CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II REVIEWER

CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY
Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty and property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
I.

Bill of Rights: Protection against abuse of power

The Bill of Rights constitutionally limits governmental power.

II.

Police Power
Inherent power of the state which enables it to prohibit all things hurtful
to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.

Power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make laws, not

repugnant to the Constitution, for the good and welfare of the
commonwealth and its subjects.

Subjects every right when it affects the execution of legitimate

governmental functions, the preservation of the state, public health and
welfare and public morals.

De la Cruz vs. Judge Paras

Gr. Nos. 42571-72 (1983)
A municipality cannot refuse to give any permit for night clubs and any license for professional
dancers since such an act is beyond mere regulation into prohibition of a profession or calling
which, properly regulated, can be legitimate.
Lim vs. Malate Tourist Dev. Corp
G.R. 118127
Mayor Lim cannot invoke police power in closing motels, saunas, etc. pursuant to the zoning
ordinance. These lawful establishments may be regulated, but not prevented from carrying on
their business. This is a sweeping exercise of police power, which amounts to an interference
into personal and private rights.
OSG vs Ayala Land, Inc., etc.
G.R. 177056 (2009)
The State cannot invoke police power in totally prohibiting mall owners from collecting
parking fees from the public for the use of the mall parking facilities. Police power is usually
exerted in order to merely regulate the use and enjoyment of property. The power to regulate,
however, does not include the power to prohibit and to confiscate. The prohibition against the
mall owners collection of parking fees is already tantamount to a taking or confiscation.

Professional Regulation Commission vs. De Guzman

G.R. No. 144681, June 21, 2004
The state, through the Board of Medicine and Professional Regulation Commission, regulate
the admission to and practice of medicine. This is to protect the public from the potentially
effects of incompetence and ignorance in the field of medicine.
Metro-Manila Development Authority vs Garin
G.R. No. 130230, April 15, 2005
The MMDA cannot invoke police power in the confiscation and suspension or revocation of
drivers licenses in the enforcement of traffic laws and regulations pursuant to Sec 5(f) of
Republic Act No. 7924. The said law does not grant MMDA with police power, let alone
legislative power. Thus, in the absence of an ordinance from the City of Makati, MMDAs
order to open the street was invalid.

Requisites of police power; 1) there must be public interest warranting the

interference of the State. 2) the means employed to attain the objective are
reasonably necessary and not unduly oppressive upon individuals.

Lucena Grand Terminal vs. JAC Liner

G.R. 148339 (2005)
Lucena Ordinance No. 1631, with the objective of relieving traffic congestion in Lucena, is
unconstitutional because it only allows one common terminal located outside the city proper.
Other common carriers plying routes to and from Lucena are compelled to close down their
existing terminals. This ordinance suffers overbreadth since it goes beyond what is reasonably
necessary to solve the traffic problem.
III. Due Process Clause
The constitutional right against arbitrary laws and the guarantee of procedural
fairness
A law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry and
renders judgment only after trial.
Strike but hear me first (Ynot vs Intermediate Appellate Court, 148 SCRA 659)
An opportunity to be hear or , an opportunity to explain ones side or
opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of
Substantive due process
o Must be a guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary power even
when the power is exercised according to proper forms and
procedure

o A constitutional right against arbitrary laws

o Refers to the intrinsic the intrinsic validity of a law that interferes
with the rights of a person to his life, liberty or property (Republic
vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 152154, Nov. 18, 2003)
Procedural due process
o A guarantee of procedural fairness
o Contemplates notice and opportunity to be heard before judgment
is rendered (Lopez v Director of Lands, 47 Phil. 23, 32)
o Means compliance with the procedures or steps, even periods,
prescribed by the statute, in conformity with the standard of fair
play and without arbitrariness on the part of those who are called
upon to administer it (Republic vs. Marcos, G.R. No. 152154, Nov. 18,
2003)
o Two aspects of procedural due process:
a. Procedural due process in judicial proceedings
b. Procedural due process in administrative proceedings
o Requisites of procedural due process in judicial proceedings:
a. An impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to
hear and determine the matters before it;
b. Jurisdiction properly acquired over the person of the
defendant and over the property which is the subject of the
proceeding;
c. The defendant must be given opportunity to be heard; and
d. Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing and based on
evidence adduced (Banco Espanol Filipino vs. Palanca, G.R. No.
L-11390, March 26, 1918).
Administrative due process
a. Right to hearing - includes right to present ones case and
submit
evidence to support thereof;
b. Tribunal or body or any of its judges must act own
independent consideration of the law and facts of
controversy;
c. Tribunal must consider the evidence presented
d. Evidence must be substantial, which means relevant
evidence as a reasonable might accept as adequate support a
conclusion;
e. Decision must have something to support itself

f. Decision must be based on evidence presented during

hearing or at least contained in the record and disclosed by
the parties
g. Decision must be rendered in a manner that the parties can
know the various issues involved and the reason for the
decision rendered (Ang Tibay v. Commissioner of Internal
Revenue, G.R. No. L-46496, Feb 27, 1940)
Melendres vs. Presidential Anti-Graft Commission
G.R. No. 163859 (2012)
Due process does not always require a trial-type proceeding. In administrative proceedings, the
filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person charged constitutes the
minimum requirements of due process.
Due process in students disciplinary proceedings
o Students must be given opportunity to be given an opportunity to
be heard and defend themselves. It does not entail proceedings in
the courts of justice. The proceedings may be summary and crossexamination is not an essential part thereof. But these minimum
standards must be met:
a. Students must be informed in writing of the nature and
cause of any accusation against them;
b. They shall have the right to answer the charges against
them, with assistance of counsel if desired
c. They shall be informed of the evidence against them;
d. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their behalf;
e. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to
hear and decide the case (Guzman vs. National University, 142
SCRA 699)
Due process in forfeiture proceedings
Ong vs. Sandiganbayan
G.R. .126858 (2005)
In Cabal v. Kapunan, it was declared that forfeiture to the State of property of a public
official or employee partakes the nature of a penalty and proceedings for forfeiture of
property, although technically civil, are deemed criminal or penal. It was reiterated in
Katigbak v Solicitor General that forfeiture of property under RA 1379 is penal by
nature. Thus, respondent in forfeiture proceedings are entitled to the right to a
previous inquiry or proceeding similar to a preliminary investigation in criminal
proceedings.

