Consti 2 Section 5-14

Freedom of Religion
Art. III, Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an

establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test
shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights.
2 Parts:
1.) Non-Establishment Clause
2.) Free Exercise Clause
NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
- Prevents the state from promoting a religion

- Definition by Fr. Bernas: Prohibits laws which aid one or all religions or prefers one over another.
Related Provisions in the Constitution:

1. Art. VI, Sec. 29 (2)
“No public money or property shall be appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly
or indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other religious
teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is
assigned to the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government orphanage or
leprosarium.”
2. Art. II, Sec. 6

“The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.”
Matters prohibited by the Non-Establishment Clause:

1. State cannot organize a church
2. State cannot promote one religion
3. State cannot impose taxes to support a religious activity
4. State cannot participate in the affairs of a religious organization
According to Fr. Bernas, the purpose of the Non-Establishment Clause is to allow religion to compete
freely with each other without the State’s patronage, but based on their own merit.
Exceptions to the Non-Establishment Clause:

1. Art. VI, Sec. 28(3) exempts religious property from tax
2. Art. VI, Sec. 29(2) authorizes payment of public funds to priests in the Armed Forces, any penal
institution, or government orphanage or leprosarium.
Constitutional Law 2 The Fraternal Order of St. Thomas More
2008 Edition Ateneo de Davao University, College of Law
3. Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3) under certain conditions, allows religious instructions in public schools.
LEMON TEST - Test on Permissible Aid to Religion

1. Statute must have a Secular/Legislative Purpose. (Secular – worldly or non-religious purpose)
2. Principal or Primary Effect is neither one that advances or prohibits religion.
3. It must not foster “excessive government entanglement with religion.
AGLIPAY VS RUIZ
The government appropriated P60T for design of new stamps which

commemorated the 33rd Eucharistic Congress in Manila. The design was the
Map of the Philippines. Monsignor Aglipay petitioned to stop the making
and sale of the stamps. He reasoned that this was a violation of Section
5.
RULING: The court ruled that the purpose of the stamp was to attract
tourist to the Philippines, not for the purpose of promoting religion.
The benefiting by the Catholic Church was only incidental to the main
purpose or the principal effect. It was not intended to be the primary
beneficiary. The stamp emphasized Manila (as shown by the design), not
the event or a particular religion.
GARCES VS ESTENZO
RULING: The court ruled that the purchase of religious image by the
barangay council with private funds raised from voluntary contributions
did not violate the Constitution. The fiesta is a socio-religious affair.
It is considered part of the Filipino tradition. Purchase of the image
does not support any religion, but a socio-religious tradition as ruled
by the Court.
The Lemon Test applied in the case:

a. This does not seem to have a secular purpose since the religious factor cannot be
separated from the social factor. (This is still considered questionable)
b. Also the Bario Councils seem to be really participating in a “Religious Activity”.
Although it was argued that the purpose of the fiesta was to “relieve the
monotony” of the people. It is not convincing. It will have a principal effect of
validating a religion. This is a form of participation of a government entity in a
religious affair.
c. It does not have excessive government entanglement since the image is kept by
the religious leader. If it was kept by the priest, this will be an excessive
entanglement. The image was purchased with private funds.
FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
- It prevents the State from stagnating a religious growth.

- It is the freedom to believe and to act in accordance with the belief
2 Fold-Aspect of religious freedom:

1.) The freedom to believe
2.) The freedom to act in accordance with one’s belief is not absolute because this is where you
translate your belief into actions, which may come in conflict with some accepted canons of
civilized existence. The State now has the police power to restrict the action.
Rahima S. Ayunan, CB 1
Freedom to Act in One’s Belief has 2 parts:

1. The State cannot compel a person to do something which his religion prohibits.
2. The State cannot prohibit a person from doing something which his religion commands.
GERONA VS SECRETARY
The children in Buenavista Comm. School in Masbate, who are members

of the Jehovah’s witnesses, refused to salute the flag and recite the
oath of allegiance. Their parents claimed that their religion prohibits
them from doing “religious acts”, like those in issue. They were expelled
by the school be virtue of a Department order. They questioned D.O. No.
8, Series of 1995.
RULING: The court held that they must follow the requirements to salute
the flag and recite the oath of allegiance. The court further ruled that
the flag ceremony and reciting the oath are not religious ceremonies, and
that the flag is devoid of any religious significance. They were not
compelled by the State to perform a “religious act”. (This ruling was
reversed in a later case).
Q: Who decides whether something is religious or not?

A: The competence to decide on whether something is religious or not is vested with the Court.
NOTE: Court should have no business in deciding what is religious or not. They have no standards to
apply. They cannot apply any law, jurisprudence, etc.
Q: What is the Substantive Evil that the Court sought to avoid in forcing children to salute the flag?
A: The possibility of producing citizens who have no love of country. The SC seems to have an abundant
faith in the flag ceremony as an instrument to bring about love of country, patriotism, and the like.
According to the Court, there was no issue of compulsion in the case of Gerona. The only consequence
of not saluting the flag is expulsion from the school. In the Barnett case, students who refused to salute
the flag were expelled. But, there was also a law punishing those who are not in school; therefore, there
was compulsion. In this case, there was no law punishing those who are not in school. You would only
be expelled. Therefore, there is no compulsion.
EBRALINAG VS DIVISION
There were students, all members of the Jehovah’s witnesses, who

were expelled for refusing to salute the flag, sing the national anthem
and recite the oath of allegiance. Their religion prohibited them from
doing so.
RULING: The Court ruled that there was no Clear and Present Danger posed
if they were exempted from the requirement. There was no danger that they
will produce citizens who have no love of country if the government
allowed a religious exemption. The danger predicted in the Gerona case
has come to pass. The Jehovah’s witnesses is a small group and it will
not shake our part of the world if we exempt them from the requirement”.
(Now it seems that the SC has lost faith in the flag ceremony as an
instrument to bring about love of country.)
The test used here for limiting the free exercise clause is the Clear and
Present Danger test.
NOTE: However, the Court did not strike the law as unconstitutional. It only exempted the Jehovah’s
witnesses from the requirement. The Court also required them to stand at attention during the flag
ceremonies, otherwise there might become a clear and present danger to the public interest, safety,
moral, or public order.
Who decides whether something is religious or not?

 In the Gerona case, it was the COURT
 In the Ebralinag case, it seems that it was still the COURT
 According to the Justice Cruz, it should not be left to the courts because it is something
which is intensely personal
AMERICAN BIBLE VS CITY OF MANILA
 compare with the Tolentino case

 The ABS was a religious corp. in the sale of Bibles and other
religious articles. They were required to obtain a license and pay the
corresponding fee for being engaged in the sale of merchandise.
RULING: The court ruled that Ordinance 2925 violated Freedom of Religion.
The government cannot impose some form of tax on somebody for the
exercise of his religion. ABS was a missionary organization which sells
bibles as part of propagating their faith. The ABS was only making a
small profit from the sale of the bibles. If they were making a lot of
profit, then that would be the time the government should impose a tax on
them since it would not anymore be part of “propagating the faith”.
Payment of a license is a form of tax. If taxes were imposed on religion, in the end, the exercise of
religion will already be burdensome, so that only those who can afford can exercise it. This is an undue
restraint on Freedom of Religion. This was even compared to taxing a pastor for delivering his sermon.
Just like in the Ebralinag case, the ordinance was not struck down for being unconstitutional, but the SC
only exempted the ABS from its coverage.
Q: Did the Court make a Constitutional Defect in requiring everyone, including religious groups, to pay
for Mayor’s permit?
A: No, because it is not a tax but only a regulatory payment. Although the City can require payment,
they did not require payment for permit for ABS.Everyone can be required to pay for permits, including
the ABS. Nevertheless, the Court stated that they cannot be required because of the wording of the
ordinance itself. There was no constitutional defect here. The ordinance itself stated that “only those
required to pay must pay the permit.” Since the ABS was exempted from getting a license, it is also
exempted from getting a permit.
TOLENTINO VS SECRETARY
- compare with the American Bible case

The Philippine Bible Society challenges the Expanded Value Added Tax
Law as a restraint on Freedom of Religion because it removes the tax
exemption previously enjoyed by religious organization for the
printing, importation and sale of books by religious organizations,
and because it requires the payment of P1,000.00 for registration of
all persons and entities subject to the payment of the VAT tax.
RULING: The court held that the Freedom of Religion does not prohibit
imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the sale of
religious materials by religious organizations. Similarly, the
registration fee is only for the purpose of defraying part of the cost
or registration which as a central feature of the VAT system. It is a
mere administrative fee, one not imposed on the exercise of a
privilege, much less a constitutional right. The fixed law is of
general applicability. It does not discriminate any religion or group.
The court held it to be valid.
CENTENO VS VILLALON-PORNILLOS
The accused is a chairman of a civic organization. In order to

renovate their barrio chapel, the organization launched a fund drive
through solicitation. Since it failed to obtain a permit from MSSD,
accused was charged and convicted for violation of PD 1564, otherwise
known as the Solicitation and Permit Law. Among others, accused argues
that solicitation for religious purposes cannot be penalized without
violating the free exercise clause of the Constitution.
RULING: The court held that Freedom of Religion has two concepts, which
are: 1)freedom to believe; 2) freedom to act. The first is absolute such
that the government could not restrict it, while in the second, the
exercise of religion may be regulated. Some slight inconvenience in order
that the statement may protect its citizens from injury. Thus, the state
may require the solicitor to establish his identity, or it may regulate
the time and manner of solicitation in the interest of public safety,
peace, comfort or convenience. But this power to regulate must be so
exercised as not to unduly infringe on the protected freedom.
(CONCURRING: To require a government permit before solicitation for religious purposes

may be allowed is to lay a prior restraint on the free exercise of religion. Such restraint is
allowed and we may as well justify a permit before a church can make Sunday collection
or enforce tithing.
VICTORIANO VS ELIZALDE
The case involved a close shop agreement in CBA between employees

and management. Close Shop Agreement means an agreement between
management and union to make membership in a union as a condition
precedent for continued employment. The issue involved here is can an
Iglesia ni Cristo member be compelled to join the union as a condition
precedent for his employment under the close shop agreement , even if his
faith prohibits him? Victoriano refused to join because his faith
prohibits him from joining associations or organizations.
RULING: The court ruled that one who is prohibited by his religion cannot
be compelled to join a union under a close shop agreement. Even if he
does not become a member, he cannot be terminated. To compel him to
become a member and to terminate him if he does not is equivalent to
punishment for his religious beliefs. If there is a conflict between
Victoriano’s freedom of religion and Union’s freedom of Contract (bet.
Workers and management), the court held that in all cases freedom of
religion will have supremacy. (fixed formula)
Also freedom of contract is part of property rights as PBL case. Human

rights enjoy supremacy over property rights.
GERMAN VS BARANGAN
During the height of the Marcos protests, petitioners went to hear

mass a t a certain chapel, adjacent to Malacañang, while wearing yellow
shirts. The PSG prohibited them from entering the chapel. The petitioners
questioned the validity of the restraint of the PSG.
RULING: The court held that the restraint was valid. They were not very
sincere in their worship because of their wearing of yellow-shirts.
Another consideration for the prohibition was for security reasons (since
the chapel was near Malacañag). Freedom of Religion is allowed to be
restricted.
However the decision made by the court did not clearly specify the Clear
and Present Danger posed by thr petitioner’s act. In fact, the petitioner
stated that they are willing to be inspected. (A decision of a Marcos SC)
Q: Can you refuse to render military service because it is against your religion?
A: According to People vs. Zosa (38 OG 1676) the SC ruled: Yes; If your religion prohibits it or if you are a
“conscientious objector”. However this ruling is not applicable anymore as this poses a clear and
present danger. This is supported by Art. 2, Sec. 4 of the Constitution, which states that the Government
may call on the people to render military service and defend the State. A conscientious objector may
be assigned non-military duties. Still, this might raise questions of equal protection as those subjected to
combat duties and to the risk of death may claim discrimination. The answer would probably lie in
whether or not there is substantial distinction between these citizens and those whose religious beliefs
prevent them in conscience from taking human life.
Conscientious objector is defined as a person who need not belong to any particular religion and who
is against war and hold his objection with the strength of a religious conviction. (The Phil court does not
recognize this. This is based on American jurisprudence)
REGISTER OF DEEDS VS UNG SIU SI TEMPLE
A religious group composed of foreigners bought a piece of land and

wanted to be registered in their name. The Register of Deeds denied it
because of the Constitutional prohibition on foreigners owning a land.
The group claimed their freedom of religion was violated by this
prohibition.
RULING: The court ruled that they can still worship God even if the land
is not titled in their name. IT is not a precondition for them to be able
to observe their faith.
A HYPOTHETICAL CASE
An Indian community maintains its old traditional practices. One of such practices is, the whole
tribe will sit down and pass around a peace pipe containing marijuana as part of the ritual. When they
were raided by the FBI during such ritual, they put up Freedom of Religion as a defense.
POINT OF DISCUSSION:
Their usage of marijuana does not constitute clear and present danger because it is
regulated and limited only to occasional religious practices.
The court did not grant them a religious exception but several justices were in favor of giving them.
PAMIL VS TELERON
-concerns religious test

