD: In light of the greater penalty that attaches under the amendment, theprevious penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death will have tobe imposed in order not to run afoul of the constitutional prohibition against expost facto laws. Under Section 22 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no expost facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. An ex post facto law, amongothers, is one that changes the penalty and inflicts a greater punishment than whatthe law annexed to the crime when committed - the situation that would obtain if theamendment under Republic Act No. 7659 would be applied.

NASI-VILLAR V. PEOPLE Illegal recruitment occurred in 1993. There was a law RA8042 which criminalizes illegal recruitment. But this only took effect in 1995.However, illegal recruitment was already punished here under the Labor Code.Take note, it is not an expost facto law if it applies prospectively.

BILL OF ATTAINDER: It is basically a legislative act which inflicts punishmenwithout judicial trial. It is a law saying na this is your punishment, without any trial

What the characteristics? LLP

(1)

Their convictions or sentences pronounced by the legislative departmeninstead of the judicial department

(2)

The sentenced pronounced or the punishment inflicted is determined by no previous law or rule

(3)

That the investigation of the guilt of the accused if such was made is nogenerally conducted in his presence

Elements

(1) There’s a law imposing a penal burden to a certain individual or easilyascertainable members of a group

(2)

That the penal burden is imposed directly by law without judicial trial

Example:For all those who urinate in public, automatically if you’re caught, you’reimprisoned for 10 years. That violates the very essence of separation of powersThat is a bill of attainder. The judiciary is supposed to impose thepenalty/punishment upon you, not the legislative branch.

PEOPLE V. FERRER

This involves the membership in CPPNPA. However in this case, I don’t like thiscase very much because the SC upheld the validity of the Anti-Subversion ActAgain, this was already repealed. But here, this was upheld and put there severaqualifications. Because under this law, you can be punished if you knowinglybecome

constilaw ii transcription

Documents