 Void for vagueness rule

Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan

G.R. No. 148560 (2001)
When a statute forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ to its
application, that law must be void. Such statute violates due process because it denies
the accused the right to be informed of the charge against him.

People vs de la Piedra
G.R. No. 1211777, Jan. 24, 2001
Besides the failure to accord persons fair notice of the conduct avoid, a statute which is void for
vagueness is unconstitutional because it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying
out its provisions and become and arbitrary flexing of government muscle.
Due process in dismissal cases
First Phil. Industrial Corp. vs. Calimbas
G.R. No. 179256 (2013)
The employer must furnish the employee with two written notices before the termination of
employment can be effected: (1) the first notice apprises the employee of the particular acts or
omissions for which his dismissal is sought; (2) the second notice informs the employee of the
employers decision to dismiss him. Before the issuance of the second notice, the requirement of a
hearing must be complied with by giving the worker an opportunity to be heard. As a
requirement of substantive due process, the dismissal by the employer should be made under a
just or authorized cause under Articles 282 to 284 of the Labor Code.
Deoferio vs. Intel Technology Phils.
G.R. No. 202996 (2014)
To validly effect terminations of employment, the discharge must be for a valid cause
in a manner required by law. Substantive due process means that the termination
must be based on just and/or authorized causes of dismissal while procedural due
process requires the employer to dismiss an employee in a manner specified by the
Labor Code and its IRR.
IV. Equal Protection Clause
The equality guarantees the equality of persons under the law. Under it,
everyone is dealt with equally in the law, which does not treat the person
differently because of who he is or what she possesses.
No person or class of persons shall be deprived of the same protection of the
laws which is enjoyed by other persons or classes in the same place and in like
circumstances.

 Requisites of valid classification (SNAG):

1. Such classification rests upon substantial distinctions;
2. It is not confined to existing conditions only;
3. It applies equally to all members of the same class;
4. It is germane to the purposes of the law (People vs. Cayat, No. 45987, May 5,
1939)
Tests determining compliance with the equal protection clause:
1. Minimum or rational basis test the guaranty of equal protection of the
laws is not violated by legislation based on reasonable classification related
to serving a state interest.
2. Strict Scrutiny Test requires government to show that the challenged
classification serves a compelling state interest and that the classification is
necessary to serve that interest.
3. Intermediate or middle-tier scrutiny test requires government to show
that the challenged classification serves an important state interest and that
the classification is at least substantially related to serving that interest
______________________________________________________________________________
SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or
things to be seized.
I.
Searches and seizures
Unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of
arrest.
Requisites for a valid warrant:
1. It must be issued upon PROBABLE CAUSE.
2. The existence of probable cause is determined personally by the JUDGE.
3. The judge must EXAMINE UNDER OATH the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce.
4. The warrant must PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE the place to be searched and
person or things to be seized.

Probable Cause
o For the issuance of a warrant of arrest-Probable cause refers to such facts
and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent

man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought
to be arrested.
o For the issuance of a search warrant-Probable cause would mean such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the
objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be
searched.
Probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant does NOT require that the
probable guilt of a specific offender be established, unlike in the case of a warrant
of arrest.
Existence of probable cause DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY THE JUDGE.

Soliven v. Makasiar
167 SCRA 394
The judge is NOT required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. What the
Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to
satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause
Procedure:
1. The judge personally evaluates the report and supporting documents submitted
by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof,
issue a warrant of arrest or
2. If on the basis thereof, the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses
to aid him in arriving at the conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION (SEARCH WARRANT)
1. A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized
when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily
allow or,
2. When the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the
warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure or,
3. When the things described are limited to those which bear a direct relation to
the offensefor which the warrant is being issued (Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA
823).

JOHN DOE WARRANT

People v. Veloso
48 Phil. 159
A John Doe warrant can satisfy the requirement of particularity of description if it contains
a descriptio personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused.

GENERAL WARRANT
o A general warrant is one that does not allege any specific acts or omissions
constituting the offense charged in the application for the issuance of the
warrant. It contravenes the explicit demand of the Bill of Rights that the
things to be seized be particularly described.
VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH
o Search made as an incident to lawful arrest
A. An officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested:
1. Any money or property found upon his person which was used in
the commission of the offense or
2. Was the fruit thereof or
3. Which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing
violence or escaping or
4. Which may be used in evidence in the trial of the case
*The search must be made simultaneously with the arrest and it may
only be made in the area within the reach of the person arrested
o Search of moving vehicles
A. This exception is based on exigency. Thus, if there is time to obtain a
warrant in order to search the vehicle, a warrant must first be
obtained.
B. The search of a moving vehicle must be based on probable cause.
o Seizure of goods concealed to avoid customs duties/authorized under the
Tariffs and Customs Code
A. The Tariffs and Customs Code authorizes persons having police
authority under the Code to effect search and seizures without a
search warrant to enforce customs laws.
B. Exception: A search warrant is required for the search of a dwelling
house.
C. Searches under this exception include searches at borders and ports of
entry. Searches in these areas do not require the existence of probable
cause.
o Seizure of evidence in plain view
A. To be a valid warrantless search, the articles must be open to the eye
and hand.
B. The peace officer comes upon them inadvertently.
o Waiver of right
Requisites of a valid waiver:
1. The right exists.
2. The person had actual or constructive knowledge of the existence of such
right.
3. There is an actual intention to relinquish such right.

4. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right.

Thus, only the person being searched can waive the same.
5. Waiver requires a positive act from the person. Mere absence of
opposition is not a waiver.
6. The search made pursuant to the waiver must be made within the scope of
the waiver.
Note:
Checkpoints: as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants
subjected to a body search and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a
visual search = valid search (Valmonte V. De Villa)
Carroll rule: warrantless search of a vehicle that can be quickly moved out of
the locality or jurisdiction
The 1987 Constitution has returned to the 1935 rule that warrants may be
issued only by judges, but the Commissioner of Immigration may order the
arrest of an alien in order to carry out a FINAL deportation order.
VALID WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
1. When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is about to commit an offense in the presence of the arresting officer.
2. When an offense has in fact just been committed and the arresting
officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it.
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.
o Hot pursuit
A. The pursuit of the offender by the arresting officer must be continuous
from the time of the commission of the offense to the time of the arrest.
B. There must be no supervening event which breaks the continuity of
the chase.
o Stop and frisk
When a policeman observes suspicious activity which leads him to believe that
a crime is about to be committed, he can investigate the suspicious looking
person and may frisk him for weapons as a measure of self-protection. Should
he find, however, a weapon on the suspect which is unlicensed, he can arrest
such person then and there for having committed an offense in the officers
presence.
o Waiver of an invalid arrest
- When a person who is detained applies for bail, he is deemed to have
waived any irregularity which may have occurred in relation to his arrest.
-