A priest ran for mayor and he won. His opponent questioned his
qualification. According to the Old Administrative Code of 1917, a priest
cannot hold an elective office in local government. The constitutionality
of the Admin. Code was raised to the SC. Some justices interpreted the
prohibition as a religious test, meaning, if you are a priest or and
ecclesiastic, you cannot hold public office. However, only seven shared
this view and the law was not avoided.
NOTE: There is no prohibition now in the New Admin. Code. Under the new Constitution, priests are now
NOT prohibited.
FONACIER VS. CA
Gen. Rule: The State cannot interfere with the affairs of the church
Exceptions:
1. when property rights are involved
2. when the church authority acts outside the scope of his authority or contrary to its
rules
Q: In case of a division of a church, who gets the property? (like when a church separates
as when there are doctrinal differences)
A: the property will go to the faction which adheres to the original doctrines
Q: What if there is no quarrel about the doctrines (so schism), only physical division (as in
this case)?
1. whoever constitute the majority
2. whoever is the duly constituted authority
This rule was not followed in this case. This applies only to big churches with external
leaderships.
In this case, there was no external leadership involved but only the bishops themselves.
Since there is no external leader who can decide as to who is the legitimate authority, the
basis could be to find out who was validly elected or removed.
Matters that the Court will not inquire into:

1. Matters of faith, e.g. 3 persons in one God
2. Doctrine, e.g. Virgin Mary is Mother of God
3. Forms of Worship, e.g. priests faces people
4. Church Law or Rule, e.g. confessions, etc.
5. Customs, e.g. pouring water over the head
The reasons to this is because there are NO statutory, constitutional, or legal standards to
apply.
BAR QUESTIONS:
Q: In serving his prison term in Muntinlupa, X’s religion prevents him to eat meat. Can he damand that
he be given a special diet of non-meat?
A: He is entitled to damages by invoking free Exercise of Religion if he is to go against his belief. The
State should not do anything to compel a person from not executing his religion. Apply here the Clear
and present Danger Rule.
Q: DECS granted a subsidy to a religious school, which incidentally has 3 hours per day to study a
religious subject. Is the subsidy submissible?
A: Apply here the Lemon Test, if it has a secular purpose. This will protect the welfare of the people. It
neither protects a religion too. But there is conflict with reqt. #3 because there is no assurance that the
school will not use the subsidy or the fund for a religious purpose.
Q: What if the subsidy is in the form of laboratory equipment

A: It will now comply with the lemon test
Q: What if the government gives the support as a scholarship to some students more particularly?
A: The law is vague and overbroad. The students can use the scholarship to enter priesthood. There is no
exact standard or guideline to apply
Liberty of Abode and Right To Travel
Art. III, Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing

the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither
shall the right to travel be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety, or public
health, as may be provided by law.
Two Rights Guaranteed in this Section:

1. Liberty of Abode
2. Right to travel
Liberty of Abode
- Can only be limited by:

a. a lawful order by the court
b. by a legislative enactment
- Only Congress, by law, may restrict the right to travel. However, the resident can also bar a
person’s right to travel bearing on the law
- Court restrictions on the right to travel can also be valid for reasons similar to those given in Bails
Right to Travel
Can be limited by the law on the interest of:

1. National Security
2. Public Safety
3. Public Health
MANOTOC VS. CA
Manotoc was facing several charges of estafa and he was out on

bail. During the pendency of the case, he filed a motion in court to
allow him to travel to the US in connection with some business
transactions. The prosecutor opposed his motion. He went to the SC and
contended that the denial violated his right to travel.
RULING: The court held that since he was on bail, the court can validly
restrict his right to travel. The bail is supposed to be used as
guarantee that he will appear on trial. If he leaves for the U.S., the
court can no longer have jurisdiction over him. The conditions of the
bail bond serves as the lawful order for the refusal of the right to
travel. However, this is not absolute. The court may allow those out on
bail to travel according to the court’s discretion.
Requirements an accused must show to be allowed to travel:
1. He must show the URGENCY for the travel

Ex: need to undergo surgery abroad
2. in the application, he must state the DURATION of the travel
3. He must obtain the CONSENT of his surety
SILVERIO VS. CA
Decided under the 1987 Constitution
Silverio was charged with a criminal case and he posted bail. Two years
later, the government filed a motion to cancel his passport because he
could not be arraigned as he was abroad every time the arraignment was
set. The trial court granted the motion. He now contends that a court can
only restrict the right to travel but only on the ground of national
security, public safety, or public health.
RULING: The court held that a court has the power to restrict the right
to travel, with or without an express grant from the Constitution if
there is a criminal case before it. This is necessary for the efficient
administration of justice. The power is inherent in the courts. This is
an implied power in the administration of justice. If the courts would
have no right to limit the right to travel, the administration of justice
would not be effective.
Q: Can administrative and executive officials limit the right to travel?

A: Yes, provided they do not act arbitrarily, even without a court order. “Not acting arbitrarily” would
have their basis as follows:
1. national security
2. public safety
3. public health
4. as may be provided by law.
Personal discretion will not be sufficient to limit this right.

By themselves, these officials, without any law, cannot limit the right to travel. Also, even if there is a law
which limits the right to travel, without any of the three grounds enumerated, they still cannot limit the
right.
NOTE: They must first obtain a law or a court order.
MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS
Fomer President Marcos sought to compel the Secretary of Foreign

Affairs to issue him travel documents so that he could return to the
Philippines from his exile in Hawaii. He argued that the decision of then
Pres. Cory Aquino to bar his return violates his right to travel as
guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
NOTE: There was no court order, nor was there a law limiting his right to
travel.
RULING 1: The court held that the right to travel means only the right to
leave. It does not include the right to return to the country. These are
two distinct rights. The right to return is not protected by the Bill of
Rights but is protected by the Philippine Law by virtue of the Principle
of Incorporation.
The principle of Incorporation states that generally accepted principles
of International Law is part of the law of the land. This right to return
is part of those generally accepted principles.
- If the right to return is protected by the Constitution, it can only
be restricted by Law. In this case, there was no law.
- If the right to return is not protected by the Bill of Rights but is
protected by Philippine Law, who can restrict it?
-
RULING 2: The court ruled that there is no more need of a law. The
executive can limit it as part of the President’s implied powers
(DOCTRINE OF RESIDUAL POWERS)
This was how the SC justified the power of Pres. Aquino in barring the
return of former Pres. Marcos.
NOTE: Inherent power of the executive:

1. The power to do anything not prohibited by the Constitution
2. The power to do anything not prohibited by law.
Right to Information
Art. III, Sec. 7. The right of the people to

information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. Access to official records, and to documents,
and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or
decisions, as well as to government research data used
as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided
by law.
COVERAGE:
1. The right to information on matters of public concern
2. The right to access to official records
These rights are necessary to bolster the right to free expression. This is also related to the Policy of Full
Disclosure (Art. II, Sec. 28). In international law, this is called the Principle of Transparency.
The purpose of these rights is to prevent abuse of government power.
Principle of Transparency under the Constitution:

1. Policy of Disclosure (Article II, Section 28)
2. Bill of Rights (Article III, Section 7)
3. Records of Congress (Article VI, Section 20)
4. Foreign Loans (Article VII, Section 21)
VALMONTE VS. BELMONTE
A case was filed by Valmonte to compel GSIS to furnish him with the
list of members of the Batasan who were able to obtain a loan at the
recommendation of the First Lady.
ISSUE 1: Is the information sought a matter of public concern?
RULING 1: Only information which are matters of public concern are

covered by Section 7. The court held that the information sought is a
matter of public concern. Since the GSIS is the custodian of public
funds, it shall be the interest of the citizen which will determine as to
how the money must be disbursed (NATURE OF THE FUNDS). The court defines
a MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN as any subject of which the public may want to
know because it directly affects their lives or they arouse the interest
of a citizen. And the court also stated that the members of the Batasan
are public figures, and this contributes to the idea that this is a
matter of public concern (CHARACTER OF THE BORROWER).
ISSUE 2: Is the information excluded by law on the ground of

confidentiality?
RULING 2: The court held that there is not law which grants GSIS
confidentiality. Also, the right to confidentiality involves privacy
which cannot be invoked by GSIS because matters about privacy are not
available to an artificial person (such as corporations or government
entities). The right of confidentiality pertains to borrowers. Privacy is
granted only to natural beings.
Discussion:
Q: What if the borrowers in the present case invoke the right to privacy and confidentiality?
A: They still cannot invoke the two rights because the borrowers are public officials.
GSIS also argued that the documents involved were not public records but private
records for the reason that GSIS was performing only ministerial functions.
The court ruled that the distinction between what is ministerial or constituent has
already disappeared. This is relevant only to State immunity but not in this case.
Also the court held that the intent of the framers of the Constitution is to include within
the scope of full disclosure the government owned and controlled corporations.
Q: In the light of the above discussions, can Valmonte compel GSIS to furnish him copies of the
documents?
A: No, what the courts guarantee is only the access to the documents, not to compel government
officials or employees to provide or make them copies of these documents.
AQUINO-SARMIENTO VS. MORATO
The petitioner, a member of the MTRCB, requested that she be

allowed to examine the voting slips of other members. It is on the basis
of these slips that the films are banned, classified or cut by the Board.
Petitioner’s request was refused on the ground that the votes, which are
purely personal, are private and confidential.
RULING: The court held that they are not private because the members of
the Board occupy a public position. These are actually public records and
are therefore not private or personal.
MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHT:

1. Closed-Door Cabinet Sessions
2. Deliberations of the Court
3. Matters pertaining to National Security
4. Trade Secrets
5. Military and Diplomatic Secrets
The right to access to information can be limited by law and regulated by the custodian of the records
as to the manner of access to documents (time, place, etc.). It cannot be restricted.
Right to Form Associations
Art. III, Sec. 8. The right of the people, including

those employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not
contrary to law shall not be abridged.
NOTE: Some say that this right can be removed from the Constitution without destroying the right.
SOME PRINCIPLES
1. The Right to Form an association is higher than the Right to Assembly, since here, people not
only assemble but are already starting to form associations. And to form associations already
involves a purpose.
2. The 1987 Constitution emphasizes the right to form unions, whether the office is private or
public. However, this right does not include the right to strike, which is covered under another
provision in the Constitution.
Other rights linked to this right:

1. This right is an aspect of liberty which is also protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Constitution.
2. This right is also an aspect of the Freedom to Contract.
3. This right is also intimately linked with the Freedom of Expression and Belief. Normally, people
form associations to advance some belief. And when they do so, they also exercise their
freedom of Expression.
Rights included in this Section:

1. The right to join or be a member of an association (positive aspect)
2. The right not to be compelled to be a member of any association (negative aspect)
Rule on non-compulsion:
Gen. Rule:
- No one can be compelled to be a member of an association
Exception:
- Unions by virtue of a Closed Shop Agreement, wherein membership is a condition precedent of
employment
Reason: Close Shop Agreement is a valid exercise of Police power. The State has an interest in
promoting unionism in order to protect labor (which is mandated by the Constitution)
Exception to the Exception:

- No person can be compelled to join aunion even by reason of a Close Shop Agreement if his
religion prohibits him to join. The Freedom of Religion is superior over the Freedom of Association.
According to Fr. Bernas, the ability of the State to restrict the right to form associations is co-
extensive with the purpose of the associations. If the purpose is to PROMOTE PROPERTY RIGHTS, the test
to apply in restricting it is the ordinary tests for a valid exercise of police power. If the purpose is TO
ADVANCE SOME BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS, the test is the Clear and Present Danger Rule.
OCEEÑA VS. COMELEC
Occeña challenged as violative of Section 8 a law which prohibits a

candidate of the barangay election from representing himself as a member
of a political party and also prohibited the political parties from
supporting a particular candidate in the elections.
RULING: The court held that the provision is not absolute. It is subject
to the police power of the State. The law is a valid exercise of such
power.
Whether there is a permissible exercise of police power by the State, the Court did not really aver to
what should be the test to be applied in limiting this right. In this case, the court referred to the Gonzales
vs. COMELEC case and the implication there is to apply the Clear and Present Danger Rule.
The court held that the right to organize is not violated by the law because the political parties can still
organize, but only the activities are restricted.
The Reason or Policy Arguments of the Court:

It is necessary to insulate the barangay from partisan political activities. The barangay is a basic
political structure in our society. Because of this important public interest, the Court considered
restricting the activities of political parties as valid
PAFLU VS SECRETARY
There was a law passed requiring unions to be registered in order

for them to acquire legal personality. Acquiring legal personality is
important because if there is none, the union virtually cannot do
anything. It cannot bargain with the management, be elected as bargaining
representative and it cannot serve as agent to the employees. The effect
is they exist as entities but they have no rights and privileges under
the law. Their existence will have no relevance to the workers. This law
was challenged as violative of the right to association.
ISSUE: Whether or not this is a restriction to Sec. 8
RULING: The court held that the right guaranteed by the Constitution is
the right to form associations and the law does not violate this right.
The employees can still form associations. However, in order to be able
to do something, they must register first to be recognized. The
Constitution does not automatically guarantee legal personalities to
associations. The reason for the requirement of registration is a valid
exercise of police power because the issue of unionism is impressed with
public interest. This requirement of registration would protect labor and
the public against fraud, abuses and impostors who pose as organizers.
Eminent Domain
Art. III, Sec. 9. Private property shall not be taken

for public use without just compensation.
Eminent Domain is the power of the government to take over private property for public use after
payment of just compensation (forced sale to the government).
Outline:
1. Taking
2. Public Use
3. Just Compensation
4. Judicial Review in Eminent Domain
o Eminent Domain – power to take
o Expropriation – procedure of taking
The power of eminent domain is inherent in the government. Even without any constitutional
grant, the government enjoys the power because it is essential for the existence of the government.
The provision is not a grant of power but rather a limitation of power.
Two Situations Where Government Is Forced To Exercise Expropriation:

1. When the property owner does not want to sell
2. When the person wants to sell but he does not agree to the price proposed by the government.
Who May Exercise:
General Rule: This power is primarily vested with the Congress
Exception: It may be delegated to the following:

1. The President of the Philippines
2. The various local legislative bodies
3. Certain Public corporation
4. Quasi-public corporations, e.g. public utilities
NOTE: The power of the local government to expropriate comes from the Local Government Code.
Constitutional Limitations:
1. The purpose of the taking must be for public use.
2. Just compensation must be given to the private owner
TAKING
2 Concepts of Taking:
- Taking as to physical possession
- Taking as to prevention or impairment of ordinary use
- The owner is still entitled to just compensation even though there is no divestiture of title
Elements of Taking:
- Expropriator must enter the private property
- Entrance must be for more than a limited period
- Entrance should be under a warrant or color of authority
- The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected.
- The entrance must be to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment.
REPUBLIC VS CASTELLVI
In 1947, The PAF leased the property of Castellvi renewable year to

year. The lease was renewed yearly until 1956, Castellvi refused to renew
the contract with PAF any longer. In 1959, the government instituted an
action to expropriate the property previously leased. Also, in the same
year, the property was placed under the possession of the government by
virtue of a court order.
What is being disputed in this case are two issues:

1. Castellvi and the government cannot agree on the price
Government – P 0.20 per sq.meter
Castellvi – P15.00 per sq.meter
2. They do not also agree on the date which will be the basis for the
determination of the value of the land.
Governement – value in 1947
Castellvi – value in 1959
RULING: The court held that the value should be determined at the time of
the taking. The taking here would mean 1959, where all the elements of
taking were present. It cannot be 1947 since it did not satisfy the 2 nd
and 5th elements.
NPC VS GUTTIEREZ
NPC erected transmission lines passing through the property of

Gutierrez. As a consequence, NPC asked for a 3-meter right of way. In
this portion, NPC prohibited Gutierrez from planting anything above 3
meters. According to NPC, they will only pay the rental of the right for
way. Gutierrez argued that there is actually impairment of ordinary usage
of his property. Therefore, he should be paid for the full value of the
property traversed by the line.
ISSUE 1: Whether there was taking under the concept of eminent domain
here
ISSUE 2: Should there be a transfer of title
RULING 1: The court held that there is taking as to the sense that there
is impairment of ordinary use, so that the owner is entitled to full
compensation for the portion affected. As the property is injuriously
affected by an easement of right of way, there is expropriation.
RULING 2: NPC argued that since they will pay for the whole property
affected, then ownership of that property should be transferred to them.
The title remains with Gutierrez but NPC should still pay the full amount
for the property affected because there was impairment of usage.
PUBLIC USE
Traditional Definition:
- Those that are to be used by the public, whether for a fee or for free.
Example: roads, parks, schools, etc.
Expanded Definition:
- It will satisfy use even if the expropriated property would not be made directly available to the
public for as long as it can result to its indirect advantage or benefit (the public welfare).
SUMULONG VS GUERRERRO
The NHA wanted to use Sumulong’s property for socialized housing

for the lower and middle class. The owner contended that socialized
housing is not public use because not everyone can benefit from this,
only the handful of people who to be given the houses.
RULING: The court held that the socialized housing is within the context
of public use. Public use has acquired a more comprehensive meaning. That
is whatever would result to indirect public benefit or welfare is also
public use. It also ruled that it will benefit everyone in the sense that
it will affect the safety, health and environment. Providing housing to
these people will help in lessening the incidence of violence and
problems concerning health. In the end, it will benefit everybody in a
way. In short, socialize housing falls within the meaning of public use.
PD 1533, the expropriator is allowed to enter the property before the proceedings of expropriation is
decided by the Court provided it makes a deposit of 10% of the amount (in the meantime, as
determined by the expropriating authority) with the PNB.
ROBERN Case: The expropriator must deposit with the government depositarium the full amount
assessed by the assessor’s office
PANES Case: The 10% deposit of the full amount mandated by PD 1533 was held to be null and void
because the determination how much should be deposited should be a judicial function.
MANOTOC VS NFA
President Marcos issued a decree expropriating the Tambunting

Estate for the purpose of building a housing project. Since the area was
also a valuable commercial property, the decree provided that the
portions thereof will be used for commercial purposes to defray the cost
of the housing project. The government would use the proceeds from the
lease of this commercial property to finance the housing project.
ISSUE: Whether that is still public use
RULING: The court held that there is no public use in this expropriation
case.
Distinction Between Sumulong and Manotoc cases:
The distinction between the Sumulong and the Manotoc case is that in the latter, there is an
intervening step between the taking and use by public which is the operation of a commercial venture.
JUST COMPENSATION
- It is defined as the fair and equivalent of the loss sustained, not what the buyer might actually
gain from the expropriated property.
- According to Justice Cruz, it is the price which the owner is willing to sell; without being force to
sell, and the buyer to buy without being forced to buy. (best definition!)
- Just Compensation is usually left to the forces of the Law of Supply and Demand (Fair Market
Value)
- The value is to be determined at the time of entry or time of taking
- The principle in the determination of just compensation is judicial in nature.
EPZA VS DULAY
PD 1533 provides that just compensation shall be determined by: a.)

the market value as declared by the owner for tax purposes; or b.) the
value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower. Its
constitutionality was challenged.
RULING: The court held that the provision of PD 1533 is unconstitutional.

First, the determination of what is just compensation is a judicial
function. In PD 1533, the discretion of the judge is removed because he
will just simply choose which one is lower. Here, the determination is no
longer judicial. Although the Executive and the Legislative departments
can make the initial determination, the courts will always have the final
say. The decree is an encroachment of a judicial prerogative. Second, it
violates due process. If the decree is applied, it will result in
deprivation of property without due process. The owner must be allowed to
prove the actual value of his property first. Just compensation is value
at the time of the taking. Pegging on the value based on the system set
by PD 1533 would be arbitrary and confiscatory since they are always out
of date. (The decision in this case is a reversal of previous decisions
made by the Supreme Court)
ASSOCIATION VS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
This pertains to the land reform program of the government. At

issue here is the constitutionality of the Agrarian Reform Law. On the
provision of the law, compensation for land taken under the law may be
made in the following manner:
1. 25%-35% cash
2. shares of stocks in government owned and controlled corporation
3. tax credits
4. negotiable LBP bonds
ISSUE: Does the compensation have to be in cash?
RULING: The court held that the law in constitutional. All previous
decisions have declared that compensation should be in the form of money.
However, this is not an ordinary expropriation since it concerns a
revolutionary kind of expropriation.
1. it covers all private lands
2. it is intended for the benefit of the entire nation
3. Its purpose extends to future generations.
4. Land Reform is mandated in the Constitution
5. The cost involved here is tremendous and the government is faced
with financial constraints.
While the intent of the framers as to the form of compensation when they
included Agrarian Reform program in the Constitution is not manifested,
they were all aware of the financial difficulties. Thus, it can be
presumed that they were not against compensation in kind.
NOTE: Generally, just compensation should be in the form of cash except in Land Reform Program
Distinction between Police Power and Eminent Domain
Eminent Domain Police Power
- the owner is - There is no

entitled to just payment of just
compensation compensation
- the property - The property

is taken for public is destroyed in the
use interest of public
health, safety of
public welfare.
Comments by Justice Cruz:

a.) To the extent that the government imposes retention limits (5 has./owner), it becomes an
exercise of police power because property rights are regulated.
b.) To the extent that the owner is forced to sell his land (in excess of 5 has.) to the government, the
concept is one of eminent domain
NOTE: Eminent Domain is used as an instrument of police power in the land reform program, the
concept is on of police power but it is using eminent domain to advance it. The marriage between
eminent domain and police power becomes possible because of the expanded definition of eminent
domain. Police Power is exercised to promote public welfare, but not in eminent domain, property can
be taken to promote also public welfare. There is now a unity of purpose between the two powers of the
government.
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Matters That Can Be Judicially Reviewed For Determination In Cases Of Eminent Domain:
1. The amount of just compensation
- It does not matter whether it is fixed by law or by the executive branch. The court can always
change it. This is judicial in nature.
2. The choice of the property

3. Issues whether the expropriation is necessary
4. Issues whether the property falls within the concept of public use according to the law.
DE KNECHT VS BAUTISTA
This concerns the plan of DPWH to extend EDSA to which the
government had two choices: 1) to put up a road which will run over the
residential houses; or 2) to another which will run over hotels. The
government chose to expropriate the property which will run over the
residential houses.
RULING: The court held that the choice of which property to expropriate
cannot be exercised arbitrarily even if made by Congress. The courts can
review the decision on the choice of property.
Factors Used To Determine Which Property Will Be Expropriated:

- Functionality
- Social Impact
- Cost
The State has a broad discretion to decide which property to expropriate. The court will only
intervene if there is fraud, bad faith, and grave abuse of discretion on the part of the expropriating
authority. If the expropriator chooses one property over another because the owner is a political
enemy, even if the other property is slightly better, the party must prove bad faith or grave abuse of
discretion. Incidental matters or slight differences are not considered as grave abuse of discretion. There
must be a substantial difference between the two properties.
NOTE: - Equal protection is a limitation to Congress in expropriation

- Local Government as expropriator does not need to obtain clearance from DAR in case
there is a change from agricultural use to residential use
Reason: LGC is silent that local gov’t. must secure clearance before they can
expropriate.
REPUBLIC VS LA ORDEN DE PO. BENEDICTOS
In order to ease traffic congestion, the government decided to

extend Legarda St. It filed a petition to expropriate a property owned by
a religious group. The group went to court questioning the necessity of
the expropriation. According to them there is no need to expropriate
their property in order to ease traffic.
RULING: The court remanded the case to the lower court because the matter
on whether there is necessity of expropriation can be reviewed by the
courts.
An exception: When the power of eminent domain is exercised by the

Legislature, the matter seems to be outside the scope of judicial review.
The reason is such is a political question (Separation of Powers). But a
political question can still be reviewed if there is a grave abuse of
discretion.
Non-Impairment Clause
Art. III, Sec. 10. No law impairing the obligation of

contracts shall be passed.
Purpose:
- To safeguard the integrity of valid contractual agreements against unwarranted interference
by the State.
Contract:
- It refers to any lawful agreement on property or property rights, whether real or personal,
tangible or intangible.
- But it does not cover licenses
Law:
- It includes statutes enacted by the national legislature, executive orders and administrative
regulations promulgated under a valid delegation of power, and municipal ordinances
passed by the local legislative bodies.
Obligation:
- The obligation of the contract is the vinculum juris, i.e. the tie that binds the parties to each
other.
Impairment:
- It is anything that diminishes the efficacy of the contract
- The degree of diminution is immaterial. As long as the original rights of either of the parties are
changed to his prejudice, there is an impairment of the obligation of the contract.
- To impair, the law must retroact so as to affect existing contracts concluded before its
enactment. There will be no impairment if the law is made to operate prospectively only, to
cover contracts entered into after its enactment.
When does a law impair the obligations of contracts?

