Kate 00-14
The commanding in chiefship power of the president,
which includes the suspension of the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus.
Section 15
Section 15 deals with the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus pointedly. This would mean that the
framers of the constitution found it of necessity to
include a separate section for the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus aside from this discussion
already in Section 18 of Article 7. Everything here in
Section 15, you already know cause we already
discussed this. Nevertheless, Section 15 says that the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended as a general rule. Then you go the
exemption. The exemption is actually that found in
Section 18 of Article 7. The instances where
suspension of the writ of habeas corpus may be held
or the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be
suspended.
So again, what is writ of habeas corpus?
It’s an order coming from a court directing a person
detaining another to produce the body of the one
detained at a designated time and place for the
purpose of determining the validity of...determining
why is this person being detained? The essential
requisite for the availability of the writ is actual
deprivation of the constitution.
We have always emphasized that the writ of habeas
corpus is different from the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus. What is suspended is the privilege
never the writ. The writ will always be issued as a
matter of course, meaning automatically when there
is provided the formalities of the petition, the court
will always issue a writ of habeas corpus. A writ is an
order. It is another. Suspension of the writ is another
story.
There are several cases cited by Bernas in his book
both in Section 15, Section 18 of Article 7. Lansang vs
Garcia, .all of these are seems to be overtaken by the
new Constitution especially the provisions of
Section18 of Article 7.
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s
What is the function of the writ of habeas corpus? To
achieve immediate determination of the legality of a
detention.
Is the suspension of the privilege of the writ of the
habeas corpus subject to judicial review?
Yes. Abandoning already cases cited by Bernas in
Lansang vs Garcia, and other cases cited in his book,
you now base your answer in the provisions of Section
18 of Article 7.
Yes under the expressed provision of Section 18 of
Article 7 of the 1987 Constitution. So that the cases
cited by Bernas in his book are no longer applicable:
Montenegro vs Castaneda, Lansang vs
Garcia, Padilla, Garcia vs Enrile. But these are good
copy. For the purpose..read them .analyze them as
they will give you an inkling of how the suspension of
the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is treated
before the 1987 Constitution.
Another question would be is the person accused or
detained for an offense over the suspension of the
writ of habeas corpus entitled to the release to bail?
Again you base on Section 18, Article 7 . Yes, under
the expressed provision of Section 13, Article 3 in
relation to Section 18, Article 7. Article 3, Section 13
with respect to the grant of bail. We studied that the
grant of bail as a general rule is always, may be held
always. The only exemption is when the person
detained is accused of a crime the penalty of which is
reclusion perpetua and the evidence is strong. So the
key here is the strength of the evidence. So that even
if the person detained is charged by a capital offense,
reclusion perpetua and the evidence is not strong
that would still fall under the general rule. To be tricky
in a question,
you may ask, is a/the person charged with reclusion
perpetua or a capital offense entitled to bail? Yes or
it depends . Depending on how you will explain. So
you may say it depends if the evidence is strong, he
will not be entitled not as a general rule. If there is no
qualification about the strength of the evidence, then
your answer is yes.
The heart of the suspension of the privilege of the writ
of habeas corpus is to freeze temporarily inquiry of
the justification of the detention. I said this already
last semester when we were taking Section 18 of
Article 7. But you look at the commander in chiefship
1|P age
c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
provision of the constitution as the tool of the state
to protect itself. Don’t be carried away by possible
abuses of Martial Law of the suspension of the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the calling of
power of the president because of possible abuses of
such powers. Likewise in the provision of Article 3 on
bail and on suspension of the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus as a tool of the government to protect
itself.
How about the abuses? Of course we are not closing
our eyes in the abuses that may be had because of
this implementation. The commander in chiefship
power of the president, we don’t close our eyes.
Kapag dinidiscuss mo yong commander in chiefship
power of the president which is in Art. 7, Sec 18, you
consider it, you look at it as a tool of the state to
protect itself. How about the abuses? Let Art 3 take
care of it. Yes, the BOR. Let the BOR take care of it.
It may be interesting to go back to Sec. 18, Art 7
especially with the provision on the power of the SC
to review the factual basis for the suspension of the
privilege of the writ or the declaration of Martial Law.
In the light of the extention, that was granted by the
SC on the suspension on the declaration of Martial
Law in Mindanao by the president, there seems to be,
in so far as the last declaration is concerned, the
dissenters in majority of the opinions seems to be
pointing at the power of the SC to look at the factual
basis because it would seem offhand from the
decision of the SC that they may look at the power of
the president to declare Martial Law on the basis of
the information that he has. There is a line there, a
part of the decision that says , it has to be, the SC
agrees with the extention of the declaration of
Martial Law. Because they know that it is a fact that
the president is the holder of vital information about
the declaration on the peace and order of Mindanao.
And that cannot be questioned. Because he has the
key as a president, as chief executive. Such
intelligence information which would guide in the
extention of the Martial Law in Mindanao. Dissenters
would say we are not questioning that president has
that power because it is with him but that is one, first
of all, that is with respect with the initial declaration
of Martial Law...
Tweena 14-28
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s
The initial declaration of Martial Law, wala pang mga
kaso yan. Hindi pa pumupunta sa Supreme Court. It is
the President alone that decides if there is a necessity
to declare Martial Law based from the information
that he has.
But in so far as the extension is concerned, yes the
President has the power, has with him, the
information necessary to declare, to extend Martial
Law but the dissenters would say, the Supreme Court,
must look at the factual basis of the extension or
declaration of Martial Law. Therefore, even if the
President would have the information, the
intelligence reports, the Supreme Court can come in