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

Who can invoke?
ARTIFICIAL PERSONS: Yes
ALIENS: Yes
MINORS: Yes

______________________________________________________________________________
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires
otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
I. Invasion of communication and correspondence
one kind of search
SIR SEDILLO NOTES
Who can invoke:
MINORS: Yes, subject to parental authority
ARTIFICIAL PERSONS: No
ALIENS: Yes
SPOUSES: Yes (The case of Zuluete vs. CA, Syllabus, P. 53)

* This right can only be

invoked agaisnt
government

WRIT OF HABEAS DATA- is remedy available to any person whose right to

privacy, life liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act of
omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
engaged in the gathering, collecting,storing of date or information regarding
the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrevied party.

Vivares vs. St. Theresaa College

GR. NO. 202666 (2014)
There was no violation of the right to the privacy in the ife, liberty or security of the minors, thus
in this case the minor was not entitled to the writ of Habeas Data. The St. Theresaa College got
access to the post of the monor through legitimate source therefore, clearly did not violate the
petitioners daughters right to privacy.

II. Exclusionary rule

This exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally obtained evidence and is
applicable to evidence under sections 2 and 3(1). The inadmissibility of the
evidence, however, does not mean that it must be returned where it came from.
(ex contraband).
The evidence must be obtained by the government agents and not by private
individuals acting on their own
______________________________________________________________________________
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, PRESS & EXPRESSION
Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or
of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble AND petition the
government for redress of grievances.

And speech may be said to be inextricably linked

to freedom itself as the right to think is the
beginning of freedom and speech must be
protected from the government because speech is
the beginning of thought.

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

FACIAL CHALLENGE is to avert the
chilling effect on protected speech, the
exercise of which should not at all times
be abridged.

Freedom of expression means that there are limits

to the power of the government to impose rules or
regulations curtailing the freedom of speech and
of the press.

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

Who can invoke:
CORPORATIONS: Limited
ALIENS: Limited (does not include political
speech)
ASSEMBLIES: No

I. Freedom of Speech and Press: prior restraint and subsequent punishment

Prior restraint: official government restrictions on the press or other forms of
expression in advance of actual publication or dissemination
Subsequent restraint: limitation of the state to impose subsequent
punishment

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

Previous restraint on censorship:
(1) Governmental acts that required approval of a proposal to publish; (2) Licensing or permits
as prerequisites to publication including the payment of license taxes for privilege to publish;
(3) injunctions to publication; (4) closure of business and printing offices of certain
newspapers resulting in the discontinuation of their printing and publication.

CONTENT-BASED
Regulation based on the subject
matter of the utterance

- Clear and present danger rule;

Easier to strike down since SC presumes
unconstitutionality

CONTENT-NEUTRAL
- Concerned with incidents of
speech or one that merely controls
the time, place, or manner, and
under well-defined standards
- Only substantial government
interest is required
- Uses intermediate approach:
The courts require that the restrictions be
narrowly-tailored to promote an
important or significant governmental
interest that is unrelated to the
suppression of expression.
Requisites:
1. Within constitutional power of
the government;
2. Furthers important or
substantial governmental
interest;
3. Governmental interest is
unrelated to suppression of free
speech;
4. Incidental restriction on
freedom of expression is no
greater than is essential to the
furtherance of that interest.

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

FREEDOM TO BE HEARD
INCLUDEDS FREEDOM TO HEAR.

Prior restraint and the press

Near v. Minnesota
Allowed the state to obtain an injunction against the continued publication of any newspaper or
magazine after finding that such has been a public nuisance through regular publishing of
malicious, scandalous and defamatory.
New York Times v. United States
NYT published excerpt from a classified Pentagon Study. SCOTUS ruled, Any system
of prior restraints of expressions comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption that
against its constitutional validity. Thus the government has the burden of showing
justification of such a restraint. In this case, the government was not able to do so and a
win for the press.

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS
(SCOTUS)
1.
2.
3.
4.

MEDIUM
PRINT MEDIA
BROADCAST MEDIA
MOVIES/PUBLIC SHOWS
ELECTRONIC MEDIA

Prior restraint, movies and electronic media

1.
2.
3.
4.

CONTENT
NEWS REPORT
POLITICAL SPEECHES (OPINION ON
ANY MATTER)
RELIGIOUS SPEECHES
COMMERCIAL SPEECH

Santiago v. Far Eastern Broadcasting

73 Phil. 408 (1941)
Police power was used to justify prior submission of speeches to allow regulations. SC said,
[a] speech that may endanger the public safety may be censored and disapproved for
broadcasting.

Far Eastern Broadcasting v. Dans, Jr.

137 SCRA 682 (1985)
The clear and present danger rule was applied. The need for licensing was for proper allocation of
airwaves, not regulation of broadcast.

Media and judicial process

Secretary of Justice v. Sandiganbayan

A.M. No. 01-4-03-SC, 29 June 2001
Coverage of former Pres. Estradas trial was not allowed to protect the parties right to due
process, to prevent the distraction of the participants in the proceedings and to avoid miscarriage
of justice.

Media and privacy

Ayer Productions v. Capulong

160 SCRA 861 (1988)
Issue: Is producers assertion to use the names of Juan Ponce Enrile and his family in the film
The Four Days Revolutions under freedom of expression? Held: Yes, the producer can use the
names since Enrile is a public figure.

Freedom of speech is not absolute.

o The following tests are also applicable to freedom of association, right of
assembly and petition; freedom of religion:
o Dangerous tendency
A clear connection between the speech and the evil apprehended

The constitutionality of the statute is questioned whether or not it is

reasonable

o Clear and present danger rule

A question of proximity and degree
Justice Learned Hand, whether the gravity of the evil, discounted
by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech as is
necessary to avoid the danger.
o Balancing of interests
Justice Castro, where the legislation under constitutional attack
interferes with freedom of speech and assembly in terms of the
probability of realization of a specific danger is not susceptible even
of impressionistic calculation.
It is difficult to determine on its face value whether a statute
interferes with freedom of speech and assembly.