1. When it changes the terms of the contract
2. When it imposes new conditions
3. When it dispenses with those agreed upon
4. When it withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights of the parties.
Basic Principles:
- Police Power , Taxation, and Eminent Domain are superior than the Right to Non-Impairment of
Contracts.
- Freedom of Religion is superior than the Right to Non-Impairment of Contracts.
- The Right to Non-Impairment of Contracts cannot be invoked against Judicial acts.
LIM VS REGISTER OF DEEDS
Sec. of Agriculture leased a land in favor of A for 5 years. While

the lease was subsisting the Secretary also leased the same land to it.
Upon discovery of the mistake, the Secretary revoked the lease to it. It
challenged this with the Secretary of Agriculture and he lost. He then
appealed to the Office of the President who upheld the decision of the
Secretary. B questioned the decision on the ground that the decision is
an impairment of an obligation in a contract.
RULING: The court held that in resolving disputes the office of the Pres
and the Secretary of Agri are exercising Quasi-Judicial functions. The
non-Impairment Clause does not apply to them while exercising Quasi-
Judicial functions.
ORTIGAS VS FEATI
A sold a subdivision lot to B with the conditions that it will be

used for residential purpose. This restriction was printed on the back of
the Title. However, City Govt. reclassified the land as commercial. After
that, the buyer started to put up a building to be used as a bank. The
owner of the subdivision questioned the act as violating the contract.
RULING: the court held that the passing of the ordinance reclassifying
the area as an exercise of Police Power which is superior to the non
impairment clause.
GONZALO VS CENTRAL BANK
Petitioner was given a permit by CB to import apples and other

fruits. However, the CB withdrew his permit unilaterally. Petitioner now
argues that the withdrawal impaired the obligation of contracts.
RULING: The court rules that the agreement was in the form of a permit
and that such is not a contract. Therefore, there is no impairment.
LA INSULAR VS. CO-TANCO
A entered into a contract to sell sugar to B at a fixed price.

While the contract was existing, the govt. increased a tax on the seller
of sugar. A alleged that it impairs his contract.
RULING: The court held that taxation is superior to the non-impairment

clause. Also, there is actually no impairment of the contract between A
and B. It only creates an obligation on the part of A to the Government.
Their contract has nothing to do with it.
SISKA VS OFFICE
In 1967, petitioner entered on a contract to sell on installment a

lot to private respondents. On several occasions, private respondents
defaulted in their payments. Petitioner, without any notice to private
respondents cancelled the contract. Under the contract, notice of
resistance is not required. However, in 1972, congress enacted the Maceda
Law which requires subdivision owners to send a notice of rescission to
the buyer in case of default. The issue raised here is does the law
violate the non-impairment clause?
RULING: The court ruled in the negative. There is impairment only if the
a subsequent law: 1) changes the term of the contract between the
parties, 2) imposes new conditions, 3) dispenses with those agreed upon,
or 4) withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights of the
parties. The requirement of notice under the Maceda Law does not change
the Time or Mode of performance or impose new conditions or dispenses
with the stipulations regarding the binding effect of the contract.
Neither does it withdraw the remedy for is enforcement. At most, it
merely provides for a procedure in aid of the remedy of rescission.
CALEON VS AGUS
Agus Dev. Corp. leased a lot to Rita Caleon who constructed a 4-

door apartment thereon. Without the consent of Agus, Caleon subleased the
apartment units to third persons. When Agus learned of this, it filed an
ejectment suit against Caleon based on BP 25, which included subleasing
the leased premises without the consent of the original lessor as a
ground for ejectment. Caleon interposed the defense that her lease
contract with Agus pre-existed. BP 25 and the lease contract did not
contain any prohibition on subleasing. To apply BP 25, she argued, would
result to the impairment of the contract she had with Agus.
RULING: The court ruled that the Police Power of the State is superior to
the non-impairment clause. BP 25, the law regulating apartment rentals is
an exercise of Police Power.
Free Access to Courts
Art. III, Sec. 11. Free access to the courts and

quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall
not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
This provision means that free access to courts, quasi-judicial bodies and legal assistance
can’t be denied to any person by reason of poverty. There are changes in the new Constitution
compared to the previous one because in the old Constitution, the word quasi-judicial bodies did not
appear and also the words adequate legal assistance. So, in the 1987 Constitution is complete.
ACAR VS ROSAL
This is a civil case which was filed by Sacada workers against the
Sugar Central. Complainants prayed that they be authorized to sue as
pauper litigants (to be exempted to pay certain fees). The court denied
their motion because they were workers, and not paupers.
RULING: The court held that there was a denial of access to courts by
reason of poverty. An indigent was defined as persons who have no
property or source of income sufficient for their own labor, though self-
supporting when able to work and in employment.
Government Programs providing Lawyers to Litigants who cannot afford one:

1. Counsel de oficio
2. Govt. based legal aid (Public Attorney’s office-PAO)
3. Bar association based
4. Others
Rights of the Accused in Custodial Investigation
Art. III, Sec. 12. (1) Any person under investigation

for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his
own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of
counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence
of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or

any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation

of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions
for violations of this section as well as compensation to
and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar
practices, and their families.
COVERAGE:
- when the right attaches
- counsel of choice
- advice
- waiver
- exclusionary rule
- presumptions
According to Justice Cruz, more than half of the Bill of Rights pertains to the privileges given to
the accused. The reason is that the law tries to favor the disadvantaged in the society.
The Judicial System is founded on the principle that “it is better to free a hundred criminals than
to imprison one innocent man”
NOTE: Purpose of this right – to protect the accused from self-incrimination
RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY SECTION 12:

1. The right to remain silent
2. The right to a competent and independent Counsel, preferably his own choice
3. The right to be informed of these rights
4. When the right attaches
WHEN THE RIGHT ATTACHES
REQUISITES WHEN RIGHT ATTACHES:
1. He must be under the custody of law enforcers or is in jail or deprived of freedom of

action in a significant way.
2. He must be under investigation subjected to questioning or interrogation by a law
enforcer.
3. Such questioning must be on relation to a crime.
PEOPLE VS DIMAANO
Basic Principle:
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation.
That is when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit
information and/or confessions of admissions from the accused. At such
point or state, the person being interrogated must be assisted by counsel
to avoid the pernicious practice exalting false or coerced admissions or
confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the
commission of an offense.
PEOPLE VS HATTON
Hatton was arrested. While at the police station, the police formed
a police line-up. During the line-up he was pointed as the one who
committed the crime, but he was not assisted by a lawyer. He raised this
point to the SC. He contended that his right under Sec. 12 was violate.
ISSUE: Does an accused, under Sec. 12, enjoy the right to counsel during
a police line-up?
RULING: The court held no. The purpose of the line-up was only for
identification. And there was no investigation. In fact, it is the
witness who is investigated in the police line-up. This is an implied
reversal of People vs Hassan, 157 S 261, the accused was identified by
the witness in the funeral parlor.)
PEOPLE VS ESPEJO
- Interview by a newspaper reporter

Espejo was charged with murder and was detained by the police. During his
detention, Ruther Batuigas interviewed him and he made an admission that
he was the killer. During the trial, the government put Batuigas on the
stand. The accused raised the issue that his right to counsel has been
violated.
RULING: The court held that Batuigas’ testimony is admissible and there
was no violation of Sec. 12 for the reason that the interview was not
part of the custodial investigation. It was not the police who asked the
questions. It is immaterial whether you are detained or not. What is
relevant is that it is the police who are asking the questions during the
custodial investigation to invoke Sec. 12. And the testimony of the sole
witness was very strong that even if his right was violated he can still
be convicted.
PEOPLE VS BOLAÑOS
- Aboard a vehicle
Accused was arrested and he was loaded on a vehicle, to be brought to the
police station for custodial investigation. During the trip, he made an
admission, and this was used against him. He raised the issue of whither
he was already entitled to counsel at that time m even if he was not yet
in detention.
RULING: The court held that he was entitled to counsel at that time even
if he was not yet in detention. He was entitled to Sec. 12 because he was
already under custodial investigation, so that the police should have
informed him of his rights. His admission is not admissible as evidence
against him. He now enjoys the right. Again, it is important that it was
the police who asked the question.
PEOPLE VS LINSANGA
- signing a marked money

In a buy-bust operation, police gave the accused a P10.00 bill. During
the trial, the bill was presented in Court and the accused invoked his
rights under Sec. 12, claiming that he was not assisted by counsel when
signing the marked money.
RULING: The court held that the marked money is admissible for the reason
that there was no violation of right to counsel since he was not being
charged with possession of marked money, but rather of marijuana.
PEOPLE VS BANDIN
- Receipt of items taken

The house of accused was searched after a buy-bust operation. The police
was able to confiscate drugs, etc. Before they left, the police let the
accused sign a receipt for the items taken. During the trial, the receipt
was introduced as evidence. The accused contended that the evidence was
not admissible because he was not assisted by counsel.
RULING: The Court held that the testimony is admissible because there was
no custodial investigation. Sec. 12 will not apply. This was a voluntary
admission on the part of the accused.
PEOPLE VS ABANPO
- preliminary investigation
There was a preliminary investigation wherein one of the accused appeared
without a lawyer. The lawyer of one of the accused asked questions from
the accused without a lawyer in the presence of the fiscal. The accused
made an admission of his responsibility. During the trial, the govt.
presented his admission as evidence. Accused contended that he was not
worried about his rights.
RULING: The court ruled it admissible. During the preliminary
investigation, accused is entitled to counsel and to be informed of his
rights. (Res Gestae)
GALMAN VS PAGARAN
Gen. Ver and company were charged for the killing of Aquino and
among the evidences presented were their testimonies before the Agrava
Board. They contended that they were not informed of their right to
counsel, their right to remain silent and they made many incriminating
statements. (This is a case where the investigation was not done by the
police and this was not a case of custodial investigation but they are
invoking Sec. 12.)
RULING: The court held that the admissions are not admissible because
they were not informed of their rights. The reason is that the
Constitution does not distinguish the term investigation. It says “any
person under investigation…” The court interpreted this kind of
investigation, not just custodial investigation by police. Therefore this
right applies to the Agrava Board investigation. (However this decision
seems to have been reversed.)
PEOPLE VS AYSON
Accused was an employee of PAL and he failed to remit ticket sales. One
day before his investigation, he wrote PAL indicating his desire to
settle his case gradually. During the investigation (by PAL), he admitted
that he misused the money. However, he was not able to pay, and a
criminal case was filed. Among the evidence presented was his admission
during the administrative investigation. He raised the issue that his
right to counsel was violated.
RULING: The court held the rights apply only to those under custodial
investigation or investigation done by the police. It does not apply to
administrative investigations. (This reverses the Galman case. The court
did not mention the Galman case in this decision.)
PURPOSES OF THE RIGHTS IN SEC. 12:
1. To prohibit incommunicado investigation in a police dominated atmosphere resulting in self-

incriminating statements without the Miranda Warning.
2. To prevent coerced confessions given in a police dominated atmosphere.
NOTE: In Galman case, there was a law compelling the accused to testify under the pain of contempt
while in Ayson casem there is none.
Prevailing Rule: In administrative investigations, the rights under Sec. 12 do not attach
Exception: Galman case because there was a law or EO compelling the accused to testify
PEOPLE VS BALDULA
Accused were arrested and investigated without counsel during which

they confessed. The confessions were not reduced into writing. Two weeks
later, the confession of the other accused was also reduced to writing
with the assistance of counsel.
ISSUE: Are the confessions admissible?
RULING: The court ruled that the right to counsel attaches upon the start
of the investigation, i.e., when the investigating officers start to ask
questions to elicit information and/or admissions from
respondents/accused. Hence, if there is no counsel upon the start of the
custodial investigation, any statement elicited from the accused is
inadmissible as evidence against him, even if the confession is later
reduced into writing and signed by him in the presence of counsel. The
late arrival of counsel does not cure the defect of confessions obtained
without their presence.
PEOPLE VS MARRA
After policemen learned of the killing they proceeded to the scene

of the crime. They saw a security guard who told them that the killer was
wearing a polo shirt of the security guard, as well as the place where he
might be found. They later saw the accused eating but no longer in the
security guard uniform. After some questioning they learned that accused
was a security guard and also about his tour of duty, and that his
firearm was in his house. They requested to see the firearm and accused
brought him to his house. The firearm smelled of gun powder. After more
questions and initial denials, accused admitted that he killed the victim
in self-defense.
ISSUE: Is the admission admissible?
RULING: The court stated Yes. Accused was not under custodial
investigation. Custodial investigation involves any questioning,
initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
the custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action (under
detention). It is only after the investigation ceases to be a general
injury into an unsolved crime, and begins to focus on a particular
suspect, and the police carries out a process of interrogations that lead
itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to
operate. In this case, the inquiry was still general in nature. The
accused was not yet considered a suspect by the law enforcers.
COUNSEL OF CHOICE
Important terms:
1. Competent
2. Independent
NOTE: The right to counsel begins at the start of the custodial investigation
PEOPLE VS OLVIS
Olvis was charged with murder and was investigated by an agent of

the NBI. This appeared in the text in the investigation. This office has
just secured the services of Atty. Navarro of the CLAO. “Are you willing
to accept the legal assistance of Atty. Navarro?” And the accused
answered yes. On appeal to the SC, the accused raised the issue on
whether this complied with Sec. 12, or whether Atty. Navarro was the
counsel of his choice.
RULING: the court held that Atty. Navarro was not the “counsel of choice”
of the accused. The statement did not show that Navarro was chosen by the
accused. On the contrary, it is clear that he was chosen by the NBI. He
was not acting for the accused in his appearance in the case. Sec. 12 was
violated.
PEOPLE VS JIMENEZ
This statement appeared on the text of the investigation. The

lawyer, a retired judge, who assisted the accused said: “I am here
because I was summoned to assist you, and now I am going to assist you.”
RULING: The court held this is not sufficient to satisfy the requirement
of Sec. 12.
PEOPLE VS PAMOM
- A reversal to the Jimenez and Olvis case