to test the factual basis of those information that
seems to be the center of dissent on the latest
extension of Martial Law.
Alright, any question on Section 15? Anyway, we’re
only reviewing what we have already learned in
Article 7.
SECTION 16
Section 16. Alright. It is the right that guarantees the
speedy disposition of cases. This is different from the
right of the accused in Section 14. The right of the
accused in Section 14 is only with respect to the trial,
speedy trial of a criminal case. Okay? Although, off
laid, when also it affected, it has, it has affected also
administrative that has the nature of criminal offense
like forfeiture of properties for example. So that, in
Section 16, the speedy disposition of the entire case,
not only the trial stage. Do you get the difference?
The speedy trial right in Section 14 is only with respect
to the trial in form. The Section 16 affects the case in
its entirety and that it is not only confined to criminal
cases. It also confined to criminal, judicial, quasi –
judicial or administrative files. From the time of the
inception of the case up to the time that it is
completed, that is the, Section 16 covers the
disposition of that case. It covers the periods before,
during and after trial. It gives proper protection to
Section 14 which guarantees right to speedy trial.
How may the right be obtained? How may the rights
be obtained? It may be obtained by petition for
mandamus. A petition for mandamus is a special civil
action that would command a particular agency, like
in court to like an agency, a branch, executive to do
something. That is the petition for mandamus. So this
right to speedy disposition of cases in Section 16 may
be obtained through a petition for mandamus.
2|P age
c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
Any question?
Section17
Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself. This is the guarantee against
self-incrimination. The guarantee of the right against
self – incrimination is justified on two grounds, One of
public policy and second humanity. Why of public
policy? Because if the party is required to testify, it
would place in him under the greatest temptation to
commit perjury. So of course you must save your neck
so there is this temptation to commit perjury, to lie.
Okay.
Then why of Humanity. Of humanity, because it
prevents the extorting of confessions under duress. It
would prevent, at least, from brutality that they may
impose on a person in order to get the information,
they no longer do that because under the law, under
this provision that there is any way. Bugbugin mo na
ng hanggang mag black and blue, his testimony will
not be counted because he has a right against self –
incrimination. He cannot testify a case himself. We
said this before but we repeat an accused may not be
compelled to take the witness stand. An accused just
sits there. If he is called, because of his right against
self – incrimination that he cannot testify against
himself. If the prosecution would pull him to take the
witness stand, he may altogether refuse to stand up
and take the witness stand. Okay? That is the scope
of the right of the accused against self –
incrimination. This is different from a mere witness. A
mere witness has also rights against self –
incrimination. But he may testify, he may only refuse
to answer questions that are incriminating to him.
Okay. So that, if the witness is in the courtroom and
he is called to the witness stand, he cannot refuse to
take the witness stand. He cannot refuse to be asked
questions. He may only refuse to answer questions
that might incriminate him. Okay. That’s clear.
The right against self –incrimination is extended to
respondents in administrative investigations,
partaking of the natures, criminal proceedings or
analogous criminal proceedings like proceeding for
the forfeiture of property under the anti – graft.
Again, we said before, to violate the right against self
– incrimination, it is not necessary that the categorical
admission of a specific offense be sought. Hindi
naman kailangan na tanungin yung tao “Pinatay mo
ba?”, something like that. It includes such series of
questions which we deemed to that. Yung mga
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s
magagaling mag cross examination, they are really
good in that, they’ll start doing seemingly innocent
questions that even lawyers would not know where it
is going. But the lawyer must always be quick that if it
is already leading to that or it may lead to that, he
may inhibit/ object as a question that is against the
right against self – incrimination either of the accused
or of the witness.
Alright, in a trial, when you are already lawyers and
representing the accused or a witness, if you coach ,
you instruct your client not to immediately answer
questions. Huwag siya masyadong magmamagaling
na “Alam ko naman yung sagot ng kanyang tanong e.”
O di sinagot mo. It is always good practice for lawyers
to instruct their clients to pause after a question is
being asked or after a question is asked including
while still being asked. The witness will look up to the
lawyer. Sabihin mo, tumingin ka sa akin. Kapag sinabi
kong PARA, wag kang sasagot. Okay? The timon is in
the lawyer. Pag sinabi niyang ganyan ( makes a hand
signal to stop ) Huwag sasagot. Tatayo na yung
lawyer, sasabihin niya, a reason for the objection. Kasi
bakit, bakit kailangang ganun? Dahil oras na
nakasagot yung witness, the right against self
incrimination is waived. Ang itatanong niya,
magobject ka, pag matapos nang masagot,
“Objection!” sabihin mo, yung defense counsel,
sasabihin ng prosecution, already answered.. Nandun
na. Nakamarka na doon sa stenographic notes.
Pwedeng sasabihin later on, sasabihin mo, I move to
strike out. But usually it cannot be stricken out.
Alright?
SECTION 18
Section 18. Two paragraphs . The first paragraph . No
person shall be detained solely by reason of his
political beliefs and aspirations. I think that is self –
explanatory. The guarantee in section 18 No.1 does
not add anything substantive to the due process of
laws nor to the guarantee of freedom of speech,
Freedom of Press and expression in Section 4. So,
question, What if there is no Section 18, Paragraph
1? Would a person still be protected by the
Constitution. Yes. Under batch of provisions by the
due process of laws of the Constitution. Okay? Or the
guarantee of freedom of speech, press, or expression
Under Section 4.
Then, in Section 2. No involuntary servitude in any
form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted. The
3|P age
c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
essence here is that involuntary servitude may exist Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
only when it is a punishment for a crime for which the cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
party is convicted. Outside of that, there can be no Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for
involuntary servitude. So, therefore, in severe cases, compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
maski gaano kabigat o kadami na yung utang, hindi Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
pwedeng ipreso.with if there is no conviction in final already imposed shall be reduced to Reclusion
judgement. Okay? Perpetua.

