LIBERY TO ABODE
Manglapus
Restricted by court order: Destierro prohibited to live in a
place. You need to transfer to another place; provided in
RA 9262 (protection order issued by the court).
Villavicenco v. Lukban
The Mayor ordered the police to round up all the
prostitutes and put them in a ship and bring them to Davao.
A Habeas Corpos proceedings are instituted to
question the legal basis of the deprivation of ones liberty.
In this case, they were deprived of their right to
liberty to abode. They were not given a choice. Habeas
corpus is still a proper remedy and the court must still rule
on it even there are other girls that were able to return to
Manila and others decided to settle in Davao because there
is still a policy of the City Government to ship them out to
Manila. There is still a deprivation of liberty of the
prostitutes.
RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Right to go out of the Philippines. In other
countries, right to go to one state to another. It is not
absolute, it can be limited as provided by law (public safety,
national security and public health)
Silverio v. CA
It is not really an issue of Silverios right to travel
because it is an issue of the courts power to use all
necessary means to compel his attendance in a criminal
case against him. In fact, the court already grant him liberty,
he is out on bail. However, he failed to show up on the
hearing of his case thats why the Court order for his re-
arrest.
In this case, it was his own fault. Posting a bond is
tantamount to a guarantee that a person will attend to every
hearing of the case. He violated the condition of bail.
PASEI v. Drilon
Secretary of Justice ordered to suspend the
deployment of Filipino Domestic workers to HongKong
because of abuses committed against Filipino workers
abroad.
This order is not a violation of right to travel
because it is a valid exercise of police power. The lawful
purpose if for public safety (to protect the Filipino workers)
and means employed is reasonable (temporary suspension
until the HK govt can come up with policies to protect the
Filipino workers).
PASEI do not have the personality to assail the
violation of right to travel because it is personal it should
be the Filipino citizens who wants go to other country to
work.
RIGHT TO RETURN
It is not provided in the Constitution but it is
recognized under international law (Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and International Covenant of Civil and
Political Rights). They became part of the law of the land
through incorporation under Article 2, Section 2 of the
Constitution. It is not absolute, ICCPR provides for limitation
public order.
Marcos v.
The issue on this case the President has the power
and whether or not she abuse her power in not allowing the
return of the Marcoses to the Philippines.
The President has the power and she did not
abuse it because there was factual basis as provided by the
intelligence report by the AFP/PNP for not allowing them to
return. Right to return was validly limited for public order.
There is a due process in the sense that the court actually
examine, whether or not there is a factual basis.
*** There is a tax to right to travel which is not even for
the reasons cited in the Constitution but used in order to
support the tourism facilities of the Philippines.
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
- right to join or not to join
- right to form any organization not contrary to law
o labor association (public or private)
Gonzales v. Comelec
Issue: The law prohibits forming of new political
party until 150 days before the election to promote public
safety and to prevent early political campaigning.
Minority: It is unconstitutional, it is so grave and
broad that it partically bans political parties. It cannot
advocate and screen, nominate its candidates, recruit
member; thus it is violative of freedom of association of the
parties.
Majority: Constitutional. There are still other things
that they can do like filing their GIS, file reports in the
COMELEC which are only incidental.
In re Edillion
He do not like to became a member of the IBR.
Compelling her to be part of it and pay the dues is violative
of the freedom of association.
Not violative. IBP is a valid exercise of police
power. It is not just a simple association but a regulatoty
mechanism. It is the one which was delegated the power to
investigate complaints lawyers. They are part of the
regulatory mechanism because they are the first level. They
receive the complaints, investigate and send
recommendation to the Supreme Court on what proper
disciplinary action. SC has a ruled that if there is a
recommendation to dimiss the complaint, it has to be
brought up to the Court because only the SC has the power
to dismiss complaints against lawyer; it is part of the Courts
power to disbar and suspend lawyers.
Edillion may refuse to attend IBP meetings or
refuse to attend to activities. But he cannot refuse to pay
annual dues because these funds are used to support the
investigations of IBP.
Boy Scout of America v. Dale
Dale is a known scout master who is also an
advocate for homosexuality. Federal Court ruled that he
cannot be dismissed as scout master.
BSA contention: the issue is not the right to
association of Dale but the right of the BSA (right of
expressive association). It is the right of the association to
ensure that its membership support the core values of the
association. If the member acted contrary to their ideals,
they have the right to expel such.
There is nothing stated in the BSAs core values
which pertains to heterosexuality but it is implied and it falls
under the Scouts Oath - the concept of morally straight
and clean. It is the association itself to determine the their
standard of morality.
***Problem: Sorority members wanted to admit
transgenders. In the context of freedom of association, it is
for them to decide based on their values and would be
accepted by its members.
SSS Employee Association v. CA
Issue: Right to strike for government labor
association be recognized.
The purpose of a labor association is to bargain for
better terms and condition. Employers coercive power is to
lock out and employees power is to strike.
SC: right to strike is not available to public labor
association because a public office is a public trust;
allowing them to go on strike will cause stoppage of the
government services to the public which is prejudicial to
public interest. Instead, they can go on rally during breaks
or after office hours, but if both parties cannot agree, the
employees can file complaints to Public Sector Labor
Management Council.
NON-IMPAIRMENT OF CONTRACTS
Contracts are protected by the Constitution
because contracts affect property rights. It cannot be
impaired by the State; it is not a party to the contract and
even it is a party it cannot unilaterally alter the contract by
virtue of the due process clause.
Although contracts is sacred between the two
parties, there is still possibility of State intervention through
police power. (Procedural and substantial due process)
Ortigas v. CO.
Sale of property with restriction that it will be used
for residential purposes only. Subsequently, the City of
Mandaluyong passed an ordinance which classify the area
from residential to commercial. The new owner wants to
construct a commercial building in the property.
SC: The ordinance which deemed to have modified
the agreement between the parties is not a violation of non-
impairment clause. The zoning ordinance (how the land
should be used) is a valid exercise of police power.