An investigator called a lawyer to assist the accused. The lawyer called
by the investigator asked the accused if he wanted to be assisted by him
(the lawyer). The accused agreed.
RULING: The court held the confession admissible where the accused agreed
to be assisted by a lawyer chosen by the investigator. Even if the lawyer
was initially chosen by the investigator, the accused agreed to be
represented by the lawyer. Hence, the requirement under Sec. 12 is
satisfied.
PEOPLE VS ALVAREZ
The investigator gave a lawyer to the accused, and this was

challenged later by the accused to the SC, saying that the counsel was
not his own choice.
RULING: The court ruled that the requirement of the Consti was satisfied
because the accused never signified to have a lawyer of his own choice.
This means that the consent of the accused does not need to be expressed.
Failure to object means accepting counsel as his choice.
PEOPLE VS BARASINA
Court interpreted the meaning of “counsel of his own choice” was

asked for by the accused only after he had already made his statement
assisted by another lawyer whom he did not object to.
RULING: The court ruled the words, “preferably of his own choice” does
not convey an exclusive guarantee as to preclude assistance by an equally
competent and independent attorney chosen by the investigator. Otherwise,
the tempo of the investigation would depend on the accused. He can
obstruct it altogether by choosing a lawyer who is not available.
PEOPLE VS GALIT
Statement of the Court:

No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the
presence of a counsel engaged by the person arrested, by any person on
his behalf, or appointed by the Court upon petition either by the
detainee himself or by anyone in his behalf.
PEOPLE VS MATOS VIDUYA
This appeared on the confession.

“Ikaw pa rin anf may karapatan kumuha ng abogado para makatulong mo sa
imbestigasyong ito, at kung wal kang makukuha, ikaw ay aming bibigyan ng
libreng abogado. Ano ngayon ang iyon masasabi?” The accused answered,
“nariyan naman po si fiscal kaya hindi ko na kailangan ng abogado”
RULING: The court held that this is not sufficient because in a sense,
the fiscal is not independent and competent. He is not independent since
his duty is to prosecute. His interest is with the State and not with the
accused. He is not competent in the sense that he cannot fully represent
the accused because of the conflict of interest. The act of the accused
constitutes a lack of understanding of her rights. Her right to counsel
was not really made clear to her. Ergo, there is no valid waiver and her
confession should not be admissible in court.
Q: Who can choose a lawyer?

A:
a. the accused
b. anyone acting on his behalf (but doesn’t seem to include the investigator)
c. the court, upon petition
Q: What is the rule under RA 7438?

A: Par. 2 (b) last sentence: “investigator can choose provided there is conformity by the accused”
NOTE: The provision of Counsel of Choice can be satisfied if the investigation chooses
the lawyer, provided that there is conformity by the accused. Conformity can be
expressed or implied in the sense that the failure to object by the accused means
consent to the lawyer assigned to him by the investigator.
NOTE: Critical pre-trial Stages - The right still applies although he was no longer in
custodial investigation and that a case is already filed (People vs Española)
NOTE: Admission to a news reporter is admissible as evidence (People vs Aringue)
NOTE: Venue of investigation is only incidental. No Custodial investigation even if

conducted at the police precinct if it is not a police officer who conducted the
investigation. (Manuel vs. N.C. Construction)
Q: Under RA 7438, who can assist the accused?

A: Any lawyer, except:
1. fiscal 5. those directly affected by the case
2. ombudsman 6. those charged with conducting preliminary
3. members of the COMELEC investigation
4. members of the DENR 7. those charged with the prosecution of crimes
8. municipal attorney
Q: Who can assist as counsel?

A: RTC judges can. MTC judges in the cities can. This is because they do not conduct preliminary
investigations. MTC judges in municipalities are required to conduct preliminary investigation,
therefore they are disqualified. Lawyers connected with the Ombudsman also cannot assist.
ADVICE (RIGHT TO BE INFORMED)

“To be informed”
- Presupposes a transmission of meaningful information, not just ceremonial recitation of

an abstract principle. The police must explain the meaning of the provision in a language
the accused fairly understands. This will depend on factors like, the educational
background and the intelligence of the accused.
PEOPLE VS CANELA
Prior to the investigation, the police let the accused read the rights. When the case
reached the SC, the accused raised the issue on whether he was sufficiently informed in
accordance with the constitutional requirement.
RULING: The court held that asking the accused just to read his rights
will not be sufficient under the idea of “meaningful transmission of
information”. The accused should be made sure to have understood his
rights.
PEOPLE VS NICANDRO
Police investigator was presented by the fiscal. The fiscal asked

about the investigation. The policeman answered “the first thing I did
was to inform the accused of his rights. And the next I questioned her
about the marijuana”.
ISSUE: What is the meaning of “meaningful transmission of information”?
RULING: The court held that there was no compliance with the requirement
of the Constitution. If this statement only appeared during the direct
examination, it is obvious that the police did not inform her as to what
these specific rights are: This is a general statement. The policeman,
must explain to her in practical terms which she can understand.
PEOPLE VS KADIWA
The accused, upon being informed of his rights was only made to
answer one word , “OPO”.
RULING: the court ruled there was no sufficient compliance of the right
to be informed. The function was kilometric while the answer was
monosyllabic, which does not show that the accused properly understood
his rights. (NOTE: There is no formula but merely depends on the
education, literacy, etc. of the accused)
PEOPLE VS BANDULA
Two people were arrested and they were immediately investigated

without counsel. Next day, some of the accused executed extra judicial
confessions assisted by counsel. Two weeks later, the other one also made
a confession.
ISSUE: whether the confession of the two accused be considered as

admissible.
RULING: The court rules the confession as not admissible. Confession made
without counsel although later reduced to writing with the assistance of
counsel is not admissible. Late arrival of counsel will not cure the
defect.
Q: Is the legal officer of a municipality qualified to assist the accused?

A: He is not an independent counsel because as legal officer, it is his function to assist the mayor
including the reinforcement of peace and order. Obviously, there is conflict of interest.
WAIVER
- It is defined as the abandonment or relinquishment of a right.
What can the accused waive?
- right to remain silent

- right to counsel
NOTE: The right to be informed cannot be waived
APPLICATION OF THE RIGHTS IN SECTION 12:
NOTE: Enactment of 1935 Constitution – January 17, 1973

Moncupa ruling was promulgated – April 26, 1983
Enactment of the 1987 Constitution – February 2, 1987
Enactment of RA 7438 –
Prior to January 17, 1973

- There was no right to counsel and the right to remain silent under the 1935 Constitution.
(Miranda vs State of Arizona was only decided on 1956)
MAGTOTO VS MANGERA
The accused made an extra judicial confession prior to Jan. 17,

1973. He had not been informed and had not availed of his right to the
assistance of counsel. He was tried after the effectivity of the 1935
Constitution.
RULING: The court held the 1935 Constitution had no retroactive effect.
And the confession he made was held admissible against him.
After January 17, 1973

- The right to remain silent and the right to counsel is now protected and that those rights may
be waived, and there is no formality. It can be waived in any manner, but must be voluntary
and intelligently made even without a lawyer to assist the accused. (No specific form of
waiver).
From April 26, 1983
MONCUPA VS ENRILE
The right to counsel may only be waived with the assistance of

counsel. And it must also be made in writing. Otherwise, the confession
is not admissible in court.
PEOPLE VS DACUYCUY
Confession was obtained prior to April 26, 1983 and accused waived
his right without the assistance of a counsel. The issue is whether there
is a retroactive effect in this rule.
RULING: The court held that this rule should be applied even to
confessions obtained prior to April 26, 1983. This was given a
retroactive effect.
PEOPLE VS PECARDAL
There was retroactive effect to the rule in Moncupa. However, in

People vs Magalona and People vs Ponce, the Court stated that the rule
that waiver must be done with the assistance of counsel has no
retroactive effect. The rule on Moncupa should only be used as a
guideline after the decision on that case.
Prior to the Moncupa rule, it is unfair to expect the police to follow the said rule since the decision has
not been promulgated. So why give effect to it?
IMPORTANT: There are two sets of decisions in this matter that do not reach a consensus one agrees that
there is retroactive effect and the other agrees that it has none.
According to Fr. Bernas, if asked in the BAR, just cite the two sets of cases.
From February 2, 1987

- The waiver must be done:
- In the presence of a counsel
- It must be in writing
NOTE: Under the 1987 Constitution, there is no requirement that the confession should be in writing. The
requirement is only that the waiver should be in writing.
Under RA 7438, Sec. 2(1)

- There is the requirement of a form in order for the waiver to be valid.
Waiver:
Lawyer’s Signature
Signature of the accused
(Body of the confession)
Signature of the accused
on the confession
- After the lawyer signs the waiver, he can already leave and need not be present during the
time when the confession is made.
- However, under RA 7438, after a valid waiver, signed by the lawyer, it is now required that the
confession is signed by the accused in the presence of other additional people although they
need not sign anymore. And these are the either of the following:
- parents
- brothers
- sisters
- spouse
- mayor
- priest
- etc.
- In addition to the requirements of the waiver to be with assistance of counsel and in writing,
the confession itself must be signed in the presence of the other people (exclusively
enumerated in the law, but their signature is not required.
- If there is no waiver, there is no requirement that the other people should be present, only his
counsel.
Other Changes brought about by RA 7438.
- Under RA 7438, it requires that the Custodial Investigation report same with the confession must be
in writing, otherwise, such report shall be void. Oral confessions are now also void.
- The list of visitors are now expanded – Section 2(f)
- A penalty is provided for failure to inform and to provide competent counsel to the accused. (8 to
10 years of imprisonment).
- It also defined as to who can assist the accused as counsel – Section 3
- It also interpreted the meaning of whether the police or investigator can change the lawyer for
the accused – Section 8
- Custodial investigation now includes “invitations”.
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
- Confessions in violation of Section 12 are inadmissible.
EXCLUDED AS EVIDENCE
- Un-counseled confessions
- confessions obtained without a valid waiver
- Confessions obtained through torture, force, violence, intimidation, or other means which vitiate
freewill. [Sec. 12(2)]
OTHER CONFESSIONS WHICH ARE EXCLUDED (even with counsel or if such was true)
1. Where the accused is promised that he would be released if he signs. (People vs Eglipa)
2. When the accused is promised a better treatment if he signs. (People vs Albano, 145 S 155)
3. All oral confessions are inadmissible. It should always be in writing to be admissible as evidence.
4. Confessions obtained after a valid waiver, but not signed in the presence of person enumerated
in RA 7438
5. All other means which vitiate the person’s will.
REASONS WHY CONFESSIONS OBTAINED THROUGH DURESS OR TORTURE ARE INADMISSIBLE

1. Principle of Humanity – the law abhors all forms of violence inflicted upon another
2. Also, these confessions are generally unreliable.
SCOPE OF INADMISSIBILITY
1. Inadmissible against the confessant
2. Inadmissible against a third person (People vs. Ramirez, 169 S 711)
3. Inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (criminal, civil, administrative)
EXCEPTIONS
The confessions are not out rightly considered as useless as to:

1. It can still be used as evidence against police abuse. (People vs Ramirez)
2. To prove conspiracy of a third person
3. To impeach the accused person’s credibility
PRESUMPTIONS
Presumptions are Assumptions of Fact which are made by law in order to dispense with evidence.
1. No presumptions that the Miranda Warning has been given. (General Rule)
PEOPLE VS TOLENTINO
According to the Court, there is no presumption that the police

have given the Miranda warning to the accused. During the trial, the
prosecution must prove that the police have warned the accused of his
rights under Section 12 in the absence of proof. It is presumed that
there was no warning given and the evidence is inadmissible. There is no
presumption of regularity of official acts under the Miranda Rule.
2. No presumption on the validity of a waiver.
PEOPLE VS JARA
Whenever there is a waiver of constitutional rights, then

presumption is always against the waiver. The presumption is that there
was no waiver given. If the prosecution claims there was a waiver. They
must prove with strong and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the
Court. Also, there is no presumption of the regularity of official acts
in this case.
What must the prosecution prove?