The employment of physical, psychological,

or degrading punishment against any prisoner or
detainee, or the use of substandard or inadequate
penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be
Xtian (0:28 – 0:42) dealt with by law.
In labor laws They were those that is what is referred On the first paragraph
to as the return work order. Laborers would be
staging a protest outside the office then there is 1st Sentence:
negotiations and then the DOLE say that there is In the 1935 constitution there was already this
return work order. provision. And then carried to 1973 and then to the
1987. But there are changes.
Is that order prohibited under sec 18 paragraph 2?
No, because the laborer has a choice. The laborer may The 1935 provision would say “and”. Excessive fines
refuse to go back to work if he does not want to go shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual
back to work, he may be removed from employment punishment inflicted. So dapat nandun lahat
but that is his choice. Pero yung pagbalik sa trabaho
hindi yun involuntary servitude because if he goes The 1973 provision would say “or”. Excessive fines
back to work it will be his choice. If he does not then shall not be imposed, nor cruel and unusual
he is removed from employment. punishment inflicted. Any of these would constitute a
violation.
Read: Aclaracion vs. Gatmaitan. 64 SCRA 131, 135.
May 26, 1975. Demonstrates involuntary service. The In the 1987 provision, the Bill of Rights Committee
question here is whether he be compelled to read the 1973 modification as prohibiting “unusual”
transcribe stenographic notes. The former court punishment even if not “cruel”. It was thus seen as an
stenographer who already retired then the question obstacle to experimentation in penology. The present
here whether may be compelled to transcribe text prohibits cruel, degrading or inhuman
stenographic notes he had failed to attend to while punishment.
still in the active service. The court said that such
compulsion is not the “condition of enforced, 2nd Sentence:
compulsory service” referred to by the Constitution. This has something to do with death penalty.
And the former stenographer did reluctantly agree to
do the transcription during his spare time. Republic Act No. 9346 disallows the imposition of
death penalty.
But as Justice Fernando noted in his concurrence, the
matter could become tricky should a stenographer The 1987 constitution wanted to be safe. The death
stubbornly refuse to obey and the court insist on penalty has always been a public issue. The 1987 did
keeping him in jail. The detention could then become not want to commit something which they will be
punitive and could give rise to the issue of involuntary hated. It said it cannot be imposed unless on heinous
servitude. crimes.

And secondly, sinabi nila na ang heinous crimes will

be defined by congress. Sabi nila pwede and the
SECTION 19 exception is heinous crime which the congress will
define. So, it’s up to congress to come up with the on
the death penalty