Lawful purpose economic advancement/development.
Lawful means designate certain areas for economic
utilization (reasonable).
Prejudice cause to the residence: noise, traffic etc.
but SC ruled that they should adjust because this ordinance
is for the greatest good for the greatest number.
Oposa v. Factoran
Issue: WON the timber licenses agreements are
contracts and can be validly revoked.
SC: Future generations have a cause of action
balance and healthful ecology. TLA is not a contract but it is
a license, merely a privilege. Even if the it is a contract,
State can intervene as long as there is a due process.
ACCESS TO COURTS
Those people who cannot afford are exempted to
pay filing fees, this is how the SC ensures that everyone
has the access to courts.
Acar v. Rosal
The petitioners filed a case for money claim
amounting to 40 million filing fee is around 1million and
they cannot afford it. Petitioners applied as pauper litigants.
RTC: Denied application because they are
working. Pauper is a person supported by the State.
SC: They are exempted for paying the filing fees
even they are not pauper litigants (ROC). Constitution is not
referring to pauper but indigent litigants. Indigent is a
person who do not have a property aside from their labor. If
they will win, the fees can be deducted to the award.
*** There are three kinds of cases:
a. Criminal Cases - the person defends himself
against the whole sovereign. There is an
imbalance of power. The Constitution provides
several rights for the person accused (from before
and after the case is filed).
b. Civil Cases
c. Administrative Cases
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Rights of a person before the case is filed against a
person; during the investigation of the police arrested
without warrant. Ensure that the person under the custody
of the police is protected.
People v. Mahinay
Rights of the accused under investigation
1. Right to be informed of the alleged crime he
committed
2. Right to be inform that he can remain silent and
that any information can be used against him
3. Right to counsel can be waived but must be in
writing and with assistance of the counsel. He
can also revoked such and must be in writing as
well.
4. Exclusionary rule he may refuse to answer or
stop answering, any evidence illegally obtained
will be inadmissible.
5. RA 7438 - right to be visited anytime by his
lawyer, family members and doctor.
6. Right not to be tortured.
People v. Del Rosario
Crime: Robbery with homicide. In this case, after
he committed the crime, he voluntarily surrender himself to
the plice accommpanied by the father of his common law
wife. Del Rosario claim that his rights are violated, that he
was tortured.
 SC: The burden of proof is on Del Rosario. He
must provided evidences medicolegal evidences/report
that he suffered injuries, but nothing was showed. The
testimonial evidences shows that he voluntary surrendered
himself. Regularity in the performance of official functions,
he who alleges otherwise has the burden to should prove it.
RIGHT TO BAIL
The Constitution provides that a person who was
accused of a crime, if a case is filed against him, has the
right to bail except in crimes where the penalty is reclusion
perpetua and above and where the evidence of guilt is
strong.
If the penalty is lower that reclusion perpertua, the
person only needs to go to the clerk of court and pay the
bail provided in the warrant of arrest.
If the penalty is reclusion perpetua and above, he must
file a petition to the court. The burden is on the State to
prove that the evidence against him is strong for it to be
denied, otherwise there must be bail to be fixed by court.
People v. Donato
The accused were charged for the killing of a US
military adviser. They are part of the NPA, the crime is
rebellion penalty is reclusion perpetua and was denied
bail. Subsequently, the law is amended and lowered the
penalty to reclusion mayor.
SC: He is entitled for bail. Eventhough at the time
he committed the crime, the penalty is reclusion perpetua,
the law has a retroactive effect because it is favorable to
the accused.
Padaranga v. CA
The accused was charged of murder penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death (it is not bailable if evidence of
guilt is strong). Eventually he got sick and was admitted to
the hospital.
SC: His lawyer went to the court and post a bail it
is allowed and not a violation of the Constitution because
he is deemed to be under the custody of court. It was a
hospital arrest; there was a constructive custody. He
expressly submitted physical and legal control over his
person. He manifested that he was recognizing the courts
jurisdiction over him. Though he cannot put himself under
the custody of the court, he put himself under the custody of
the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
(Flow Chart)
RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED (in relation to the information
filed against him)
1. Right to be informed
2. Right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty
beyond reasonable
3. Right to counsel
4. Right not to be compelled to testify
5. Right to present his own witnesses and right to ask
the court to compel people to testify as his witnesses
(right to cross examine oppossing partys witnesses)
People v. Flores Right to be informed
Information against him states that he committed
sexual abuse.
SC: violative of his right to be informed because
the accusation is so general in such a way that he will not
be able to defend himself. It is substantially defective. In
this case, he was found guilty of rape. He has no
opportunity to defend himself with the crime charged
because the elements to prove and disprove are not even
stated in the information.
He cannot be convicted of sexual abuse under RA
7610 because under this law, sexual abuse pertains to
sexual exploitation for profit (promote prostitution). He
cannot be convicted or sexual abuse or rape.
Remedy of the accused: Motion to quash information
because it does not alleged any crime.
Remedy of the prosecution: Amend the information but it
can only be that before the presentation of evidence.
Otherwise, it will be a violation of double jeopardy (need to
defend himself for another crime but for the same act).
In prosecuting an accused, information is the basic
framework. Prosecute for crime as alleged in the
information and not as given in the title.
People v. Calma
Argument of Calma: His guilt is not proved beyond
reasonable doubt because there were no sperm found and
physical injuries inflicted to the victim (rape case).
SC: Proof beyond reasonable doubt do not require
100% proof, but it is when there is a moral certainty. Moral
certainty means that during the formulation of the decision
there is no doubt considering all the evidences presented. It
is a test of studied judgement based on the available
evidences that will prove the guilt of the person beyond
reasonable doubt. (familiarity of the rules of court)
***see case of Bernard Alcantara
People v. Murillo
The Constitution prohibits unimprovident plea of
guilty the accused is not aware and understand the plea.