Constitutional guarantee in action: seditious speech

o Seditious speech is not PROTECTED under this clause.

Espuelas v. People
90 Phil 524 (1951)
Espuelas left a suicide letter and it was deemed as seditious speech. The court said, The letter is
a scurrilous libel against the Government. It calls our government one of crooks and dishonest
persons (dirty) infested with Nazis and Fascists, i.e. dictators.

Constitutional guarantee in action: seditious speech; Contempt of court by

publication

o Legal opinions on legal questions pending in Courts is guaranteed by the

Constitution as long as done in good faith.
Purifying the electoral process
ABS-CBN v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 133486. 28 JANUARY 2000
It was held that holding of exit polls and disseminating them are essential parts of the freedom of
speech and of the press. Exit polls which are properly conducted and publicized can be vital tools
for eliminating the evils of election-fixing and fraud.
SWS v. COMELEC
G.R. No. 147571. 5 MAY 2000
It was held that Sec 5.4 of RA 9006 (Fair Election Act) was invalid since it was a form of prior
restraint.

Commercial speech
o Communication whose sole purpose is to propose a commercial
transaction.
o Is not afforded the same protection as core speeches i.e. political
speeches

1.
2.
3.
4.

Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commissions

447 US 557 (1980)
Requirements for the protection of commercial speech:
The speech must not be false or misleading or proposing an illegal activity;
The governmental interest sought to be served by the regulation must be
substantial;
The regulation must directly advance the government interest;
The regulation must not be overboard.

Unprotected speech: libel

o LIBEL IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH
o There is libel when the imputation is public and malicious.
o In Philippine jurisprudence, every defamatory imputation is presumed
malicious.
o However, public officials need to prove that there is actual malice to
recover damages of the alleged libel.
o There is a wide latitude for criticisms made against: (a) public officials in
the performance of their public duties; (b) public figures on matters of
public interest.
o Elements of libel:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Allegation of a discreditable act or condition concerning another;

Publication of the charge;
Identity of the person defamed;
Existence of malice.

Unprotected speech: obscenity

o OBSCENITY IS NOT PROTECTED SPEECH
o Obscenity is something offensive to chastity, decency, or delicacy.
a. Indecency is an act against good behavior and a just delicacy.
o Roth-Alberts opinion on the test of obscenity:
1. Appeal to prurient interest must be measured by the effect of the work
not on susceptible persons but on the average person;
2. The material must exceed the limits of tolerance imposed by
contemporary standards of the community with respect to freedom of
expression in matters concerning sex;
3. The material must be judged by its dominant theme as a whole and not
by isolated passage;
4. Mere advocacy of a behavior which is immoral by contemporary
standards is also constitutionally protected, provided that such
advocacy is not itself obscene and does not amount to incite to
immediate illegal action.
Miller v. California
413 US 15 (1973)

Basic guidelines:
(1) Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that
the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.

(2) Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct
specifically defined by the applicable law.
(3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific
value.

Miscellany on Freedom of Expression

o In general, content of billboards, whether built on private or public
property, are under strict clear and present danger rule if it deals with
political or religious matters.

Assembly and petition

o Right to assemble is not subject to prior restraint
o Government employees cannot STRIKE (mass movement or action)
a. Civil service does not deprive them of their freedom of expression.
It is only regulated.
SIR SEDILLO NOTES
HECKLERS VETO: suppression of
speech by government because of
violent reaction of hecklers
Pre-emptive strike
e.x. CAPTIVE AUDIENCE
DOCTRINE: no choice but to listen

HILL v. COLORADO
530 US 703, 735 (2000)
Under this statute, absolutely no channel of communication is foreclosed. No speaker is
silenced. And no message is prohibited.
______________________________________________________________________________
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be
allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
I. Free exercise clause
Guarantees the free exercise of religion.

Freedom to believeabsolute; the government, while it may look into the

good faith of a person, cannot inquire into a persons religious pretensions.
Freedom to actsubject to government regulation.
Every violation of the free exercise clause involves compulsion whereas a
violation of the non-establishment clause need not involve compulsion.
The purpose of the prohibition of religious tests is to render the government
powerless to restore the historically and constitutionally discredited policy
of probing religious beliefs by test oaths or limiting public offices to persons
who have, or profess to have a belief in some particular kind of religious
concept.
Iglesia ni Kristo v. Gironella
Where a judge referred to the interest of Iglesia ni Kristo members in a case as gimmickry,
the court saw violation of free exercise. No one, much less a public official, is privileged to
characterize the actuation of its adherents in a derogatory sense.
American Bible v. City of Manila
The State cannot require a license for the dissemination of religious literature, unless the
dissemination is done as a business operation for profit.
Gillete v. US
The right to vote may yield to the right to free exercise of religion.
Victoriano v. Elizalde Rope Workers Union
The free exercise of religious profession or belief is superior to contract rights.

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

The Flag Salute Law, requiring compulsory participation by public school students in flag ceremonies,
violate the free exercise clause saying that freedom of religion requires that protesting members be
exempted from the operation of the law. (Ebralinag v. Division Superintendent of Schools of Cebu)

II.

The non-establishment clause

Intended to erect a wall of separation between Church and State.
The State cannot :
1. set up a church
2. pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion
over the other
3. openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religious organizations
or groups and vice versa

Requisites for government aid to be allowable:

1. It must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. It must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion;
3. It must not require excessive entanglement with recipient institutions.

Ecclesiastical affair
o One that concerns doctrine, creed or form or worship of the church, or the
adoption and enforcement within a religious association of needful laws and
regulations for the government of the membership, and the power of
excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of membership

Exceptions to the non-establishment clause

A. Nondiscriminatory concessions: tax exemptions & chaplaincies
Sec. 28(3) of Art. 6 Charitable institutions, churches and personages
or convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and
all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes shall
be exempt from taxation.
B. Religion in Public Schools
Sec. 29(2) of Art. 6 c. Sec. 3(3) of Art. 14 At the option expressed in
writing by the parents or guardians, religion shall be allowed to be
taught to their children or wards in public elementary and high schools
within the regular class hours by instructors designated or approved by
the religious authorities of the religion to which the children or wards
belong, without additional cost to the Government.