4|P age
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
imposition of heinous crimes. I think it is already the
3rd time that they are trying to impose.
On the second paragraph
It is a reaction to Marcosian rule.
As worded, the provision already embodies
constitutional authorization for the Commission on
Human Rights to take action in accordance with
Article XIII, Section 18. Also, in accordance with
Article III, Section 12(4), to Congress to pass civil or
penal legislation which is required for the subject.
Short story:
I will tell you the story of the commissioner of Human
Rights. When I was at the Capitol. She is from Aparri.
She came to visit me before she retired. As part of the
mandate of the CHR she wanted to visit our jail. So, I
told her that I’m already telling you that it is not
substandard. I don’t know if she still went but I told
her that we are doing something. I also decided to
come up with a provincial jail that would be one of the
best in the country. It would be divided into 3 main
parts: MALE, FEMALE, and CHILDREN. With complete
needs. Basta sa isang building hindi sila nagkikita.
When I left, it was almost finished. But I was told that
Antonio finished it. But I don’t know if it was done
according to what I envisioned. But what I envisioned
is that it is a 5-hectare land. Then the prison building
would be ½ hectare. The remaining would be for
training. Maglalagay ako ng training for mechanics,
agriculture, etc. the lot is 5 hectares so it would be
fenced in. We also already had an initial
understanding with DepEd, DSWD, TESDA. It would
not be called a provincial jail but it would have been
called a rehabilitation center. But anyway, ganun ang
nangyari.
I will visit it one of these days. I hope they built it
according to how it was envisioned. So that is why the
provincial jail was abandoned. Because we also
wanted that to be … of the provincial government.
That is a pre-ispanic entities. Nung ang uso pang
transpotation is Karwahe. If you look at the Provincial
jail as it is, I envisioned na bukas dapat yun, meron
siyang courtyard sa loob. The purpose is darating
yung karwahe like judges, bababa sila sa entrance
iikot yung karwahe at magpapark dun.
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s
Marcus 42-56
So anong, what was contained there?
There is a court, custody, andun na lahat yung justice
system noon. There is a court there is a prison there
is a guillotine, so hindi na aalis yung nako convict,
doon na rin pinapatay. Dapat merong ganyan kasi
merong katulad nyan sa SARAT Ilocos Norte, if you
want to visit Sarat Ilocos Norte, go to the Church,
yung bumagsak yung tore, dahil daw sabi nila sa
kinasal daw yung anak ni… imee bongbong eh anyway
basta bumagsak daw yan. Nandoon makikita mo
parin, pero doon yung ginawa nung pari ng SARAT?
SARAK? Nilagyan nila nung mga signange kaya ko
natutunan na ganun pala yun. Uh para bagang one
stop shop for the justice system. Andun yung preso
andun yung paglilitis, andun na rin yung guillotine,
that was supposed to be there. kaya makikita mo
yung structure nya mga tore,mga ganon. Pero yung
side nyan until somebody, may ngamamagaling
sinimento nya lahat, nawala yung bricks, yung wall
niyan puro bricks yan, noh? , so kung gusto mo sana
ng restoration, restore that was there before… the
province makikita yung kanyang past, eh dapat yung
pag restore, tiktikin mo yung semento lalabas yung…
kasi kapag bumisita kayo jan noh, nandun yung
original jail, yung museum na ngayon, may Rizal Park,
of course that was only a park kasi kung buhay pa si
Rizal noon.Dito naman sa katuloy nyan, harap niya, is
east central school. Tapos sa tabi nya is the Paseo
Real. Yung ECS, punta kau dun either sa museum or
sa may par, you look at it, tignan mo lang. I envision
mo na wala pa yung dinagdag nilang building dito sa,
both sides, kasi dingdagan nay an. They needed
classrooms, second floor mga ganyan. Nilagyan nila
ng extension yung second floor pero makikita ninyo
na it is an old edifice of Hispanic style because that
was the independencia of Tuguegarao before or not
even Tugue, probably of Cagayan. Kaya makikita mo
parin yung itsura nya, minus yung sides, so you would
see that in that area, Rizal Street nayan, anjan yung
old Tuguegarao, you have the Church, sa sides, tapos
konekonektdo ng tunnel yan ang ginagawa naming
noon yung paseo real, we had to cement over up and
cemented series of tunnels that extends to the church
and to the Arsobispabo, and probably to the jail,
sinarhan natn yun, as late as 2003 2004, nandun
padin yung mga tunnels, so we have to close it. So
makikita mo yung old tuguegarao, you move farther,
mga estranghero ba kayo lahat sa Tugeugarao? No
one is a full blooded from tugeu? Among you? Ok
anyway, mabuti nmn para madiscover ninyo. You go
5|P age
c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
to I think that’s bagumbayan, dirediretsuhin mo yun hanging they deemed to be barbaric, so they invented
hanggang sa dulo, may makikita kang almasen, ano the EChair, they were instances na hindi kayang
yung almasen? It was uh a place where they cook kuryente pumasok nagngingisay ang tao dun ng
bricks, horno, andun pa yun, pero nilagyan na nila ng matagal, so instead of uh it to be a quick death para
bahay bahay etc, wala na yung itsura. That is part of di maging barbaric, it becomes mor barbaric, e ilang
it. You go beyond river nay un, that’s Pinacanauan minute na nagingisay yung tao, baka matyempo pang
that meets the Cagayan river, which used to be a very brownout o kaya … so after that they invented the
romantic place for people of tuguegarao kasi jan lethal injection, but we got this from abroad, di namn
ngmimeet yung pinacanauan saka yung Cagayan tayo… until may nangyari na, nagkamali yata ng
river. And uh anyway ung mga taga tuguegarao, they tinurok, kasi 3 dapat yan eh, 3 fluid, 1 lang dun ang
call it pinacanauan river. That is a misnomer because letha, ung isa is an ordinary oil, yung is is to make him
the word pinacanuan means river kaya kapag numb, para hindi ko na alam etc. Minsan
dumadaan kayo jan, nilagyan ni jeffsoriano ngayon, napagpalitpalit, instead na mamatay kaagad yung
bininyagan nya ngaun nga supposedly sino yung ano, they have to redo it several times hanggan, so
asawa ni Delfin Ting? Si tersing, Tersing Avenue yan, again, they were thinking lethal injection. Ok.
pinalitan nya ng Pinacanauan nac Tuguegarao
Boulevard, it is Tuguegarao river boulevard. Correct, In PP vs Mercado, aside from saying Lethal Injection
bec the word pinacanauan means river. Kaya yung is not a cruel punishment, it said, that the death
mga ngsasabi ng pnacanauan river noon, river river penalty is not cruel per se, punishment is so cruel if it
siansabi mo, that comes from pena blanca, that is why involves torture or lingering death, but the
there Is pinacanauan nac Ilagan, and pinacauanan punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning
somewhere in Isabela atleast in the Ybanag area, so of that word as used in the Consti, Unconsti
that should Tuguegarao, unfortunately for tugue, punishment implies inhuman and barbaric,,
during the 2nd world war, tugue was razed to the something more than the extinguishment of life. Ok?
ground, except those buildings, church yung
museum, saka yung east central, yun hindi na tleast Alright, as I said 1935 consti, prohibits cruel and
hindi bumagsak. Ang masama pa. it was razed to the unusual punishment, the 1973 consti, the phrase
ground already when they build it, ang kikitid padn ng became cruel or unusual punishment, and then the
kalsada, they did not envision na magkakroon ng mga 1987 consti, ganon padin, cruel or but may dinagdag
sasakyan ditto sa tugue, ang malapad lang na kalsada degrading or inhuman punishment, so 00:56:32 End
ditto sa tugue is Kalye Commercio, apart from that Marcus Ehm
wala na. You go to the side streets , di mo
masasalubong yung sasakyan nakaparke pa yung iba
etc. anyway, so that’s sure tugue, that is the center of Jofel – 56-1:10
Tugue That is why when we build also, as an ____
when we build the Paseo real, I gave instructions to As I said the 1935 constitution prohibits cruel and
the architects, that the façade must concide with the unusual punishment, the 1973 constitution, the
design of Hispanic design, dapat nag ngkokombiyena phrase became cruel or unusual punishment and then
sa Church sa arsopispabo sa lahat, so before they torn
the 1987 constitution, ganun parin cruel but may
down to make way for expansion by, yung nghahire o
nagrerent ngaun, the façade of that is of Hispanic dinagdag, degrading or inhuman punishment. So that
design, anyway wala na nagayon, hindi na Hispanic, the punishment is prohibited if it is either of the 3,
so that’s your Tugue, Bakit ba tayo napunta ron? cruel, degrading, or inhuman.
(laughing)