Plea of guilt is a way of admitting the commission of the
crime and willingness to accept the penalty.
Murillo is charged with Murder and he executed a
extra judicial confession. In the arraignment, his lawyer
advised him to plead guilty in hope that his penalty will be
lowered. He tried to prove that is was a provident plea
through presenting the accused during the arraignment,
enumerated all the rights of the accused and asked him if
he understood Opo is the only answer of Murillo and this
does not comply with the requirement of the Constitution.
 The Constitution requires that it is not enough that the
rights will just be enumerated but it should be determined. It
is not the duty of the counsel but it is the duty of the judge.
The judge must conducted the following to determine if the
accused really understand the plea:
a. The judge should have asked how he was brought
to the custody of law
b. Ask the defense counsel a series of questions as
to whether he had conferred with, and completely
explained to, the accused the meaning and
consequences of a plea of guilty.
c. Elicit information about the personality profile of the
accused, such as his age, socio-economic status,
and educational background, which may serve as a
trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and
informed plea of guilty.
d. Inform the accused the exact length of
imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the
law and the certainty that he will serve such
sentence. Explain the consequences of the plea.
e. Inquire if the accused knows the crime with which
he is charged and fully explain to him the elements
of the crime which is the basis of his indictment.
Failure of the court to do so would constitute a
violation of his fundamental right to be informed of
the precise nature of the accusation against him
and a denial of his right to due process.
f. All questions posed to the accused should be in a
language known and understood by the latter.
g. The trial judge must satisfy himself that the
accused in pleading guilty, is truly guilty. The
accused must be required to narrate the tragedy or
reenact the crime or furnish its missing details.
The burden lies to the judge because the accused is
presumed to be innocent.
People v. Rivera
Allegation of Rivera: He was denied of the right to
cross examine. It is due to his lawyer who kept on
postponing the trial and after a while was missing.
Subsequently, the court just appointed a counsel de officio
and on the same day was required to do the cross
examinination. In the case, Bansil did not had the
opportunity to study the transcript of the witness.
SC: There is no violation his right because the
Constitution only provided for the opportunity of the
accused to cross examine in what ever way possible. He
was given several opportunity and it is his original
counsels fault of postponing. As Bansil accepted the
appointment of being the counsel de officio, Rivera is bound
with the actions conducted by his new counsel. The grant of
opportunity to cross examine confer to the requirement
provided by the Constitution.
The purpose of cross examination is to destroy the
credibility and prove the inconsistencies in the testimony of
the witnesses the counsel has the prerogative how to
cross examine.
In re: Request for Coverage of the Trial in the
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Case Against Former
Pres. Joseph Estrada
The court disallowed the coverage of the trial
despite of the right of the public to information and the
medias freedom of expression. The accused is presumed
to be innocent and if the coverage will be allowed it will
create a trial by publicity which is prejudicial to the accused.
Eventhough the Sandiganbayan is a three-judge
court and judges are trusted to be impartial, there is a
tendency that they will play to the camera and be focused
how they will project instead of the presentation of the
evidences.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
To justify or prove a legal ground of the detention
or the deprivation of liberty of the person. (e.g. filing of
information or waiver of the hours required for the
detention)
Ilusorio v. Bildner
Ilusorio is rich old man who was in the custody of
his children. His wife and other children filed a writ of
habeas corpus to get his custody in the theory that Ilusorio
was incapacitated and he was held against his will.
SC: The writ is not remedy available in this case,
Ilusorio is still in sound mind and can decide he wanted to
stay. Neither the court nor the wife cannot compel him to
stay with his spouse through the writ because Ilusorio has
the right to choose where he wanted to stay.
In re: the Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa
(Rape case)
He filed a writ on the theory that his detention is
unlawful because he is not the father of the victims child.
DNA test proved that he is not the father.
SC: The writ is not the remedy available in this
case because there is a legal ground for his imprisonment
which is a valid judgement of the court. Even if there is a
new discovered evidence, the proper remedy is not a writ of
habeas corpus but a petition of new trial. In this case,
petition of new trial is not available because DNA test could
have been done during the trial. The writ of habeas corpus
cannot be a substitute for a loss remedy (remedy of appeal
and petition of new trial).
***Example of no legal ground of detention despite
of judgement:
Children who were sentenced as adults and sent to
serve their sentence to Muntinlupa. It is unlawful because
there is a Juvinile Justice and Welfare Act which provides
that they should be tried as minors and should have been
sent to DSWD for suspended sentence. A writ of habeas
corpus is a proper remedy for the release of these minors.
WRIT OF AMPARO
Ampara to protect. It is a writ to protect the security
of persons. It includes:
o Freedom of fear from threats to be killed or
abducted by the government agents.
o Right to physical and psychological integrity
right against actual harm
 o Guarantee that the government will protect the
rights to security the govt will ensure that it
will not just prevent but if anything happens to
a person, agents of the State will be
prosecuted.
Remedies available under the writ of amparo:
o Temporary detention order
o Inspection order
o Production order (documents in relation to the
case)
o Witness protection order
It is peculiar to cases of extra judicial killings and
enforced disappearances which are State sponsored
(done by the agents of the State or persons/groups
who are under the control and influence of the State).
Source of the SC for the writ of amparo: Sec. 5(5) of
Art VIII (for the protection of security, life, liberty)
Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo
Manalo are the brothers of a suspected NPA
leader in Central Luzon. They are abducted for several
months and was transferred from place to place; they were
able to escape.
Is there a violation to their right to security? YES
o Freedom from fear they live in fear of being
abducted again; they are under the protection of
private indls
o Right to psychological & physical integrity and
security they were subjected to torture
o Guarantee that the State will protect them govt did
not protect them
A writ of amparo can protect them against
harrassment of the military; they can know the whereabouts
of the persons abducted them so that they can be charged;
they will be able to examine all the places where they are
brought to; they can examine all the documents in relation
to their abduction including medical records; and they will
not be charged from anything.