Board of Education v. Everson

The Everson Court upheld a statute authorizing local districts to reimburse parents of
Catholic school children for the cost of bus transportation to and from parochial school.
Manosca v. CA
The expropriation of the birthplace of Felix Manalo, founder of Iglesia ni Kristo, for the
purpose of preserving it as a historical landmark, was upheld as for public use and any
benefits that would reap the adherents of Iglesia would only be incidental to the public
historical purpose.
Garces v. Estenzo
There is nothing unconstitutional or illegal in holding a fiesta, as it is a socio-religious
affair, and having a patron saint for the barrio, then any activity intended to facilitate the
worship of the patron saint, such as the acquisition and display of his image, cannot be
branded as illegal.

Board of Education v. Allen, Lemon v. Kurtzman

Lending of secular textbooks to parochial school children and the grant of construction aid
for science buildings have been allowed.
Aglipay v. Ruiz
Issuance of religious commemorative stamps as giving merely incidental benefits to religion
is upheld.
School District v. Schempp
State sponsored Bible readings and prayers in public schools have been invalidated for
violations of Sec. 5.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
Salary payments and reimbursements for secular textbooks and other instructional materials
under a system involving close government supervision were invalidated.
Long and Almeria v. Basa
Religious practices which the government cannot encroach upon a church member who is
expelled from the membership by the church authorities, or a priest or minister who is by
them deprived of his sacred office, is without remedy in the civil courts, which will not
inquire into the correctness of the decisions of the ecclesiastical tribunals.
Taruc v. Bishop
The Court cannot entertain a complaint about an expulsion or excommunication from a
church.
School District v. Schempp
The non-establishment clause does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental
compulsion. It is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether
those laws operate directly to coerce non-observing individuals or not. The test of compliance
with the non-establishment clause can be stated as follows: What are the purposes and primary
effect of the enactment? If either is the advancement or inhibition of religion, the law violates the
non-establishment clause. Thus, in order for a law to comply with the non-establishment clause,
two requisites must be met. First, it has a secular legislative purpose. Second, its primary effect
neither advances nor inhibits religion. On the other hand, the free exercise of religion
clause withdraws from legislative power the exertion of any restraint on the free exercise of
religion. In order to show a violation of this clause, the person affected must show the coercive
effect of the legislation as it operates against him in the practice of his religion. While the
freedom to believe (non-establishment) is absolute, the moment such belief flows over into action,
it becomes subject to government regulation.

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

Who can invoke?
THEISTIC: Yes
NON-THEISTIC: No (Subject to
development in jurisprudence)
ALIENS: Yes, if theistic.

______________________________________________________________________________
ABODE AND TRAVEL
Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed
by law shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the
right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health, as may be provided by law.

I. Freedom of Movement: liberty of abode and travel

Section 6 includes two rights 1) Liberty of Abode & 2) Liberty to Travel.

Liberty of abode cannot be impaired without a lawful order of the court.
Liberty to travel may be impaired without court order but subject to restrictions
provided in the provision.

Villavicencio v. Lukban
39 Phil. 778, 786 (1919)
Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not chattels but Philippine citizens, protected by
the same constitutional guarantee of freedom of abode. They may not be compelled to change
their domicile in the absence of a law allowing such.
Marcos v. Manglapus*
177SCRA 168 (1989)
This case dealt with the ban of Pres. Aquino on former Pres. Marcos return to the Philippines.
The Court ruled that the right to travel guaranteed in the Constitution involves the right to
travel within the county, the right to leave the country, but not the right to return to the
country.

*The Court said that this case, being unique, should not create a precedent since it involved a
dictator forced out of office into exile after causing twenty years of political, economic and social
havoc in the country and who within the short span of three years seeks to return.
Leave Division of OCA vs. Heusden
A.M. No. P-11-2927 (2011)
Respondent, being a Staff Clerk IV of MTC in Tagum City, Davao del Norte, left for abroad
without waiting for the result of her leave application for foreign travel. Her departure violated
the OCA Circular for failing to secure the approval of her application for travel authority. The
Court ruled in favor of plaintiff and declared that, The exercise of a persons right to travel is
not absolute. There are constitutional, inherent and statutory limitations.
II. Aliens and right of entry

Aliens, unlike citizens, cannot claim the same right to travel.

International law dictates that it is within the sovereign power of every nation to
forbid the entrance of foreigners or admit them only in such cases and such
conditions as it may see fit to prescribe.
Norms for admission of aliens into the country are political matters virtually
beyond the reach of judicial review.

SIR SEDILLO NOTES:

Who can invoke the right of abode?
RESIDENT ALIEN: Yes
NON-RESIDENT ALIEN: Yes, but limited
MINOR: Yes, through parents
Who can invoke the right to travel?
RESIDENT ALIEN: Yes, but limited
NON-RESIDENT ALIEN: Yes, but limited
MNOR: Yes, through parents

______________________________________________________________________________

RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall
be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents and papers pertaining to
official acts, transactions or decisions, as well as to government research data used as
basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizens, subject to such
limitation as may be provided by law.
I. Right to information, access to public documents.
Three categories of information which are considered matters of public
concern (Chavez vs. Public Estates Authority)
a. Official records
-any document part of public records in custody of government officials or
officials
b. Documents and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions and decisions
of government agencies or officials
c. Government research data used in formulating policies
The right to information is not absolute.
Recognized limitations on the right to information:
a. National Security matters
-state secrets on military, diplomatic and other national security issues; intergovernmental exchanges prior to conclusion of treaties
b. Trade secrets and banking transactions
c. Criminal matters or classified law enforcement matters
d. Other confidential matters
-diplomatic correspondence, closed door Cabinet meetings and executive
sessions of Congress, and internal deliberations of the SC.
SIR SEDILLO NOTES
Who can invoke:
Filipino Citizens (taxpayers or non-taxpayers) Yes
Aliens - No

______________________________________________________________________________
RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to
law shall not be abridged.

I.

Right of Association
This does not include the right to compel others to form an association
The right to associate includes the right not to associate.
Government employees can form unions and associations
o But they have no right to strike, primarily because this leads to disruption of
public service. (GSIS vs KMG GR No. 170132 Dec 6, 2006)
o This also includes mass leaves and walkouts.
Closed-shop agreement is considered valid as it promotes group solidarity
and therefore a valid achievement of unionism.
To compel a lawyer to be a member of the Integrated Bar is not violative of his
constitutional freedom to associate.
In re Edillion
84 SCRA 554
Bar Integration does not compel the lawyer to associate with anyone, He is free to attend
or not to attend the meetings of his Integrated Bar Chapter or vote or refuse to vote in the
elections as he chooses. The only compulsion he has is payment of his annual dues, which
is to the States best interest.