Anyway, Fascilities, you try to visit somepart of tugue

and you will learn at tugue east. Ok. Because of the mandate under the constitution,
congress divide capital punishment in 1993 through
Read also Pp Vs. Mercado, where this cases that
RA 7659, the death penalty law. I was still in my first
lethal injection is not a cruel and not unusual
punishment is allowed by the constitution, dati kasi, term in congress during that time. And then It was
hanging o kaya yung hinihila nalang yung katawan abolished, RA 9346, disallows the imposition of death
hanggang maghiwalay o kaya yung pinuputulan or penalty. People vs. Mon, October 30, 2006. And now

6|P age
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
again for drug cases, drug related cases pareho din
iyon,iyong heinous andun pa rin ibabalik lang iyong
heinous, so iyong tinanggal gusto na naman ibalik. I
think there seems to some confusions whether death
penalty was reinforce or not.
Read: So what are heinous crimes? You read that
from Bernas. Heinous crimes are those grave, odious,
etc.
Section 20
No person shall be imprisoned from debt or non-
payment of contracts. Ewan ko kung bakit nandiyan
pa iyong nonpayment of all cause, eh iyong tax? wala
naman na iyan eh. There is no such thing now. But I
don’t know why the 1987 constitution still included
that in the provisions. We will confide ourselves in the
“no person shall be imprisoned for debt. It simply
means that no person may be prison for debt in virtue
of an order in civil proceedings either as a substitute
for satisfaction of a debt or as a means of compelling
satisfaction. But a person maybe imprisoned as a
penalty for a crime arising from a contractual debt
and impose a proper criminal proceedings.
So here comes the Bouncing Check Law , Batas
Pambansa 22. The batas Pambansa 282, , there is a
penalty of imprisonment there but remember it
comes from a civil transaction. So perse, you would
say that it is a violation of the probation, not that
under the Batas Pambansa 22, there must be a
criminal prosecution. So because there is a criminal
prosecution, the rules of court, according to trial, and
it is convicted then, you bring him to prison. It is no
longer for payment of the debt, it is already a criminal
offense. Because there is element of estafa in
bouncing check law.
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s
Inimbento lang yang bouncing checks law nay an
because of too much debts during the martial law.
They wanted to shorten, simplify, the prosecution of
the bouncing checks. Marami ng bouncing check. It
use to be only for a case of estafa, which is harder to
prove. Iyong batas Pambansa 22 kasi is a mala
prohibitum. It is prohibited by itself. The mere fact
that it bounced that is already a criminal offense. You
don’t take it into consideration the intention or other
reasons for bouncing of the check. The only question
asked is did the check bounce was it issued in favor of
the defendant? so that is the exemption. It is true that
as a general rule, no person shall be imprison for debt
arising from civil proceedings but a person maybe
imprisoned for debt arising from a contract provided
that there is a case that was filed. So the key here
would be the criminal prosecution and the conviction
of the person.
The people tax is a cedula tax. Resident certificate.
Kaya hindi kayo in you don’t go to prison if you don’t
pay your cedula. But you can’t not transact in a
business without your cedula. So you pay your cedula.
Section 21
No person shall be put twice in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. Then the second
paragraph, the act is punished by law or an ordinance
etc. there are two classes of double jeopardy so to
speak in section 21. The first one would be the same
offense kind and then second one would be same act.
The first sentence deals with the prosecution of the
same offense. The second, for the same act.
So what is jeopardy? It is the annoyance, the vexation
of the criminal prosecution. If you say it is prohibited
because it would be unconstitutional to put a person
in prison twice in the same annoyance of being
7|P age
c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
prosecuted. You can just imagine that you are charge Joseph 1:10-1:24
for an offense, and you go to trial. You paid your
lawyer, pwedeng days or months, years of trial and 1:10-1:24
then you are acquitted of your case is dismissed, then
there is another case filed for a the same offense
ano ang ibig sbihin ng mga ito
against you and you go through again the annoyance,
Upon a good indictment means that there
the vexation, that is prohibited. The putting of a
person in a position of vexation twice. So that must be a valid complaint or information or
jeopardy is place in danger of punishment or other formal charge sufficient in form and
annoyance and vexation of a criminal prosecution so substance to sustain a conviction.
that one who is prosecuted for a criminal offense is
put in danger of being punished for the same. So it must be the criminal complaint must be
sufficient in form and substance.