Lozada v. Macapagal-Arroyo
A writ of Amparo is not available to Lozada
because he was not actually taken against his will by the
military and the police. He was actually protected and he
was brought to places he wanted to go. His allegation that
he was under survallance was not true.
Navia v. Pardico
The accused stole the lamp post of the subdivision;
he was abducted and gone missing. The writ of Amparo is
not the proper remedy because his abduction was
perpetrated by the security guards of the subdivision. The
writ is only available when there is State participation.
Caram v. Segui
The writ of Amparo is not the proper remedy
because it is a case involving the custody of a child who
was declared as a foundling and available for adoption as
declared by the DSWD.
Allegation: That her child was taken by the DSWD
(agent of the State).
SC: The separation of the child from the mother is
perfectly lawful because it is in accordance with the
procedure for lawful adoption. The child is now under the
custody of the adopting parents. A writ of amparo is
available to cases of unlawful deprivation of liberty
perpetrated by the agents of the State or any person under
its control/influence.
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
- average is 3 years and up to SC its 8 years.
- SC has 90 days to promulgate judgement from the
time when all the evidences and memorandum are
submitted.
- In criminal cases, setting is every 3 months. If there
are several witnesses it take for an average of 2
years just to present all the witnesses.
Mendoza-Ong v. Sandiganbayan
There is no violation of the right to speedy trial
because the delay was justified. It was 3 years from the
filing of the complaint to the filing of the information to the
Sandiganbayan. It is tolerable because the case was
subjected to levels of review, the previous prosecutor was
appointed in another position and the accused was also
guilty of delay (requested extension of time) thus delay
was justified.
Cervantes v. Sandiganbayan
It was only after 6 years that the Ombudsman filed
the case/drafted the resolution. There is a violation of the
right to speedy trial when the unjust delay was attributed to
the State. It is the failure of the State (prosecution) to act
within the reasonable period, it is not necessary to be
malicious or intentional but as long as the State neglect its
duty which is indeed prejudicial to the accused it is a
violation of speedy trial.
***Example: various petition of the prosecution to
reschedule the trial due to the absences of their witnesses
(limit is 3 postponement). It is a violation of the right to
speedy trial and the accused can file a motion to dismiss
the case for failure to prosecute. The burden is upon the
State.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
It is the right of the accused to refuse to answer
questions related to some other crimes which are extranous
to the crime charged with. Any statement made during a
judicial proceeding can be used against the person. The
right should be raised immediately after the question was
asked.
- during the custodial investigation (right of the suspect)
o Right to be silent
o Right to counsel
o Right to be informed
o Right not to be subjected to violence, force or
intimidation (tortured) in order to extort
information
o Exclusionary rule
- during the trial (right of the accused)
o Right to refuse to be a witness
o Right to have no prejudice against him for
refusing to be a witness it should not be taken
against him. The burden is on the State.
o Right to testify for himself but not for the
prosecution; includes the obligation to be cross-
examined for the determination of his testimonys
veracity
o Right to refuse to answer specific questions that
pertain to the commission of some OTHER crime
where he can be prosecuted if for the same
crime, he can be compelled to answer; other
crime = irrelevant to the current case being tried
***Example:
1. The crime is robbery; the accused was asked of
the commission of lascivious acts on the daugther
of the owner of the house. He cannot refuse to
answer because it relates to the same acts.
Robbery can be attended by sexual acts.
(Robbery with rape)
2. Relationship with his wife mistresses. He can
refuse to answer. (irrelevant)
People v. Ayson
Testimonial evidence
Ramon wrote a letter for payment of misappropriated
PAL funds
His written admission was used against him in the
estafa case
Ramos wants the letter to be inadmissible as
evidence
SC: no violation of the right bc the written admission
was not extracted from him by the agents of the
State; it was done by the private indls (similar to the
Marti case)
Thus, Ramos cannot invoke the exclusionary rule
All custodial investigations must observe the rules
regarding evidence or else they will be inadmissible
Chavez v. CA
Chavez is one of the suspects. The judge compels
Chavez to testify to provide evidence for the other accused.
Subsequently, it was Chavez who was convicted on the
basis of his own testimony.
SC: there is a violation of his right to self-
incrimination. He was compelled to be a hostile witness
against himself. He was not given immunity as State
witness.
Villaflor v. Summers
The woman was required to undergo a medical
examination in a case where she was charged with adultery
to find out if she was pregnant. The allegation is that her
rights are being violated because the evidence against her
will be supplied by herself.
SC: No violation because what the Constitution
prohibits is testimonial self-incrimination, it does extend to
this kind of situation. Moreover, she is not required to
produce evidence that is not yet existing but the Court just
need to determine as a matter of fact is she is pregnant.
Beltran v. Samson
Requiring the accused to give a handwriting
sample is a violation of the right against self-incrimination
because the evidence is not yet present/existing. There is
no evidence for the crime of falsification of document and
he is required to produce an evidence.
***Example
1. DNA sample from suspect not a violation
because is not required to produce evidence.
2. Providing a semen sample and blood still needed
to be produced.
3. Urine sample
4. Drug mules if was extracted through defacation it
will be admissible.
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR BELIEFS; INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE
Caunca v. Salazar
Writ of Habeas Corpus case. A Domestic helper
was detained and make her work until she can fully pay her
debt.
SC: It is not allowed because it is tantamount to
involuntary servitude.
EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL AND INHUMAN
PUNISHMENT
- fines that are excessive/disproportionate and
executed in inhumane way. E.g. death by hanging,
electric chair, firing squad.
- Death penalty was not considered a cruel and
inhuman through lethal injection. It should swift and
painless.
Atkins v. Virginia - USA
Execution of lethal injection to mental retardees
was cruel and inhuman. They are exempted of the
imposition of capital punishment.
A. Deterence people are deterred because if they
will realize that if they will do something wrong,
they will suffer a heavy penalty
o a mental retardee is not capacitated to fully
distinguish what is right from wrong.