The phrase For purposes not contrary to law is a built-in limitation of the right.
o All rights are subject to the inherent police power of the State
o Illegal organizations are those organized for the purpose of performing
acts that are contrary to law.
o Even if individuals group themselves and support causes that may be
inimical to the public, (such as Pro-divorce groups in the Philippines) so
long as their purpose is not contrary to law, it is a valid exercise of the
right to association.
SIR SEDILLO NOTES
Who can invoke?
ARTIFICIAL PERSONS: Yes, under
positive law
ALIENS: Yes, non-political
CSC Employees: Yes

______________________________________________________________________________

EMINENT DOMAIN
Section 9.
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.
I.

Power of eminent domain

The power of the state to take private property for public use upon payment of
just compensation.
Also known as the power of expropriation (that is govt buying private
property to be used publicly).
Primarily lodged in the national legislature. But can be validly delegated and
exercised to other govt entities (President, local legislative bodies, certain
public corporations, like NAPOCOR) even private companies serving essential
public needs or operates public utilities (PLDT or Bayantel).
ELEMENTS OF EMINENT DOMAIN.
1.) There is taking of private property
2.) The taking must be for public use;
3.) There must be just compensation.
EPZA vs. Dulay
Just compensation is the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private
owner by the expropriator. The property taken is assessed as to the time of the taking,
which usually coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings. Only
the judiciary has the right to ascertain whether or not the compensation was just

Eminent Domain is different from destruction from necessity in that the latter:
1.) property may be taken by private individuals;
2.) no need to convert taken property to public use;
3.) there is no requirement for just compensation
Questions of necessity or wisdom of the exercise of the power of expropriation
are essentially political and not usually subject to judicial review. But when these
questions are decided by a delegate of the national legislature (ex. Local city
council), the Supreme Court has assumed the power to inquire into it, whether
the delegated authority has been correctly or properly exercised, by looking into
the wisdom or necessity of the expropriation.
o Circumstances wherein eminent domain is subject to judicial review
1.) adequacy of compensation

2.) necessity of the taking and 3.) the public use character of the
purpose of the taking.
All real and personal, tangible and intangible properties can be subject to
expropriation except money and choses in action (Choses in action- personal
right not reduced into possession but recoverable by a suit at law ex. Right to
demand & recover a debt).
Property already devoted to public use is still subject to expropriation, as long as
it is done by Congress or under a specific grant of authority to the delegate. It
should be observed that the to-be expropriated property must be by its nature
and condition wholesome, as it is intended for public use. This differs from
property taken under police power, because the property destroyed, or sought to
be destroyed is noxious to the general welfare.
Res Judicata cannot bar the right of the state or its agent to expropriate private
property. (see, Munn. Of Paranaque vs. VM Realty Corp., Gr. No. 127820. Jule
20,1998, syllabus, p. 106)

______________________________________________________________________________
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF OBLIGATIONS & CONTRACTS
Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.
I.

Non-impairment Clause
When does a law impair the obligation of contracts?:
1) If it changes the terms and conditions of a legal contract either as to the time or
mode of performance.
2) If it imposes new conditions or dispenses with those expressed.
3) If it authorizes for its satisfaction something different from that provided in its
terms.
A mere change in PROCEDURAL REMEDIES which does not change the
substance of the contract, and which still leaves an efficacious remedy for
enforcement does NOT impair the obligation of contracts.
A valid exercise of police power is superior to obligation of contracts.
SIR SEDILLO NOTES
Who can invoke?
ARTIFICIAL PERSONS: Yes
ALIENS: Yes
FRANCHISES: No

______________________________________________________________________________
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Those protected under this section are low paid employees, domestic servants
and laborers. Courts also include quasi-judicial bodies.
Coverage of this provision are Indigent persons
o Note: indigent persons are those who have no property or source of income
sufficient for their support aside from their own labor through self supporting
when able to work and in employment. (Acar v. Rosal, L-21702, March 18, 1967)
o There are requirements to be considered indigent litigants.

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

Who may invoke?
FOUNDATIONS: No (See: Query of Mr. Prioreschi, A.M.
No. 09-6-9-sc, Aug. 10, 2009, Syllabus, p.114)
PAO CLIENTS: Yes, if qualified.
IBP LEGAL AID CLINICS- Yes, If qualified

Re-letter of PAO Acosta

A.M. No. 11-10-03-0 (2013)
Official and employees of PAO are allowed to serve summons, subpoena and other court process
in behalf of their clients under Sec. 3, Rule 14 of the Rules of court. Authorizing officials and
employees of PAO to serve summons, subpoena and other court process in behalf of their clients
would relieve the latter from paying for the sheriffs expenses despite their non-exemption from
the payment thereof under sec. 6 of R.A. No. 9406, because the exemption granted to PAOs
clients under the law does not extend to the payment of sheriffs expense; the exemption is
specifically limited to the payment of docket fees; i.e. docket and other fees incidental to
instituting an action.
______________________________________________________________________________
RIGHTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
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 a
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 in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, intimidation, or any other means which vitiates 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.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanction for violations of this section as
well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practice
and penalties.
SIR SEDILLO NOTES

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

The exception of section 12 is when

the suspect voluntarily confesses of
the crime committed.

When in doubt: in favor of the

accused.

Precedent cases:
Escobedo v. Illinois
378 US 478 (1964)
Spoke of custodial investigations
Custodial Investigation- The investigation is no longer a general inquiry into an unsolved crime
but has begun to focus on a particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police custody,
and the police carry out a process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting incriminating
statements.

The 1987 Constitution has separated the tradition right against

self-incrimination and placed it in Section 17. Section 12 is a
guarantee of the right to proper treatment of those under
investigation.

Constitutional procedures on custodial investigations do not

apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through
questioning by the authorities, but given in an ordinary manner
whereby the accused orally admits having committed the crime.

1.
2.
3.

4.
5.

6.