There are 3 requisites required to raise the defense of Second, because under the still in the first,
double jeopardy:
Under a detective information, the accused
Double jeopardy under section 21 is a defense. For can never be convicted, hence, he cannot
the second prosecution of the same offense so that it be said to have been in jeopardy of
is a defense. You can put that in a motion to dismiss
punishment.
an accusation against you on the ground of dual
jeopardy. So it is a defense
What is meant by competent court?
1. a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the
Competent court means a:
second. So you are talking of 2 jeopardies. The first
vexation of jeopardy must have attached before the
- Court that has jurisdiction over the
second comes in. we will define what is meant by offense charged or that
attach in a little while. - The court has territorial jurisdiction
over the crime committed
2. the first jeopardy must have terminated. Natapos
na either by acquittal, by conviction or dismissal
dalawa yun. Yung competent jurisdiction
3. the second jeopardy must be for the same offense means that the court has jurisdiction over
as that in the first. the offense charged.
What does it mean?
Our courts are structured. The structure of
Bernas enumerated them. But study. No we go to the
our courts is that there is a Regional Trial
first requisites. What is the first requisites, the first
jeopardy must have attach prior to the second. What
Court and there are lower courts: Municipal
is that? When is a first jeopardy attached?. When thus City Courts, Municipal Circuit Criminal
jeopardy attach? First upon a good indictment, Courts, etc. so RTC yan, at tsaka MTC.
second before a competent court, third after Each has its own jurisdiction. RTC for
arraignment, fourt after plea.
example: murder, homicide, etc. and then sa
MTC yung mga lesser offense.

8|P age
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
When the requisites says: it must be in a When the court that takes cognizance of the
court of competent jurisdiction. In so far as case is without jurisdiction, or proceedings in
the crime charged is concerned. dapat nasa such court are void and the accused cannot be
RTC kung yung RTC ang may jurisdiction convicted. Jeopardy does not attached.
Pwede pang I demanda ulit. walang jeopardy so
doon sa crime charged in the information.
hindi bawal na mai-file ulit yung kaso against
him.
kapag finile mo yung kaso sa MTC eh ang
jurisdiction nung, ang may jurisdiction doon Second requisite:
sa crime charged in the information is RTC - The first jeopardy must have been
then you didn’t file it with the court of terminated
competent jurisdiction. Double jeopardy
doesn’t attached. Hindi pwede. Hindi Bulaong vs. People. Two informations were
papasa. filed on the same day against the same person,
one in the court of first instance of (Court of
Second meaning of jurisdiction: First Instance ang tawag noon sa RTC) Laguna
for rebellion. under Art.134 of the RPC and
Court of First Instance in Manila for subversion
Territorial jurisdiction – each of our courts
under the Anti-Subversion Act.
has their own territory. Tuguegarao or the
vicinity of Tuguegarao then you have Tuao, On appeal of the Laguna case to the Supreme
RTC Tuao, then you have RTC Ballesteros, Court, the accused raised the defense of double
you have RTC Sachez Mira, then you have jeopardy. The Supreme Court rejected this
RTC Aparri. defense because neither of the two cases have
Each of these Regional Trial Courts have their been terminated.
own jurisdiction. like our courts in Lasam, the pareho pang pending so hindi pwede.
case should be filed in the RTC of Ballesteros.
In Aparri, From Calayan, dapat Aparri ang Termination of jeopardy, may lead by conviction
or acquittal it may also be by dismissal.
may jurisdiction dapat ifile doon. Both in so
far as both MTC and RTC are concerned.
so second requisite: the jeopardy the first
offense must have been terminated and
so Territorial Jurisdiction - if the crime termination may mean conviction, of course if
happened in Lallo and you filed it in the accused is convicted the case is terminated,
Tuguegarao, then the case was filed in a if the accused is acquitted the case is
court without jurisdiction, so dalawang terminated, if the case is dismissed, then it is
bagay yan. Jurisdiction of the criminal terminated but we will define what dismissal
offense and territorial jurisdiction. Alright. means. Yung question “may the dismissal of the
Competent jurisdiction. case terminate the case?”

first jeopardy, it depends

9|P age
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
 - There is acquittal when the case is terminated
upon the merits of the issue. as when there is no
Read! people vs velasco
pronouncement that the evidence that does not
show the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt.  Even if the dismissal is definite, if made with
- There is dismissal when the case is terminated the consent of the accused, it would not be a
on any ground that does not decide the merits of bar to a subsequent prosecution. The consent
the issue as to whether or not the accused is or of the accused to the dismissal of his case works
is not guilty of the offense charged. as a waiver.

o Dismissal, even if not on the merits, if labelling a dismissal in word definite or

done without the consent of the provisional is surplus age. what determines the
accused, is a bar to subsequent
prosecution. effect of dismissal is its nature and not its label.
 If dismissed with consent of
the accused, it does not bar the judge will now render an order, the case is
to subsequent prosecution. It
can be refiled depending on
now dismissed with finality and the accused is
the gravity of the offense, if it asked if he consents to the dismissal of the case
is not yet prescribed. and he said YES I CONSENT. And the order says
(temporary dismissal)
in this case. The case is now ordered dismissed
 The effect of dismissal is determined by its
nature and not its label. with finality.

it is not final why?