B. Retribution
o A mental retardee has not full discernment.
If he was convicted because of a judicial
confession, it cannot be really reliable.
They are not fully conscious of the
commission of the crime.
***in the Philippines mental disorder is at least
mitigating.
Lim v. People
Increased the penalty of Estafa not a violation of
the Constitution because the increase was based on the
prolifiration of fraudulent acts and it is a matter of wisdom of
the Congress; it is with the sole discretion of the legislative
branch.
 If the penalty is harsh, it does not mean that there
is a violation of the Constitution; The Constitution is much
concerned with is on how the penalty was actually
executed. Death penalty can be re-imposed for heinous
crimes or for compelling reasons as determined by the
Congress.
Lito Corpuz v. People
Value of money in 1930 is very different from now
due to inflation
Diokno: SC should recalibrate based on inflation rate
(supported by J. Carpio)
J. Carpio: other laws will be affected; there is a need
to completely recalibrate
The SC cannot do the recalibration bc that would
violate the separation of powers, it must be up to the
legislative dept
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT
OR POLL TAX
Lozano v. Martinez
Argument: Having a penal sanction (BP 22) for a
bouncing check is tantamount to imprisonment for non-
payment of debt.
SC: What is punishable under the law is not the
non-payment of debt but the fraudulent act of issuing
unfunded check. Being charged under Article 315 and BP
22 is not double jeopardy because although there is single
check, there were two separate acts are not the same.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Two Kinds:
2. Being tried twice for the same act (Criminal
Prosecution #1 and Criminal Prosecution #2).
Anytime that there is a prosecution that results
in the disposition which is with prejudice, that
already allowed first jeopardy to set in and the
second jeopardy will not be allowed.
The person should only be required to defend
himself once.
***Example:
person is acquitted in the crime because
of lack of sufficient evidence to establish
proof of guilt beyong reasonable doubt;
he was tried again for murder against the
same person.
Person was acquitted because the
prosecution failed to prosecute
(postponement of trial more then 3
times); a violation of his right to speedy
trial it is with prejudice to the
subsequent prosecution. A new case
cannot be filed against him.
***The disposition will be without
prejudice when if it is by reason
attributed to the accused. E.g. the
accused cannot be apprehended or
temporarily archived it can be revived
later.; there is no first jeopardy.
People v. De la Torre
The accused was convicted of rape and he was
sentenced to reclusin perpetua. Subsequently, the SolGen
find out that there is an aggravating circumstance of
relationship that should have been alleged in the
information but was not alleged. The SolGen want to appeal
so that they will be able to sentence a higher penalty.
SC: It cannot be done because in that sense the
accused will be required to defend himself against the
charged of qualified rape when he was charged only for
simple rape. Moreover, the case cannot be remanded for
further trial, to try him for qualified rape because that will
also result in doubl jeopardy. He already defended himself
for the offense charged.
2. The person committed one act and he is being held
liable for two different crimes.
- It is the same act if there is a commonality of
elements.
People v. Relova
The accused was tried first for unauthorized
electrical installation under the city ordinance it was
dismissed for prescription (with prejudice). Subsequently,
he was charged with the crime of qualified theft.
SC: There is double jeopardy because the crimes
refer to the same act. There is commonality of elements
because the modality of taking was the connection without
authority. The prohibited act in the ordinance is actually the
element of taking in theft.
EX POST FACTO
A penal law that is made to apply retroactively. It
punishes an act that is committed before the law took
effect. It is prohibited except if it is favorable to the accused.
The accused can ask for the retroactive application of the
law if it will be favorable to him; the SC is more liberal
because most of the time, even if the accused does not ask
for it, the Court has taken the intiative to provide for the
retroactive application.
In re: Kay Villegas Kami
Allegation: The election law is an ex post facto
because even their past acts which are preperatory to the
future election will be deemed covered under the provisions
of the law.
SC: It was not an ex post facto because it was
stated that the application was prospective. Even if the acts
are preperatory, they are integral to the future acts. Even if
there is no express provision, the general rule is that the
law will be applied prospectively.
LAW BILL OF ATTAINDER
- a legislative act that assumes guilt without trial.
When the case is filed, the Court will not be required
to make its factual determination of the elements of
the crime. By the definition of the crime, there is
nothing more for the court to do aside from ruling the
person to be guilty and impose the penalty. The law
punishes the status. This case is a violation of
 separation of powers. There is also a violation of due
process.
- In criminal case, the judge should determine the
facts established beyond reasonable doubt that will
establish the elements of the crime.
***Example:
o All female are sentence to death.
o All persons who are naturalized are sentenced
to death.
People v. Ferrer
The law is not a bill of attainder because the law
penalizes not the mere membership but it is the fact that the
person knowingly joins the organization, which has the
objective to overthrow the government. The Court must
establish the mental element of knowledge which can be
proved by the acts that will necessary imply that the person
has knowledge. In this case, the judge still have the factual
determination of the essential element of the crime.
ACADEMIC FREEDOM
- The authority of the higher education institution
because it is venue for free market of ideas. The
modality for continuing search for knowledge is an
informative debate which is being done in the
universities.
- Four (4) aspects/components of academic freedom:
1. What to teach freedom of the institution to
choose the substance of their teaching whether
they want to promote certain set of values or
philosophy. But it is not absolute, CHEDs
technical panels provide for the guidelines on
the competencies that are needed to be
covered by the particular course offering.
Miriam College v. CA
Miriam College is an expressive institution;
not only a higher institution but also it promotes
Catholic values. It is must be recognized by the
State.
The students are members of the school
publication (freedom of expression) v. academic
freedom of Miriam College. The school was formerly
managed by the nuns and it was an all girls
institution shift in the administration and admission
of male students.
The students published articles that are attributed
to sexual awakening. Kaskas is a story of a boy who
went to a nightclub. Thus, they were disciplined by
the school.