Miranda v. Arizona
348 US 436 (1966)
Enumerated the rights available:
The person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear and unequivocal
that he has a right to remain silent.
After being so informed, he must be told that anything he says can and will be
used against him in court.
He must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and
to have the lawyer with him during the interrogation. He does not have to ask
for a lawyer. The investigators should tell him that he has the right to counsel
at that point.
He should be warned that not only has he the right to consult with a lawyer
but also that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.
Even if the person consents to answer questions without the assistance of
counsel, the moment he asks for a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the
interrogation must cease until an attorney is present.
If the foregoing protections and warning are not demonstrated during the trial
to have been observed by the prosecution, no evidence obtained as a result of
the interrogation can be used against him.

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

Who can invoke?
ALIENS :Yes
POLICE INVITEES: Yes
FILIPINOS ABROAD : Yes

SIR SEDILLO NOTES:

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION:
1.
2.

The State is always involved through the agents dealing with peace and security.
The person of interest is already a suspect.

The constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a spontaneous

statement that is not elicited through questioning by authorities.

I.

Any person under investigation

It was established in Galman v. Pamaran, 138 SCRA 2, 9 (1980), that
SECTION 12 COVERS THOSE PERSONS NOT YET IN CUSTODY BUT
ALREADY UNDER INVESTIGATION.
In People v. Gonzales, GR No. 142932 (19 May 2002), rights under Section
12 can be lost through NEGLECT:
Where the defense fails to raise objections to the admissibility of evidence
immediately, as required by Rule 132, 36, the accused is deemed to have waived
his right to object to admissibility.

II.

Rights of a person under investigation.

1. Right to remain silent
o Under Section 12, the individual has the right to refuse to answer any
question. His silence may not be used against him.
o Under Section 17, only the accused has the right to remain silent. A person
who is not an accused may assume the stance of silence only when asked an
incriminating question.

People v. Alicando
251 SCRA 293
The prosecution has the burden of proving that an accused waived his rights to remain silent and
to counsel as well as of showing that the evidence derived from confession under custodial
interrogation is not tainted as fruit of poisonous tree.
2. Right to counsel
People v. Mojello
GR No. 145566, 9 MARCH 2004
The phrase preferably of his own choice does not mean that the choice of a lawyer by a
person under investigation is exclusive as to preclude other equally competent and
independent attorneys from handling the defense.
People v. Tomaquin
GR No. 133188, 23 JULY 2004
Examples of partial counsel:
1. Special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal
attorney whose interest is adverse to that of the accused;
2. A mayor, unless the accused approaches him as counselor or adviser;
3. Barangay captain;

4. Any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused.

A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in evidence as an exception to
the hearsay rule when the following requisites concur:
1. The principal act, the res getae, is a startling occurrence;
2. Statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or devise;
3. The statements must concern the occurrence in question and its immediately
attending circumstances.
People v. Rapeza
GR No. 169431, 3 APRIL 2007
Settled is the rule that the moment a police officer tries to elicit admissions or confessions
or even plain information from a suspect, the latter should, at that juncture, be assisted
by counsel unless he waives this right in writing and in the presence of counsel.
People v. Lara
GR No. 199877, 13 AUGUST 2012
The right to counsel cannot be claimed by the accused during the identification in a police
line-up because it is not part of the custodial investigation process.

3. Right to be informed
o This implies a correlative obligation on the part of the police investigator to
explain, and contemplates an effective communication that results in
understanding what is conveyed.
People v. Inguito
GR No. 53497, 18 OCTOBER 1982
The duty to inform the detainee of his rights is not only ceremonial.
The police officer must explain the consequence of the waiver of the right, and the sufficiency
of the explanation can depend on the intelligence or education of the detainee.
There is no presumption of regularity in the performance when it comes to application of
Miranda warnings. The prosecution has the burden of proof in establishing convincingly
that it has complied with its duties of informing the accused of his rights guaranteed by
the constitution.
III.

When Section 12(1) rights end

It ends once the criminal process no longer applies. Outside of this
situation, the applicable provisions are Sections 14 and 17.

CRIMINAL PROCESS: investigation prior to the filing of charges; preliminary examination and
investigation after charges are filed; and period of trial. It is in this situation that psychological if not
physical atmosphere of custodial investigations, in the absence of proper safeguards, is inherently
coercive (p. 476, Bernas, 2009 edition).

IV.

Waiver of rights
The waiver must be in a language which clear manifests the desire to
waive the right.
The implication of the rule is that, in localities where there are no lawyers, the
state must bring the individual to a place where there is one or bring counsel to
the place where the person is held.
V.
Exclusionary rule
It covers every form of evidence obtained in violation of Section 12 and Section
17, every form of confession tainted with involuntariness.
Applies to both explicit and implicit evidence.
However, the violation of the constitutional provision can be admitted against
the offender. (Example, a police officer violates Section 12, his violation can be
held against him. The construction of this section is construed strictly against
the government.)
This section is applied prospectively. During the 1935
Constitution, the Escobedo-Miranda rule was not part yet.
Decisions made under the 1935 Constitution should not be
disturbed.

VI.
Penal and civil sanctions, compensation and rehabilitation
The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations for this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their lies
Section 12(4) needs implementing legislation.
Civil sanction, in the form of damages, is in the Civil Code on actionable
violations of constitutional rights.
Penal sanctions are meant to be a deterrent against violations.
Compensation and rehabilitation provided for are social welfare measures.

VII.

EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION

Inadmissible: (p. 122, Syllabus)
o Uncounseled statement of a Filipino overseas
a. Uncounseled admission of the accused made after the filing of the
information in court and after he was arrested in virtue of a warrant of
arrest is still inadmissible in evidence.

Admissible: (p. 123, Syllabus)

b. Administrative investigation
c. Admissions or confessions made to a private individual or verbal
admission made to a radio announcer who is not part of the investigation
or to a mayor approached as a confidante
d. A videotaped interview that may bring a distinct possibility that the police
conniving with media, legitimize coerced extrajudicial confessions
o Spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning of authorities

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

Only the extrajudicial confession or
admission made during the custodial
investigation can be admissible for
evidence.

______________________________________________________________________________
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.
I.

Bail
A mode short of confinement which would, with reasonable certainty, insure
the attendance of the accused at his trial.
Usually takes form of a deposit of money or its equivalent as a guarantee if
such attendance and which deposit is forfeited upon failure to appear.

Recognizance is an obligation of record entered into before a court

guaranteeing the appearance of the accused for trial. It is in nature of a
contract between the surety and the state.

The right of bail is not impaired even when the writ of habeas corpus is
suspended.