- The presumption is that there was no valid waiver except if the prosecution can prove:
- That the accused willingly and voluntarily made his confession
- That the accused was not interested in having a lawyer
- That the waiver complied with all the requirements to make a valid one
- There was a valid Miranda Warning
Mere presentation of the text of the waiver is not sufficient to prove the above- mentioned.
3. There now the presumption of Voluntariness of the Confession.
PEOPLE VS ENANORIA
- An opposite presumption
Atty. Jocon was present to assist the accused in giving his statement.
There is now a presumption on voluntariness. There is now a presumption
of the regularity of official acts. This means that there is a
presumption that the police regularly perform and comply with proper
procedures, and that they do not have to torture the accused to get the
confession. It is presumed that the confession was voluntarily made. The
police do not have to prove that they did not torture the accused in
order to get the confession. The law does not presume that the police are
torturers. The burden is now on the accused to prove that he was tortured
and the confession was involuntarily made.
NOTE: There was strong evidence in this case that the accused gave his testimony
uncoerced and freely.
PEOPLE VS BALLISTEROS
- an obiter dictum/ “by the way”

One accused signed without the assistance of a lawyer. Later, during the
trial, he was made a State witness against his co-accused. He repeated
his confession in open court. His confession was considered admissible as
evidence.
The rule stands that any confession obtained with violation of the
Constitution shall be held inadmissible as evidence in Court. This is
based on the 1987 Constitution. His confession shall be inadmissible in
Court only if this is used against him, but this does not include
confessions to be used as evidence against third persons. (A dangerous
ruling is made. This should not be considered as a new string.)
Related Law: Republic Act No. 7438, April 27. 1992
AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL

INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS,
AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF.
Section 1. Statement of Policy. - It is the policy of the Senate to value the dignity of every human being
and guarantee full respect for human rights.
Sec. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or under Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
(a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be
assisted by counsel.
(b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, who
arrests, detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform
the latter, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his own choice, who
shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained or
under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford the services of his own
counsel, he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the
investigating officer.
(c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer,
provided that before such report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or
detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be read and adequately
explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating
officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person, otherwise,
such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever.
(d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel
or in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the presence of any of the parents,
elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by
such person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall be null and void
and of no effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by
or conferences with any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor or priest
or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his
counsel, or by any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the
Commission on Human Rights of by any international non-governmental organization
duly accredited by the Office of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall
include his or her spouse, fiance or fiancee, parent or child, brother or sister, grandparent
or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
As used this Act, "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an
"invitation" to a person who is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected
to have committed, without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any
violation of law.
Sec. 3. Assisting Counsel. - Assisting counsel is any lawyer, except those directly affected by the case,
those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of
crimes.
The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees:
(a) The amount of One hundred fifty pesos (P150.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with light felonies;
(b) The amount of Two hundred fifty pesos (P250.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with less grave of grave felonies;
(c) The amount of Three hundred fifty pesos (P350.00) if the suspected person is chargeable
with a capital offense.
The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial
investigation is conducted, provided that if the municipality of city cannot pay such fee, the province
comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided, That the Municipal of City Treasurer
must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before the province pays
said fees.
In the absence of any lawyer, no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person
can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provisions of Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Sec. 4. Penalty Clause. - (a) Any arresting public officer of employee, or any investigating officer, who
fails to inform any person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent
and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice, shall suffer a fine of Six
thousand pesos (P6,000.00) or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than eight (8) years but not more
than ten (10) years, or both. The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall also be imposed
upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar offense.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon a officer or employee or anyone acting upon orders of such
investigating officer or in his place, who fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense if the latter
cannot afford the services of his own counsel.
(b) Any person who obstruct, persons or prohibits any lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any medical doctor or priest or religious
minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel, from visiting and
conferring privately with him, of from examining and treating him, or from ministering to his spiritual
needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of
not less than four (4) years nor more than six (6) years, and a fine of four thousand pesos (P4,000.00).
The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding, any security officer with custodial responsibility
over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to
secure his safety and prevent his escape.
Sec. 5. Repealing Clause. - Republic Act No. No. 857, as amended, is hereby repealed. Other laws,
presidential decrees, executive orders or rules and regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly.
Sec. 6. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days following its publication in the Official
Gazette or in any daily newspapers of general circulation in the Philippines.
Approved: April 27, 1992
(Source: http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno7438.htm)
Bail
Art. III, Sec. 13. All persons, except those charged

with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on
recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to
bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall
not be required.
Bail defined:
- It is the security given for the provisional release of a person accused of a crime while the case
is still pending or trial is still going on.
FORMS OF BAIL:
- Cash Bond
How made?
a. The fiscal writes the recommended bail
b. The accused goes to court to deposit the cash bond
c. The accused is now free while pending trial
Upon conviction or acquittal, bond is returned to the accused

Exception: if the crime involves a civil liability, the cash may go the aggrieved party
- Surety Bond
Bonding company guarantee the appearance of the accused in Court, provided he
pays a certain percentage of the recommended bail to the bonding company (15-20%).
It should be renewed annually.
The accused pays a premium every year and he cannot recover that what he has paid.
(same as in an insurance premium)
- Property Bond
If the accused has no surety, title of real property is deposited to Court. Upon tax
assessment, if the value of the property is double the value of the recommended bail,
the court accepts it and the accused is free to go. The accused may also use the title of
another person provided he is authorized to do so.
Upon acquittal or conviction, the title is returned.
This is limited to real property only.
- Recognizance
The accused is entrusted to the custody of a prominent person who is likely will
guarantee his appearance in court. These are the people who more or less, credible in
the community. But this type of bond only applies to minor offenses.
WHO DETERMINES THE TYPE OF BAIL?

- The accused.
WHEN IS BAIL A MATTER OF RIGHT?
- Before or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC (note: but before final judgment)
- Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or
death (SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94)
- Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or death
when the evidence of guilt is not strong.
WHEN IS BAIL A MATTER OF DISCRETION?
- After conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death
if the circumstances mentioned in SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94 are not present.
WHEN IS BAIL NOT ALLOWED?
- After final judgment by any court

- Before conviction for an offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua where the
evidence of guilt is strong.
- After conviction for a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua or death while the case is
on appeal (People vs. Valeriano)
- After conviction for an offense with the penalty exceeding 6 years but not more than 20
years, if:
a. accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or has
committed a crime aggravated by reiteracion
b. accused is found to have previously escaped from legal
confinement
c. accused committed the offense while on probation, parole or
conditional pardon
d. circumstances of accused or his case indicate the probability of
flight
e. there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal,
accused may commit another crime. (SC Administrative Circular
No. 12-94)
NOTE: This includes punishment of life imprisonment.
NOTE: Mitigating circumstances are not yet considered to determine the penalty because in the end, it
will only result in a full blown trial.
Although mitigating circumstances in general are not considered yet. The mitigating
circumstance of MINORITY may be considered in granting bail.
NOTE: AC # 12-94 is constitutional because it only limits the right to bail after conviction while the case is
on appeal. The right to bail is only guaranteed by the Constitution before conviction, not after
conviction while the case is on appeal. The Constitution does not distinguish whether before final
decision or before appeal.
DELA CAMARA VS ENAGE
The mayor of Magsaysay was implicated in the killing of 14 people

and injuring 12 others in Agusan. The judge ordered his bail at
P1,195,200.00.
RULING: The court held that the amount of bail is excessive and it
violates the Constitution. It would have been more honest if the judge
denied bail rather than to grant bail on an amount beyond the person’s
reach. It is like not granting bail at all.
NOTE: However, it is very hard to determine what is excessive and what is not. It depends on many
factors.
PEOPLE VS DONATO
Salas was charged with rebellion with a penalty of prision mayor.

(Bail here is a matter of right). The fiscal opposed the fixing of the
bail bond saying that Salas is dangerous, and at the same time, citing
many circumstances.
RULING: The court held that if the bail is a matter of right, there is no
more need of a hearing to determine whether he can enjoy the right or
not, even if he is a very notorious criminal. The right is absolute. Even
the fear of possibility that the accused will evade sentence is not a
valid ground for denial of bail. A hearing may only be needed to fix the
amount of bail and not to determine whether the accused can enjoy the
right or not.
There is also a second issue. The Solicitor General and the lawyers for
Salas entered into an agreement whereby the companion of Salas would be
released while Salas remains in jail. Immediately after, he filed the
petition for bail. The government contended that he cannot do so because
has waived his right to bail when he entered into the agreement.
Is this considered a valid waiver of his right to bail?
The court distinguished two rights:
1. Rights which are purely personal to the accused. This right can be
waived.
2. Rights where the accused as well as the government are interested
in. This right cannot be waived because of public policy.
According to the Constitution, the right to bail is purely personal,

thus, it can be waived. Hence, the waiver of Salas is valid and binding.
Rights covered in the second type of rights:

1. Right to due process
2. Right against torture
3. right to free access to courts
COMBATE VS SAN JOSE JR.
Combate was charged with the crime of theft of one rooster, and the
case was presided over by respondent Judge San Jose, Jr. Following the
procedure laid down in the Rules on Summary Procedure in special cases,
respondent required petitioner and his witnesses to submit counter
affidavits to the supporting affidavits of complainant with which the
petitioner complied. The petitioner was arraigned without the assistance
of a counsel in which he pleaded not guilty. In the decision promulgated,
without the benefit of a trial, petitioner was sentenced to six months
imprisonment and to pay complainant P200 plus costs. Petitioner alleges
that respondent had denied him due process for having been arraigned and
convicted without the assistance of counsel and for having been convicted
without the benefit of a trial.
RULING: The rules on Summary Procedure is special cases applies only to

criminal cases where the penalty does not exceed six months imprisonment
or a fine of P1000 or both. Theft is penalized with 2 months and 1 day to
2 years and 4 months, thus, trial should have proceeded as the accused
pleaded not guilty. But not only was accused not represented by counsel
upon arraignment, he was neither accorded the benefit of a trial. The
decision was based on the affidavits submitted without the petitioner
having been given the chance to confront or cross-examine the affiants.
There was a clear deprivation of the fundamental right to due process.
When judgment is rendered in complete disregard of all the norms of
procedure, the whole proceeding is completely void. It is as if there was
not judgment at all and no double jeopardy attaches.
COMMENDADOR VS DE VILLA
The accused was charged with violation of the Articles of War

before a Court Martial.
ISSUE: Whether or not a person charged before a court martial has a right
to bail.
RULING: The court decided that traditionally, the right to bail has not
been recognized in the military courts.
NOTE: Some say that tradition should not be included in the interpretation of the Bill of Rights
Policy Arguments (not legal arguments) which could be considered important:

1. Military officers are different from ordinary criminals because they are entrusted with trust
and confidence of the people.
2. It would also be dangerous if there are armed coup plotters walking in the streets because
they are allowed to go out on bail.
NOTE: These are only policy arguments and decisions should not be based solely on these.
Q: May an alien invoke the Constitutional right to bail during the pendency of deportation
proceedings?
A: Yes. According to the Lao Gi case, the court held that due to the harsh consequences of
deportation proceedings to the life and liberty of a person, the rules on criminal procedure
including the right to bail, should be applied to deportation proceedings.
NOTE: Section 13 also covers proceedings not criminal in nature.
Related Law: Rule 114 - BAIL
SECTION 1. Bail defined. � Bail the security given for the release of a person in custody of the law,
furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearance before any court as required under
the conditions hereinafter specified. Bail may be given in the form of corporate surety, property bond,
cash deposit, or recognizance. (1)
Sec. 2. Conditions of the bail; requirements. � All kinds of bail are subject to the following conditions:
(a) The undertaking shall be effective upon approval and remain in force at all stages of
the case, unless sooner cancelled, until the promulgation of the judgment of the
Regional Trial Court, irrespective of whatever the case was originally filed in or appealed
to it;
(b) The accused shall appear before the proper court whenever so required by the court
or these Rules;
(c) The failure if the accused to appear at the trial without justification despite due
notice to him r his bondsman shall be deemed an express waiver of his right to be
present on the date specified in the notice. In such case, the trial may proceed in
absentia; and
(d) The bondsman shall surrender the accused to the court for execution of the final
judgment.
The original papers shall state the full name and address of the accused, the amount of the undertaking
and the conditions herein required. Photographs (passport size) taken recently showing the face, left
and right profiles of the accused must be attached thereto. (2a)
Sec. 3. No release or transfer except on court or bail. � No person under detention by legal process
shall be released or transferred except upon lawful order of the court or when he is admitted to bail as
prescribed in this Rule. (n)
Sec. 4. Bail, a matter of right. � All persons in custody shall: (a) before or after conviction by the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court, Municipal Trial Court in Cities and Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, and (b) before conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offenses not punishable by death,
reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, be admitted to bail as a matter of right, with sufficient sureties,
or be released on recognizance as prescribed by law or this Rule. (3a)
Sec. 5. Bail, when discretionary. � Upon conviction by the Regional Trial Court of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, the court, on application, may admit the
accused to bail.
The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to continue on provisional liberty under the same bail
bond during the period of appeal subject to the consent of the bondsman.
If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six (6) years but not more than twenty
(20)years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted shall be cancelled, upon a
showing by the prosecution, with notice to the accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:
(a) That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has
committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
(b) That the accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement,
evaded sentence, or has violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
(c) That the accused committed the offense while on probation, parole, or under
conditional pardon;
(d) That the circumstances of the accused or his indicate the probability of flight of
released on bail; or
(e) That there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, the accused may
commit another crime.
The appellate court may review the resolution of the Regional Trial Court, on motion and with notice to
the adverse party. (n)
Sec. 6. Capital offense, defined. � A capital offense, as the term is used in these Rules, is an offense
which, under the law existing at the time of its commission and at the time of the application to be
admitted to bail, may be punished with death. (4)
Sec. 7. Capital offense or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, not
bailable. � No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua
or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong, shall be admitted to bail regardless of the stage of
the criminal prosecution. (n)
Sec. 8. Burden of proof in bail application. � At the hearing of an application for admission to bail filed
by any person who is in custody for the commission of an offense punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua or life imprisonment, the prosecution has the burden of showing that evidence of guilt is
strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearings shall be considered automatically reproduced
at the trial, but upon motion of either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination
unless the witness is dead, outside of the Philippines or otherwise unable to testify. (5a)
Sec. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. � The judge who issued the warrant or granted the application shall
fix a reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited to the following guidelines:
(a) Financial ability of the accused to give bail;.
(b) Nature and circumstances of the offense;
(c) Penalty of the offense charged;
(d) Character and reputation of the accused;
(e) Age and health of the accused;
(f) The weight of the evidence against the accused;
(g) Probability of the accused appearing in trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bonds;
(i) The fact that accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and
(j) The pendency of other cases in which the accused is under bond.
Excessive bail shall not be required. (6)
Sec. 10. Corporate surety. � Any domestic or foreign corporation licensed as a surety in accordance
with law and currently authorized to act as such may provide bail by a bond subscribed jointly by the
accused and an officer duly authorized by its board of directors. (7)
Sec. 11. Property bond, how posted. � A property bond is an undertaking constituted as a lien on the
real property given as security for the amount of the bail. Upon approval of the bond, the court shall
order the accused to cause the annotation of the lien within ten (10) days on the original torrens title on
file with the Register of Deeds, if the land is registered, or if unregistered, in the Registration Book on the
space provided therefor, in the office of the Register of Deeds for the province or city where the land
lies, and on the corresponding tax declaration in the office of the provincial and municipal assessor
concerned. Non-compliance with the order shall be sufficient cause for cancellation of the property
bond. (8)
Sec. 12. Qualification of sureties in property bond. � The necessary qualification of sureties to a property
bond shall be as follows:
(a) Each of them must be a resident of real estate within the Philippines;
(b) Where there is only one surety, his real estate must be worth at least the amount of
the undertaking;
(c) In case there are two or more sureties, they may justify severally in amounts less than
that expressed in the undertaking if the entire sum justified to is equivalent to the whole
amount of bail demanded.
In all cases, every surety must be worth the amount specified in his own undertaking over and above all
just debts, obligations and property exempt from execution. (9a)
Sec. 13. Justification of sureties. � Every surety shall justify by affidavit taken before the judge, that each
possesses the qualifications named in the preceding section, and shall be required to describe the
property given as security, stating the nature of his title thereto, the encumbrances thereon, the number
and amount of other bonds entered into by him and remaining undischarged, and his other liabilities.
The court may further examine the sureties upon oath concerning their sufficiency in such manner as it
may deem proper. No bond shall be approved unless the surety is qualified. (10)
Sec. 14. Deposit of cash as bail. � The accused or any person acting in his behalf may deposit in cash
with the nearest collector of internal revenue, or provincial, city or municipal treasurer the amount of
bail fixed by the court or recommended by the prosecutor who investigated r filed the case, and upon
submission of a proper certificate of deposit and of a written undertaking showing compliance with the
requirements of Section 2 hereof, the accused shall be discharged from custody. Money thus deposited
shall be considered as bail and applied to the payment of any fine and costs and the excess, if any,
shall be returned to the accused or to whoever made the deposit. (11)
Sec. 15. Recognizance. � Whenever allowed pursuant to law or these Rules, the court may release a
person in custody on his own recognizance or that of a responsible person. (12)
Sec. 16. Bail, when not required; reduced bail or recognizance. � No bail shall be required when the
law or these Rules so provide.
When a person has been in custody for a period equal to or more than the possible maximum
imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be sentenced, he shall be released immediately,
without prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceedings on appeal. In case the
maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he shall be released after
thirty(30) days of preventive imprisonment.
A person in custody for a period equal to or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed
for the offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law or any modifying
circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or on his own recognizance, at the discretion of the
court. (13).
Sec. 17. Bail, where filed. � (a) Bail in the amount fixed may be filed with the court where the case is
pending, or, in the absence or unavailability of the judge thereof, with another branch of the same
court within the province or city. If the accused is arrested in a province, city or municipality other than
where the case is pending, bail may be filed also with any regional trial court of said place, or, if no
judge thereof is available, with any metropolitan trial judge, municipal trial judge or municipal circuit
trial judge therein.
(b) Whenever the grant of bail is a matter of discretion, or the accused seeks to be released on
recognizance, the application therefor may be filed only in the particular court where the case is
pending, whether for preliminary investigation, trial, or on appeal.
(c) Any person in custody who is not yet charged in court may apply for bail with any court in the
province, city or municipality where he is held. (14)
Sec. 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. � In the application or bail under the preceding section,
the court must give reasonable notice of the hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit his
recommendation. (15a)
Sec. 19. Release on bail. � The accused must be discharged upon approval to the bail by the judge
with whom it was filed in accordance with Section 17 thereof.
Whenever bail is filed with a court other than where the case is pending, the judge accepting the bail
shall forward the bail, the order of release and other supporting papers to the court where the case is
pending, which may, for good reason, require a different one to be filed. (16a)
Sec. 20. Increase or reduction of bail. � After the accused shall have been admitted to bail, the court
may, upon good cause shown, either increase or decrease the amount of the same. If increased, the
accused may be committed to custody unless he gives bail in the increased amount thereof within a
reasonable period. An accused held to answer a criminal charge but who is released without bail on
the filing of a complaint or information, may, at any subsequent stage of the proceedings whenever a
strong showing of guilt appears to the court, be required to give bail in the amount fixed, or in lieu
thereof may be committed to custody. (17)
Sec. 21. Forfeiture of bail bond. � When the presence of the accused is specifically required by the
court, or these Rules, his bondsman shall be notified to produce him before the court on a given date. If
the accused fails to appear in person as required, the bond shall be declared forfeited and the
bondsmen are given thirty (30) days within which to produce their principal and to show cause why
judgment should not be rendered against them for the amount of their bond. Within the said period, the
bondsmen:
(a) must produce the body of their principal or give the reason for his non-production;
and
(b) must explain satisfactorily why the accused did not appear before the court when
first required to do so.
Failing in these two requisites, a judgment shall be rendered against the bondsmen, jointly and severally,
for the amount of the bond, and the court shall not reduce or otherwise mitigate the liability of the
bondsmen, except when the accused has been surrendered or is acquitted. (18)
Sec. 22. Cancellation of bail bond. � Upon application filed with the court and after due notice to the
prosecutor, the bail bond may be cancelled upon surrender of the accused or proof of his death..
The bail bond shall be deemed automatically cancelled upon acquittal of the accused or dismissal of
the case or execution of the final judgment of conviction.
In all instances, the cancellation shall be without prejudice to any liability on the bond. (19a)
Sec. 23. Arrest of accused out on bail. � For the purpose of surrendering the accused, the bondsmen
may arrest him, or on written authority endorsed on a certified copy of the undertaking may cause him
to be arrested by any officer or any other person of suitable age and discretion.
An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to
depart from the Philippines without prior permission of the court where the case is pending. (20)
Sec. 24. No bail after final judgment; exception. � An accused shall not be allowed bail after the
judgment has become final, unless he has applied for probation before commencing to serve
sentence, the penalty and the offense being within the purview of the Probation Law. In case the
accused has applied for probation, he may be allowed temporary liberty under his bail bond,
but if no bail was filed or the accused is incapable of filing one, the court may allow his release on
recognizance to the custody of a responsible member of the community. In no case shall bail be
allowed after the accused has commenced to serve sentence. (21a)
Sec. 25. Court supervision of detainees. � The court shall exercise supervision over all persons in custody
for the purpose of eliminating all unnecessary detention. The executive judges of the Regional Trial
Courts shall conduct monthly personal inspections of provincial, city or municipality jails and their
prisoners within their respective jurisdiction, to inquire into their proper accommodation and health, the
number of detainees, the condition of the jail facilities, the segregation of sexes and of minors from the
adults, the observance of the right of detainees to confer privately with counsel, and the elimination of
conditions disadvantageous to the detainees.
In cities and municipalities to be specified by the Supreme Court, the municipal trial judges or municipal
circuit trial judges shall conduct monthly personal inspections of municipal jails of the irrespective
municipalities, and submit a report to the executive judge of the Regional Trial Court having jurisdiction
therein.
A monthly report of such visitation shall be submitted by the executive judges to the Court Administrator,
stating the total number of detainees, at least the names of those held for more than thirty (30) days,
the duration of detention, the crime charged, the status of the case, the cause for detention, the crime
charged, the status of the case, the cause for detention, and other pertinent information. (22)
The amendments shall take effect on October 1, 1994.
Let the Clerk of Court cause the publication of these amendments in two (2) national newspapers of
general circulation.
Sec. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack of irregular preliminary investigation. � An
application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or
the legality of the warrant issued therefore, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of
a preliminary investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering his
plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of
the case.
August 16, 1994.
The Rights of the Accused
Art. III, Sec. 14. (1) No person shall be held to

answer for a criminal offense without due process of
law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be

presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and
shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel,
to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to
have a compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf.
However, after arraignment, trial may proceed
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided
that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear
is unjustifiable.
- These are the rights of the accused during the trial. The rule of battle in criminal prosecutions
THE TEN RIGHTS COVERED:
- Right to Due Process

- Right to Presumption of Innocence
- Right to be Heard
- Right to Counsel
- Right to be Informed
- Right to a Speedy Trial
- Right to an Impartial Trial
- Right to a Public Trial
- Right to Meet the Witnesses
- Right to Compulsory Process
I. RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
- The right to due process is the biggest right of all. According to Justice Cruz, the right to due
process mentioned here is only a procedural due process, the procedure laid down by law in
trying an accused who is being charged of a crime.
4 ELEMENTS OF DUE PROCESS (applicable to criminal cases): People vs. Tomio
- The court or tribunal is clothed with judicial power to hear and decide the case and must
be a regular court.
- Jurisdiction is lawfully acquired over the person of the accused and over the offense
- Accused was given an opportunity to be heard
- Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing
PEOPLE VS TOMIO
Marcos issued a General Order directing that crimes against

tourists must be tried and finished within 24 hours. Tomio and others
were charged with kidnapping Japanese tourists.
May 12, they were arrested
May 15, they were charged
May 19, they were arraigned
May 19 and 20, prosecution presented seven witnesses
May 22, defense presented their witnesses
May 27, all were sentenced to death
They went to the SC contending that the speedy disposition of the case
violated their right to due process.
RULING: The court held that there was no violation of due process. All
the elements of due process were present.
If the accused was aggrieved, then he should have complained during the
trial. The court also looked into the purpose of GO#39, which is tourism.
If the prosecution of crimes against tourists were slow, this would
affect tourism.
PAGASIAN VS AZURA
In a criminal case for theft entitled People vs Dumo, Barangay