Termination if based on the merits even with or - because there is a consent of the accused
without the consent of the accused, is a bar to
further prosecution because such termination is maski ilang finality maski ilang forever
in fact unapplicable. terminated na sinasabi ng husgado kung may
consent ang accused the case is not not
There is what is called a proceeding that is terminated.
demurrer to evidence, a demurrer evidence is
actually a motion to dismiss after the pwede madismiss yun on other grounds but
prosecution shall have terminated the usually kapag di dumating yung witness. first
presentation of its evidence before the accused time and second time lang, eh apurado naman
presents its defense but there has to be several yung defense counsel. I moved to dismissed.
requisites that have to be complied with under Malamang yung tatlo apat na beses na wala
the new rules promulgated by the Supreme yung witness.
court one of which is must be upon the consent but it is not on the absence of the witnesses it is
of the court, you have to ask the court to file a a ground that the accused has the right to
demurrer to evidence before you can do that, speedy trial that is the ground for that so it is
otherwise there is also a provision that if it is dismissed.
without the consent of the accused, the accused
shall have waived and this is the point:
his right to present evidence and the case may
be decided solely on the basis of prosecution’s if the dismissal is predicated on the right of the
evidence. accused to a speedy trial

10 | P a g e
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
the dismissal is on the merits. evidence would carry conviction on the second
case then it is for the same offense.
when the accused is not given a speedy trial it
means the failure of the prosecution to prove
Carisma 1:24 -1:38
the case.
The same evidence test. So if the same evidence
then Bernas even has a suggested procedure would carry a conviction in the second case, then
when the defendant wants to exercise the right the case for the same offense, then there is
to speedy trial. let’s say for instance apat na double jeopardy. Alright that’s the first
beses nang hindi sumipot yung witness ng sentence, we now go to the second sentence.
prosecution. Same offense, actually meaning same physical
act. If event is valid by an ordinance, and etc, yun
the technique accdg. to Bernas is not to ask for yung second paragraph, second sentence. That is
dismissal outright. but to insist on immediate that class of double jeopardy is same act. It is
trial so kunwari naman, abugado naman ng predicated on the principle that one criminal act
defense nawala na yung witnessed pang-apat must resolve in one criminal offense. It cannot
na yan. kunwari hot na hot kang mag-trial so be that it push with constitute 2 offenses even if
sasabihin ng prosecution were sorry your honor there are two laws that will govern the same.
our witness is not yet here again. Okay? Same criminal intent. Yung criminal intent
ng controlling noon. Nung tinulak mo siya at
Tatayo ka naman. Sasalita ka Defense counsel. nasagasaan siya ng upcoming motor vehicle,
Sasabihin mo naman No your honor I insist that there was one criminal intent. Ano yung unang
we must go on the trial. wala naman siyang case mo dun? Probably, under the Revised Penal
magagawa kung wala siyang witness. Code or under another municipal ordinance,
parehong, both of which defines this is a crime.
the effect is that would be why do you want the Hindi pwedeng dalawang crime. Bakit? Because
case would be dismiss because my client is there is only one criminal intent. One act. Clear?
entitled to speedy trial it is his constitutional Alright. Read People vs. Bovelo. (not sure, di ko
right so the case must be dismissed on that masyadong naintindihan, search niyo na lang po.
grant. Hehe.  ) It will demonstrate yung one act. Also,
Yap vs. Luther cited by Bernas. Rule when one
act violates two different statutes or two
3rd requisite the second jeopardy must be for the different provisions of the statute. If the one act
same offense as the first how would you know resolves into distinct offenses, prosecution
that the second case is for the same offense as under one is a bar to the prosecution under the
the first? other. So again, there must only be one crime
committed. If the senior criminal act is impelled
that is what we call the same evidence test, test by a senior criminal intent, the resolve that harm
to determine whether the second is the same cannot speak into two different offenses. Read
offense as the first whether the evidence needed Mello vs. People. It is a 19kopong kopong case
in the first case will support a conviction on the kaya lang, the jurisprudence still holding new
other same evidence test, so if the same supervening fact. It appears that a case was filed

11 | P a g e
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
against the accused for Serious Physical Injuries. officers and men of the ABSECOM, Executive
Okay. While the case was still being processed, Command and many others. I was representing
the victim died. So that prosecution moved to Prospero General Olivas. There was , the case
amend the criminal complain to Murder. The was completed, there was trial, etc. and it
Supreme Court said, it can’t be done because it resulted of conviction of several of the ABSECON
is a supervening act. That withstanding that people, an acquittal of their acquittal.
there was already a double jeopardy, ordinarily Unfortunately, after the trial. Tita Cory became
already attached, there was filed in a competent President, So she was President and Ninoy
court, there was jurisdiction, it was not for the Aquino is her husband. So they reopened the
same offense. Because there is a supervening case violating the jurisprudence of Double
act, the Serious Physical Injuries at first became Jeopardy, violating the jurisprudence on finality
a Murder. Mello vs. People. of judgment. But because she was the husband
of the victim in this case, there was the second
Okay. Appeals. The protection against second trial. The justification of the Supreme Court is
jeopardy not only means that an accused cannot that reopening of the case rested on the premise
be prosecuted the second time at the same that the proceedings in Sandiganbayan
offense. But also, that the prosecution cannot characterized by a grave abuse of discretion
appeal a judgment of acquittal. That is why, if the
amounting to laws on jurisdiction. Proceedings
accused is acquitted, the prosecution, no matter would be invalid and the acquittal may not really
how convinced it is that there should be acquit and did not tell for terminate the case.
conviction cannot appeal for the acquittal. That This decision went against an existing
is included in the rule against Double Jeopardy. jurisprudence that says that a judgment of
A judgment of acquittal rendered within the
acquittal rendered within the court’s jurisdiction
court’s jurisdiction even if erroneous ends the even if arraigned erroneous ends the case in
case finally. Provided that the judge considered finality and another jurisprudence that provided
the evidence even if his appreciation of the the judge considered the evidence even in his
evidence is leading to acquittal is erroneous, an appreciation of the evidence is dealing to
appeal for motion for reconsideration by the
acquittal erroneous on appeal for motion for
prosecution will not be allot Double Jeopardy. reconsideration by the Constitution will not be
When a judgment of acquittal or dismissal of the aligned. Galman vs. Sandganbayan.
merits is void for lack of jurisdiction, the
judgment cannot be based, cannot be a base for And lastly, appeal by the accused. Okay. If the
a plea of Double Jeopardy. Ouster from accused is acquitted, the prosecution cannot
jurisdiction can come about through a judge abate the judgment because it would be against
abuse of constitutional rights such as the hide the rule of Double Jeopardy. But if the accused is
constitution a day in court. ( di ko naintindihan the one, if the acquitted accused is the one who
masyado). The case on hand here is the Galman will file an appeal. PWEDE. But there is no Double
vs. Sandiganbayan. The Galman vs. Jeopardy. Okay. If it is the accused that is going
Sandiganbayan case is an offshoot of the to file an appeal, and he will appeal his judgment
assassination of Ninoy Aquino in August 21, of acquittal, PWEDE. Sa Court of Appeals, noh,
1983. There was a first case that was filed against however, the appellate Court would impose a
General Olivas ( ewan ko kung tama ), the penalty higher than that of the original. If he was,