SC: The freedom of expression (speech and press)
was recognized because students rights that are
protected are not shed at the school gate; however,
the court give more weight to the academic freedom
of Miriam College to set its standards of morality and
discipline students including the expulsion of
students who do not meet their standards.
If they are not students, their rights of speech and
press will outweight the academic authority because
they are out in the society the State will be under
the strict test scrutiny to justify the restriction of this
rights. In this case, the content was considered; In
the context of academic institution, its authority will
prevail over the rights stated because it is what
provided for in the Constitution. This is not an
exercise of police power in the sense that the school
will need to establish a clear and present danger. It is
a way of balancing of interest what weight more
heavily was the interest of the institution, students
and the community.
2. Who may teach the authority given to the schools to
choose its faculty members and decide whether to
retain or terminate a faculty member subject to the
rules under labor law and due process.
3. How to teach they have the prerogative to choose
the manner of teaching (includes the giving of honors)
Morales v. U.P. Board of Regents
The students average is short of 0.01 to qualify as
cum laude. The parents appealed to the department,
college, President of the School, UP Board of Regents
and to the court.
SC: The courts cannot intervene because of the
academic freedom. The school has the right to teach
the way it teaches. It is the prerogative of the school to
decide who to may qualify for honors which cannot be
reviewed by the court.
**E.g. revocation of degree because of plagarism
within the ambit of the schools academic freedom.
4. Who will be admitted in the institution they can fix
the standard for admission and standard of
continuation of residency in the school subject to what
is provided for the education act right of the student,
unless disqualified (academic defficiency), to continue
his course.
Garcia v. Loyola School of Theology
Garcia is a female who was allowed to join the
class in the Ateneo School of Theology (seminarians)
fo one semester. She wants to continue her stay but
was disallowed by the school.
SC: The student does not have a cause of action to
compel Ateneo to allow her to continue. Although as
provided under the education code, a student once
enrolled has the right to continue on until the
completion of the course, the disallowance is justified
because she was not officially enrolled she was just
auditing the class. The school was specialized only for
those who wanted to became a priest.
De La Salle University v. CA
- jurisdiction of the universities regarding fraternities.
- Some students are involved in fraternity violence. De
La Salle students attacked the other fraternity outside
the school premises but they were expelled.
- It is still under the academic freedom of the school. It
has the right to choose who to admit and it includes
the power to choose who to be excluded. Although it is
within the authority of the school, it must be exercised
with due process.
- Is there a due process yes, given the chance to
answer the allegation.
- Penalti should be proportionate no, there is no life
threatherning injuries. Penalty of expulsin is too
harsh.
o Exclusion student will not be able to enroll
in DLSU again but credentials will still be
transferred. No deprivation the rights to
continue education.
o Expulsion student will not be allowed to
enroll in DLSU again AND credentials will not
be transferred; basically the students end of
studying
Philippine Human Rights System
Article III bill of rights (standards)
Article XIII human rights and social justice
Commission on Human Rights
(mechanism)
Article II, Section II incorporation of customary
international human rights laws like UDHR
- transformation of Human Rights treaties
(PH is party to 21 treaties)
Forms of redress
1. Power to investigate of Commission on Human
Rights (Article XIII)
2. Criminal laws includes special laws
3. Civil Laws (Article 32 damages for violation on
civil and political rights)
4. Administrative laws agents of State be dismissed
under Civil Service Law; Police officers can be
disciplined through the National Police Commission
or Peoples Law Enforcement Board. Military
Articles of War
5. UN treaty system communications filed in the UN
treaty bodies and the body can issue resolution
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
- it is not one of the constitutional commission, instead it
was a national human rights institution under the
international human right system.
Functions:
1. Investigate
- Its primary duty is to ensure and monitor
compliance of the Philippine government of its
human rights treaties obligation.
- It is neither investigating as a law enforcement
agency or prosecutorial agency; but it is
investigating for the purpose of ensuring that
the Philippines is complying to its international
obligation.
- If there is a finding of violation of human rights
by the CHR, it should just be referred to the
Ombudsman or DOJ to be prosecuted in
accordance to their mandates.
2. Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of
procedure, and cite for contempt for violations
thereof in accordance with the Rules of Court;
3. Provide appropriate legal measures for the
protection of human rights of all persons within the
Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad,
and provide for preventive measures and legal aid
services to the underprivileged whose human rights
have been violated or need protection;
4. Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or
detention facilities;
5. Establish a continuing program of research,
education, and information to enhance respect for
the primacy of human rights;
6. Recommend to the Congress effective measures to
promote human rights and to provide for
compensation to victims of violations of human
rights, or their families;
7. Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance
with international treaty obligations on human
rights;
8. Grant immunity from prosecution to any person
whose testimony or whose possession of
documents or other evidence is necessary or
convenient to determine the truth in any
investigation conducted by it or under its authority;
9. Bequest the assistance of any department, bureau,
office, or agency in the performance of its
functions;
10. Appoint its officers and employees in accordance
with law; and
11. Perform such other duties and functions as may be
provided by law.
***they prepare independent reports. If the PH
needs to submit reports under the UN treaty
system, NGO also submitted shadow reports.
Presentation before the committee on international
human rights.
Carino v. CHR
DepEd Secretary ordered the dismissal of teacher
who joined the strike. Teachers alleged that there is a
violation of due process because individual cases are not
filed against them (mass case and mass dismissal). The
Deparment filed and decide the case. The teachers filed an
appeal to the CHR.
SC: The CHR do not have the power of a quasi-
judicial body that can review the decision of other state
organ.
Simon v. CHR
Mayor Simon ordered the demolition of the
squatters in the preparation of the developments. The
squatters when to the CHR and CHR issued a resolution
addressed to the Mayor, ordering the mayor to desist and
require the him to attend the hearing in the CHR.