Reasons for the award of bail to the accused:

1. To honor the presumption of innocence until his guilt is proven beyond
reasonable doubt
2. To enable him to prepare his defense without being subject to punishment
prior to conviction

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

General Rule: any person before being convicted of any criminal offense shall be bailable, unless
he is charged with a capital offense, or with an offense punished with reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment, and the evidence of guilt is strong. (Enrile vs. People)

Available to all persons actually detained Except those charged with offenses
punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, which must
concur

Persons who have no constitutional right to bail:

1. Those charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, and
2. Those whose evidence against them is strong

The loss of the right to bail can be determined only after hearing, since it is
based on the nature of the offense and the quantum of evidence against him

II. Under the custody of the law

When the person is arrested
When he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by
surrendering to the proper authorities
III. Duties of the trial judge in case an application of bail is filed
1. Notify the prosecutor of the hearing of the application for bail or require
him to submit his recommendation
2. Conduct a hearing of the application for bail regardless of whether or
not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show that the guilt of
the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to exercise its
sound discretion

3. Decide whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong based on

the summary of evidence of the prosecution
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the
approval f the bail bond
IV. Strong evidence of guilt for purposes of denying bail
a. Proof evident or Evident proofclear, strong evidence which leads a wellguarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has been
committed as charged, that accused is the guilty agent, and that he will probably
be punished capitally if the law is administered.
b. Presumption great -- exists when the circumstances testified to are such that
the inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and
convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of
any other conclusion
Life imprisonment

Reclusion perpetua

a. Imposed for serious offenses

penalized by special laws
b. Does not carry accessory penalty
c. Does not have any definite extent or
duration

a. Prescribed under the RPC

b. Carries accessory penalty
c. Incarceration for at least 30 years
after which the convict becomes
eligible for pardon

V. Implicit limitations on the right to bail

The person claiming the right must be under actual detention
The constitutional right is available only in criminal cases, not, e.g., in
deportation proceedings
VI. Factors to be considered in determining the amount of bail
Ability of the accused to give bail
Nature of the offense
Penalty for the offense charged
Character and reputation of the accused
Health of the accused
Character and strength of the evidence
Probability of the accused appearing in trial
Forfeiture of other bonds
Whether the accused was fugitive from justice when arrested
If the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases

SIR SEDILLO NOTES

Hongkong vs. Judge Olalia
A potential extradite may be granted bail on the basis of clear and convincing evidence that the
person is not a flight risk & will abide with all the orders & processes of the extradition court.

Comendador v. de Villa
Right to bail is not available to soldiers under court martial because they are allowed the
fiduciary right to bear arms and can therefore cause great havoc.
US v. Judge Puruganan
Extradition is not a criminal proceeding. Hence, a respondent in an extradition proceeding is not
entitled to bail.
De la Camara v. Enage
Bail cannot be excessive for if so, it can amount to a denial of bail.
Manotoc v. CA
A person may be prevented from leaving the country as a necessary consequence of the admission
of bail. A bail bond is intended to make a person available any time he is needed by the court.
SIR SEDILLO NOTES
Who can invoke?
ALIENS: Yes
ALIEN DEPORTEES: No
ALIEN EXTRADITES: No
FILIPINO EXTRADITES: Case to case

Bail may be in the form of:

Property bond
Cash bond
Recognizance

______________________________________________________________________________
CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
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 the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has been duly notified
and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
Who can invoke:
ALIENS ACCUSED: Yes
DETAINED ACCUSED: Yes
ACCUSED ON BAIL: Yes
ACCUSED AT LARGE: No

I. Due process in criminal cases

No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law. The procedure established by law be followed. (US vs Ocampo)
Nunez vs Sandiganbayan
111 SCRA 433 (1982)
Accused is informed as to why he is proceeded against and what charge he has to meet, with his
conviction being made to rest on evidence that it is not tainted with falsity after full opportunity
for him to rebut it and the sentence being imposed in accordance with a valid law.
People vs Narajos
149 SCRA 99 (1987)
A judge who replaces another judge may validly render a decision although he has only partly
heard the testimony off witnesses.
Buscayno vs Military Commission
109 SCRA 273 (1981)
Generally, the SC has no supervisory authority over military courts. However, the SC may
review decisions of the Court of Military Appeals.

II. Presumption of innocence

The accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proven beyond
reasonable doubt.
Absolute certainty of guilt is not required; only moral certainty.
The prosecution has the burden to overcome such presumption of evidence by
presenting the quantum of evidence required. If presumption of innocence
prevails, the accused shall be acquitted.

Salapuddin vs Akbar and Indandan

GR No. 184681 (2013)
Strict adherence to the Constitution and full respect of the rights of the accused are essential in
the pursuit of justice even in criminal cases. The presumption of innocence, and all rights
associated with it, remains even at the stage of preliminary investigation.
III. Right to be heard
Include 3 specific rights (People vs Bordaje):
a. Right to present evidence and to be present at the trial
b. Right to be assisted by counsel
c. Right to compulsory process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his
behalf
IV. Right to Counsel
Accused must be informed by the court that he has a right to have counsel
If he desires and is unable to employ counsel, the court must assign him a
counsel.
People vs Durango
GR No. 135438-39 (2000)
The right to counsel assumes an active involvement by the lawyer in the proceedings,
particularly at the trial off the case. He should bear in mind the basic rights of the accused and
should be well-versed with the case.
V. Right to be informed
Accused must be informed of facts that are imputed to him. The information
must describe the act with sufficient particularity.
VI. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial.
Speedy trial a trial conducted according to fixed rules and proceedings of law
and freedom from vexatious, capricious and oppressive delays.
Public trial anyone interested in a case may attend the hearing and there is no
ban on such attendance
Constitution prohibits unreasonable delays
Remedy for violation of right: dismissal of the case or release by habeas corpus
Exception to a right to public trial: when the evidence presented is offensive to
decency or public morals, the proceeding may be limited to friends, relatives,
and counsel.

VII. Right to confrontation

Go vs People
GR No. 185527 (2012)
The right to confrontation has a two-fold purpose: to afford the accused an opportunity to test the
witness testimony by cross-examination and to allow the judge to observe the deportment of the
witnesses.

VIII. Compulsory Process

Purpose: to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence.
IX. Trial in absentia
Occurs only when accused voluntarily waives his right to be present
An exception to the right of confrontation