12 | P a g e
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
no I mean, not acquittal, I’m sorry, appeal by the And five, which assumes to regulate civil rights
accused that is convicted pala. If the accused is and reminisce only but in effect impose a penalty
convicted for 6 years, and one day to twelve for deprivation of right and lastly which deprives
years, he appeals e, pwede. Pwede niyang I of person accused of the crime of some lawful
appeal yun. Pero if the appellate court sentences defense such as the protection of former
him to 12 years and one day to 20 years, then acquittal or conviction of amnesty proclamation.
problema na niya yan. That is the penalty also of
the accused. Okay. Any question on Section 21.
Jubi 1:38 -1:46
Lastly Section 22, "No ex post facto law or bill of
attainder shall be enacted . First thing first, And remedies only penalty in effect deprivation of
definition of ex – post facto law. An ex – post right
facto law is one which makes an action done And lastly which deprives a person accused of the
before the passing of the law which was innocent crime of some lawful defense such as protection
when done criminal. It punishes such action. former acquittal or conviction or amnesty or
protection
Mahirap noh. Okay.
Those are the definition of the ex post facto law, They
There is an act that is done. The act is done. Then are all mentioned in a bernas book
there is the passing of the law which penalizes
Read and understand
the act, ojkay, there is an act done and this act
was innocent, there was a law passed. Yes.
Making this act criminal. That is an ex – post
Ex post facto law embrace only criminal or penal
facto law. Okay. statutes

Second another definition,it is an act, it is a law The prohibition applies only to criminal legislation,
that aggravates a crime or makes it greater than which affect the substantial rights of the accused
when it was committed. Nagging mas malala It is directed to congress, because congress is the one
yung penalty for example. That is an ex – post
facto law. It also applies to criminal procedural law prejudicial to
the accused
And third, a law which changes the punishment
Deprivation of the right to follow the one’s profession
and inflicts a greater punishment than the law
annex to the crime when it was committed. I And force thru a civil proceeding was nonetheless
considered a penalty over the ex postfacto legislation
think it’s easily understood.
An amendment to the law under which a person has
And fourth, a law which alters illegal rules of been prosecuted can be applied retroactively to him
evidence and receives less or different if the amendment is favorable to him
testimonies than the law require by the time of
If it is not then it falls under the definition of ex post
the commission of the offense in order to convict fact law
the defendant. Mas magaling. It is a law where
Second one is the bill of attainder
the evidence, the evidence is lessened . it is now
easier to convict. That is an ex – post facto law. It is also a legislative act which inflicts punishment
without judicial trial

13 | P a g e
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .
It is actually a conviction that is made by congress the Recit will begin from section 10 and we can
law itself provides already a penalty in full include the accommodate two recitation from section 10
definition and conviction without trial onwards.

Congress enacts a law that all women who have long End
hair below their shoulders shall be imprisoned for six
months so it gathers all women that has hair longer
than the shoulder length and puts you there and you
are convicted already that is the law that is enacted
by congress. It is a bill of attainder

Kaya nga of course I have over simplified it

It prevents legislature to assuming judicial question

It is a safeguard against trial by legislature

Legislative acts no matter what their form apply

either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable
members or group like women that has hair below
shoulder length as

In a way to inflict punishment to them without trial

prohibited by the constitution

The living case here is PP vs Ferrer

Again this is 19kopong kopong case, a case decided

when RA1700 anti subversive act when it was still in
effect. Since then it was considered as
unconstitutional

Under the issue here in pP v sferrer although it is now

a hypothetical case a merely hypothetical discussion
issue here would be a ra 1700/ anti subervison act
Under the provision of ra 1700 it declared

It pronounce communist party of the phils without a

safeguard of a judicial trial

It under the provisions of the act ra 1700 or anti-

subversion act

Provided you are already, you are a member of a the

communist party of the phils then you are already
guilty of anti subersvion .That in essence is pp vs ferer

But read also the case and the comment of bernas

Mentioned in this book.

Any question – I think we have enough for recitation

Two recit rounds on march 28 – mahirap yung quiz

ang hirap mag correct ng test papers.

14 | P a g e
I n t h e e v e n t t h a t y o u h a v e t h i s c o p y a n d y o u a r e n o t p a r t o f t h i s g r o u p , f e e l f r e e t o j o i n u s
s o c a n h e l p i n t r a n s c r i b i n g .