SC: The CHR cannot do that, it is not a quasi-
judicial body. If there is a finding of violation of human
rights, it should have issued directive to the regional
director to conduct investigation and based on the findings
thereof, make the proper referral to the government agency
concerned to address the violation. If violation amounts to a
crime refer to DOJ, if under Graft and Corruption refer to
the Ombudsman.
CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS who may
be held liable?
Lim v. Ponce de Leon
Commander of the Philippine Constabulary acted
upon the order of the prosecutor to seize a motorboat and
became unserviceable. The owner filed a case for the value
of the boat.
SC: Liability arise if the person acted without
authority. In this case, he acted pursuant to the orders of
the prosecutor, he is deemed acted in good faith thus he
cannot be held liable. The prosecutor is the one who should
be held liable for ordering the seizure without a search
warrant.
Aberca v. Ver
Seizure of residences who were alleged to be
members of the communist party. The case was filed
against the Generals and all other officers down the line.
The defense of the Generals was they acted within their
authority and they did not participate in the seizure.
SC: There is no valid search warrant thus they are
not acting within their authority. Moreover, eventhough the
search was conducted by lower ranking officers, the
Generals can be held liable. Under Article 32 CC, it
provides liability to public officers who are directly or
indirectly involved. Generals indirectly participated through
their seize order.
MHP Garments v. CA
The plice conducted the search of boy scout
uniforms upon the instigation of MHP Garments employee
(private person).
SC: There is no warrant and MHP Garments is
liable on the theory that, as a juridical person, the actions of
its employee are also its action. It is justified that private
individuals can also be liable for violation of human rights
because under Article 32, it pertains to any person
(private, juridical person or the State).
Wilson v. Republic of the Philippines
UN treaty involved is the ICCPR the agency is
called the human rights committee. Under optional protocol,
if there is any complaint, it can be filed by an individual
against a State party.
Wilson was a British national who was charged
rape in the Philippines. The lower court acquitted him due
to lack of evidences against him. During the period of trial,
he was detained and deprived of his liberty. The facts from
which the criminal liability may arise does not exist, this can
give rise to claim for money under the Civil Code. He filed a
claim and awarded Pho 26,000.00. Not satisfied, he went to
HRC.
HRC: Issued a resolution that the amount awarded by the
Philippines is not sufficient. There is a violation of his rights
- he was tortured and his detention was based on
compulsin and duress.
- He was also subjected to inhuman and
degrading treatment because he was put in a
regular Philippine jail.
- He was not granted bail even the evidence
against him is weak.
SC: A petition of mandamus to enforce HCR resolution is
not a valid cause of action. HCR resolution is a mere
recommendation, the State party may choose to accept or
not to accept. In this care, PH did not accept on the ground
that we have our own system that the amount is
reasonable. This is in the prerogative of the State. Unless,
he explored the opportunity to claim damages under Article
32 (whom to file?).
CITIZENSHIP
Every person has the right to nationality.
Citizens have more right, protection and
access to services. (valid distinction)
During the Spanish Colony
Spanish are the only considered as citizens
Non-spaniards are called Spanish subjects
(indios no rights and privileges)
Treaty of Paris (Spanish to USA)
Those who chose to stay in the Philippines
are considered as citizens of the Philippines.
Not considered as citizens of America but
citizens of the Philippine islands. (not given
full protection by the sovereign states
second class citizens).
Philippine Bill of 1902: concept of the Filipino
citizens
o Those who are born after 1902
became Filipino citizens through
the priniciple of jus sanguinis.
(Born of Filipino parents are
considered Filipino citizens)
Period of April 11, 1899 to 1902
The Philippines has no law on citizenship.
The SC said to be as expansive as possible,
for no one can be declared as stateless in the
absence of law, the common law principle of
jus soli (citizenship based on the place of
birth) was applied.
1935 Constitution
The woman who marries a foreigner will
automatically loss their citizenship and follows
 the citizenship of the husband. She cannot
elect but need to undergo the process of
reacquiring through judicial proceeding.
If legitimate children, they will follow the
citizenship of the foreigner father. Unless
upon the age of majority, they will elect as
Filipino citizen.
If illegitimate children:
Republic v. Lim
Lim was a child of a Chinese father and Filipino
mother, applied for passport and was denied. Under
the Civil Law, there is a presumption of legitimacy.
DFA presumed that she was legitimate and a Chinese
citizen.
SC: Lim proved that her parents were never
married and thus, she is an illegitimate child. The law
is silent but the rule is that the child should follow the
citizenship of the mother who was never lawfully wed
never loss her Filipino citizenship. Moreover, she
impliedly elected Filipino citizenship through
registration as a voter. The registration is done under
oath.
1987 Constitution
1. Already a PH citizen in 1987
2. Jus sanguinis before, it was only limited to
children of both Filipino parents; but now if
either parent is a Filipino
3. Those born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino
mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and
4. Those who are naturalized in accordance with
law.
a. Under ordinary process: application to
be a naturalized Filipino in a court. It is
a judicial proceeding.
b. Under extraordinary process: through
legislation because of some
meritorious contribution. These are
honors which are vested to the
person. E.g. Jesuits; basketball
players.
Tecson v. Comelec
FPJ run for the presidential election but his
citizenship was being questioned because he was issued
an American passport (his mother was an American). He
was born under 1935 Constitution. The determination of his
citizenship will be based on his ancestral history.
Grand father was a spaniard but he chose to
stay in the Philippines, he is deemed to
acquire Filipino citizenship by operation of law
without the need to apply . He died in the
Philippines and there is no proof that he left
the Philippines.
His father will be considered a Filipino under
the Philippine Bill of 1902 (jus sanguinis).
FPJ was illegitimate and the rule is that he
should follow the citizenship of his mother
(american).
He acquired Filipino citizenship because he
was recognized by his father. In effect, he is a
dual citizenship. No dual allegence because
he acquired American citizenship by birth and
he took the oath to the Philippine government
through filing of his certificate of candidacy.
Frivaldo v. Comelec
Only in 1987 Constitution that there was a full
recognition of dual citizenship. Dual citizenship law provides
for expidited repatriation (loss Filipino citizenship by
naturalizing in another country).
Frivaldo fled the Philippines during Martial Law,
after EDSA he went back and run for Governor of Sorsogon
and won by landslide. But he is always disqualified because
he was a naturalized american. He already filed a petition in
court but a long period, he is not able to get any judgement.
He asked the President to please convene the
special committee which was disbanded during martial law
to consider his application for expidited repatriation. The
committee convene only after the election.
SC: In the third time, he is now qualified. The
favorable decision of acquisition of the citizenship before
the taking of oath is sufficient. Citizenship is not a
requirement for filing but a requirement for office should
be at the time the person assumed the function of that
office.
Bengzon v. HRET
Bengzon is complaining about the qualification of
Cruz (US Navy Veterans) who became an American citizen.
He run for public office and won.
SC: Cruz is qualified to be elected in public office.
Although he did not undergone a judicial proceeding for
repatriation, there is now the Dual Citizenship Law. The law
provides that a citizen may reacquire citizenship through
taking the oath (no need to go to court). He did not take the
oath before a Console or solemnizing officer; in this case
the Court recognized an implied repatriation through his
filing of certificate of candidacy which is under oath where
he stated that he is Filipino.
David v. Agbay
David is a Canadian citizen who purchase land in
the Philippines. During the purchase, he did not yet
acquired citizenship but he did it afterwards and he alleged
that there is a retroactive applications.
SC: for the purpose of perjury and falsification of
document, it will not have a retroactive application because
it will be prejudicial to the State.
Under the Dual Citizenship Law (August 29, 2003):
o Reacquisition before the law took effect
Reacquisition, there is a need go to a judicial
proceeding.
 o Reacquisition after the law took effect
Expidited Repatriation, by taking oath.
Cordora v. Tambunting
Tambunting is a dual citizen father is an
American and mother is a Filipino. He was born under 1935
Constitution thus he followed the citizenship of the father.
SC: The was qualified to run in public office
because he elected himself to be a Filipino citizenship.
Election is usually done by going to the Philipine Consulate;
or sworn before a person who is authorized to administer
oath and submit the oath to the immigration. But in this
case, he did not do that. The mere application of his
certificate of candidacy under oath (implied election), is
sufficient.
*** Filing of Certificate of Candidacy under oath is
an implied repatriation or implied election.
Poe-Llamanzares v. Comelec
Poe is a foundling which means her parents were
unknown. She was found in the church in Iloilo and was
adopted by FPJ. Adoption do not vest citizenship, but the
court discuss how she acquired Filipino citizenship.
SC: The Philippines do not have a law for foundling
but under the international law, the State has the obligation
to prevent statelessness. Foundlings under international
law, their nationality will be the State where they are found.
Thus, she was a Filipino. However, to be a President it is
required that she is a natural-born citizen.
Two kinds of Filipino citizen:
1. A natural born citizen is a person who:
o Any of the parents is a Filipino citizen
o born as a Filipino citizen without doing anything to
acquire of perfect status as Filipino citizen
2. Naturalized through judicial or administrative
proceeding.
Analysis of the Court In the absence of evidences, the
court used presumptions based on statistics:
o In that year, 99.83% are born Filipino and only 0.17%
are born foreigner. A child born in that year is
presumed to be a natural-born Filipino.
o Foreigner couples will not abandon a child in the
Philippines.
o Looked at the physical features: height, complexion,
flat nasal bridge.
David v. SET and Poe-Llamanzares
Poe was already a Senator and David wanted to
unseat her on the theory that she was not a natural-born
citizen because she was a naturalized American - she loss
the status of being a natural-born Filipino.
SC: The contention is unmeritorious. In a
disqualification case, the burden lies on David to prove that
she is unqualified. In this case, David failed to show any
proof on his allegations. She had an American passport and
eventually, she repatriated under the Dual Citizenship Law.
She later renounced her allegiance to the American
government and it was applied retroactively from the time
she went home after the death of his father. There was
already the animus revertendi or intent to return. (The issue
here is residency not citizenship)
Although she was a naturalized American, she
never loss her Filipino citizenship. It was a process of
repatriation and not reacquisition under Dual Citizenship
Law.
SUFFRAGE
- an important right to be protected because it is
through voting, we choose the people who we
wanted to represent us.
- Not voting is part of the right to suffrage. It is also
an expression of political sentiments.
- Also includes tha right to offer yourself to be
elected. (right to be elected)
- To exercise such right, a person needs to be
qualified system of registration:
o No requirement of ownership of properties
o No literacy requirement
o Do distinction between men and women
o Only requirement is: A Filipino, resident
and over 18 years old and above (able to
read and write those who wanted to be
elected).
Kabataan v. Comelec (2015)
Registration requirement is not a violation of right
to suffrage. The purpose of registration is to determine
whether or not, a person meet the minimum requirement to
be qualified and determine where a person can vote. It
does not add any qualification but only to ensure the
qualification.
Biometrics is a mechanism used to capture
personal data through facial recognition, fingerprints etc.
The purpose is to ensure that the person personally
appeared before the COMELEC. It is just a mere procedure
to prevent electoral fraud.
Akbayan v. Comelec
Akbayan wants the COMELEC to provide
additional days for registration. The SC denied the petition
because the days requested fall under the election period.
The presumption on election period is that during that time,
it was already established who can vote. Election period
cannot be moved because it date ws provided in the
Constitution.
Kabataan v. Comelec
The registration period was extended and was
granted because the days requested were before the
election period. The convenience of the COMELEC is not
an enough basis to disenfranchise the people. The last day
of registration should be as close as possible to the election
period so that there will be more people given the
opportunity to register especially those who are turning 18
years old.
There was a grave abuse of discretion on the part
of the COMELEC to deny the petition arbitrarily.