Captain Pagasian was a witness. It appeared that because of a report, and
accompanied by police, he seized the carabao from the house of the
accused which allegedly is the subject matter of the theft. After trial,
the Judge acquitted Dumo but convicted Pagasian for clear violation of
the fundamental law of the land and against human rights. He was
sentenced to two days of jail term and a fine of P200.00.
RULING: The court ruled that the judge violated due process. The barangay
captain was not informed of the charges against him and in fact, he had
no idea that he was on trial. He did not even present evidences in his
own behalf.
OLAGUER VS MILITARY COMMISSION
Olaguer was a civilian tried and sentenced to die by the military

tribunal during Martial Law. After Marcos was deposed, Olaguer went to SC
challenging the validity of his conviction saying that his conviction was
a violation of his right to due process.
RULING: The court held that due process in Sec. 14 means trial by
judicial process not by executive of military process. Military tribunal
is not part of judiciary but of the executive branch for discipline of
army. Therefore there is a violation of due process. Even during martial
law, all cases should be tried under civilian courts. As long as civilian
courts are open and functioning, the decisions of the military tribunal
on civilians are null and void.
Pending cases involving civilians in military tribunals should be
transferred to civilian courts when national emergency already ceased to
exist. Military tribunals have jurisdiction only as long as national
emergency exists. Double jeopardy will not lie here.
II. RIGHT TO PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
Demurrer to Evidence – motion to dismiss based on the insufficiency of evidence.
This means that the government has not overcome the presumption of innocence. Hence,
shortens the proceeding.
Exceptions:
1. Under Article 217 of RPC, failure of a public officer to produce money in his charge is
prima facie evidence of malversation.
The burden is on him to prove otherwise.
2. Violation of the Anti Fencing Law, such as in possession of stolen property, in the
absence of adequate explanation, the possessor of the object is presumed to have
stolen the property.
3. Presumption of violation of the Illegal Fishing Law (Hizon case)
Q: Are these presumptions constitutional?

A: Yes. Clearly, the fact presumed is but a natural inference from the fact proved so that it
cannot be said that there is no rational connection between the two. Furter, the statute
establishes only a prima facie presumption thus giving the accused an opportunity to rebut it.
NOTE: The principle that there is no constitutional infirmity to the reversed presumptions was
recently reiterated in Dizon-Pamintuan vs People (234 S 63)
Why does it not violate the Constitution?
1. There is a logical connection between the fact presumed and the fact proved
2. The presumption is rebuttable
III. RIGHT TO BE HEARD
This is the right to present evidence in one’s behalf. This includes:

1. The right to testify in one’s favor
2. The right to call witnesses
3. The right to be given reasonable opportunity to present witnesses.
IV. RIGHT TO COUNSEL
This means the right to counsel during trial
Elements:
1. The court is duty bound to inform the accused of his right before he is arraigned
2. The court must ask him if he desires the service of a counsel
3. If he does not or is unable to get one, the court must assign a counsel de oficio
4. If the accused wishes to get a private counsel, the court must give him time to obtain
one.
The right to counsel during trial can be waived. The accused may represent himself in any
litigation.
REYES VS MONCADO
The negligence and/or incompetence of the lawyer amounts to

deprivation of due process.
PEOPLE VS HOLGADO
The accused was charged with a crime during which the judge asked,
“Do you have an attorney or are you going to plead guilty?” The accused
answered, “I have no lawyer and I will plead guilty.” He was arraigned
and was sentenced.
ISSUE: Was the right to counsel of the accused observed?
RULING: The court answered in the negative. The judge did not follow the
four guidelines mentioned above. The right of the accused was violated.
There is no fair hearing if the accused is not given the opportunity to
be heard by counsel in criminal cases. Accused to be represented by a
counsel is essential in criminal cases. Even if the accused pleaded
guilty to the crime, he should be subjected to a new trial. The Court
should have seen to it that he was assisted by counsel especially because
of the seriousness of the crime which is found capital by the court.
DELGADO VS CA
During trial, a woman was charged with estafa, and was represented
by Atty. Yco. Her lawyer failed to appear despite proper notice. She was
convicted. Upon knowing that her lawyer was not a member of the BAR, she
prayed that she be granted new trial on the ground that she was deprived
of her right to be defended by a competent counsel.
RULING: The court stated that a defense by a fake lawyer violated the
right to due process. The accused can demand a new trial. The reason is
because there is a big danger that a fake lawyer may not be able to
present an adequate defense in behalf of the accused. (In this case, the
right to counsel may be raised by the accused and the prosecution. On the
other hand, the government will just look stupid if they will raise this
issue upon discovery that they were defeated by a fake lawyer.) She is
therefore entitled to be represented by a member of the BAR in a criminal
case.
PEOPLE VS MANALO
Arraignment – Atty. X
First Day – Atty. W
Second day – Atty. X
Third day – Atty. W
Fourth Day – Atty. Y
Fifth Day – Atty. Y
Sixth Day – Atty. X
RULING: The court held that there was no violation of the right to
counsel. All the lawyers exerted adequate efforts in trying to defend the
accused.
NOTE: This is not satisfactory and it is dangerous. But the court refused to annul the conviction.
PEOPLE VS ENCIPIDO
The two accused were represented by only one lawyer, a counsel de

officio. When the interest of one of the accused came in conflict with
the other, the accused should have different lawyers. The trial should
have been suspended and another counsel de officio be assigned to the
other accused. The right to counsel of the two accused were violated in
this case.
V. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
The information charging the accused with a crime must be stated with precision. There
must be specific allegation of every fact and circumstances necessary for the crime charged.
The information has to be read to the accused. What controls is the body of the information,
not the caption.
Purpose of the Right:

1. To enable the accused to defend himself.
2. To enable him to avail of the protection of double jeopardy if prosecuted or charged the
second time for the same offense
2 instances when double jeopardy attaches:

1. When the ground is insufficiency of evidence of prosecution
2. When the proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged in violation of the right to
speedy trial
3. To inform the court of the facts alleged so that it can decide whether they are sufficient
to support a conviction.
VI. RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL
After the conviction of the accused, delays in the appeals does not violate the right to speedy
trial. (People vs Berdaje, 99 S 388)
PEOPLE VS TAMPAL
Accused was charged before the RTC with robbery with homicide. The
case was scheduled for hearing but the prosecutor was absent. The judge
considered the absence of the prosecutor as unjustified and dismissed the
case.
RULING: In dismissing criminal cases based on the right of the accused to

speedy trials, courts should carefully weigh the circumstances attending
each case. They should balance the right of the accused and the State to
punish who violate its penal laws. Both the State and the accused are
entitled to due process.
The prosecutor could not be faulted for his failure to attend the hearing
on a particular date where the same was due to his good faith and belief
that said date was a Muslim legal holiday. In determining the right of
the accused to speedy trial, courts should do more that a mathematical
computation of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings.
PEOPLE VS GINES
There were several trial schedules totaling to six dates. The

complainant is former Justice Guerrero and the accused is Mayor Labo.
Five of these scheduled trials were cancelled because complainant was not
around because he was seeking medical treatment for his cataracts. The
accused moved for dismissal on the ground of the right to speedy trial.
RULING: The court ruled that there was no violation of the right to
speedy trial. One cannot use the right in order to deprive the State of a
reasonable opportunity of indicting criminals. Absence of complainants
was done in good faith and with justifiable reasons.
The dismissal due to absence of complainant on valid reasons was

erroneous. The case would be restated without putting the accused in
double jeopardy.
Requisites of Double Jeopardy:
1. A valid complaint or information

2. A court of competent jurisdiction
3. The accused has pleaded to the charge
PEOPLE VS LAYA
The case was scheduled on March 14 and 23. After scheduling, the
fiscal inhibited himself because he earlier recommended the dismissal of
the charges. The fiscal who replaced him moved for the postponement
because he was busy. The court granted the postponement on March 14 only.
The fiscal now requested that the case be assigned to the provincial
fiscal, who also moved for postponement of the March 25 hearing.
ISSUE: Should the case be dismissed on the ground of violation of the

right to speedy trial?
RULING: The court ruled in the affirmative. There was a violation of the
right. The rigodon of the fiscals reflected a cavalier attitude of the
prosecution and therefore violates the right of the accused to a speedy
trial. The delay is vexatious and prejudicial to the job of the Mayor and
is also prejudicial to the people of his town where he is mayor. The case
was very simple and there were other fiscals who could have handled the
case. Flimsy excuses are not valid grounds for delaying trial.
FACTORS ON RELATIVITY OF THE RIGHT:
1. The EXTENT of the delay (time or number of years that passed)

2. The REASONS for the delay
3. The INVOCATION by the accused of the right (NOTE: This is waivable)
4. The PREJUDICE it causes the accused
NOTE: The right may be waived
VII. RIGHT TO AN IMPARTIAL TRIAL
- The right to have an impartial judge. The impartiality must not only be in reality but also even in
appearance. According to the SC, a litigant is entitled to the cold neutrality of an impartial
judge. The judge should file a motion for inhibition if he is not impartial.
- The judge must not only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.
MATEO VS. VILLALUZ
The petitioners in this case were the accused for the offense of
robbery in band with homicide. In the meantime another suspect in the
Sangkay Point Robbery, Rolando Reyes was arrested. It appears that said
Reyes executed an extrajudicial statement on Oct. 1, 1971, signed and
sworn to before respondent Judge Onorre Villaluz and in that statement
had implicated petitioner. Reyes however repudiated the statement
alleging that he had executed it because he had been threatened by a
government agent. It is contended by petitioner that such repudiation
would not sit well with respondent judge who has placed himself in a
position of being unable to pass on such question with the degree of
objectivity required by due process, although, admittedly, such a move
did not fall squarely within one of the specified grounds to inhibit
judges. Respondent judge turned down this plea for disqualification.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: Whether or not the circumstance of a party having sworn before

respondent judge an extrajudicial statement purporting to describe the
manner in which an offense was committed, later on repudiated by him as
the product of intimidation in the course of his having been asked to
testify against petitioner would suffice to negate that degree of
objectivity required by the Constitution?
RULING: Yes, petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for.

Respondent could not be totally immuned to what apparently was asserted
before him in such extrajudicial statement. It is unlikely that he was
not in the slightest bit offended by the affiant’s turnabout with his
later declaration that there was intimidation by a government agent
exerted on him. His sense of fairness could easily be blunted. It was he
who attested to the execution of the said statement. It cannot be doubted
that respondent ruled that such extrajudicial statement was executed
freely. It is a situation of a judge having to pass on a question that by
implication had already been answered by him for the respondent was
called upon to review a matter on which he had previously given his
opinion.
VIII. RIGHT TO A PUBLIC TRIAL
- Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent abuses that may be committed by the court to the
prejudice of the defendant .
Exceptions:
1. Trial of cases involving child abuse
2. Trial of cases involving rape
NOTE: This right belongs to the accused and therefore it can be waived by the accused.
Conditions for the Validity of Trial not held in Court:
- Public was not excluded

- Accused was not prejudiced
- Accused did not object during trial
IX. RIGHT TO MEET THE WITNESSES (RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION)
- the right to confrontation “intends to secure the accused in the right to be tried, so far as
facts provable by witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him face to
face at the trial, who give their testimony in his presence, and give to the accused an
opportunity of cross-examination.
- It was intended to prevent conviction of the accused upon deposition or ex parte

affidavits, and particularly to preserve the right of the accused to test the recollection of
the witness in the exercise of the right of cross-examination.
In ordinary cases, the plaintiff has the burden of presenting evidence (same as in Shariah
courts). If the plaintiff has no evidence, the defendant wins because plaintiff was not able to
prove his cause of action.
In a case, the plaintiff did not have evidence and defendant won. Plaintiff went to the SC
and challenged the validity of the procedure of the Shariah on the ground that it violated his
right to confrontation. The Court ruled using ordinary rights and rules of court. Even without the
Shariah decision, defendants would still have won the case since plaintiff had no sufficient
evidence. However, the SC noted that the Shariah procedure violated the right to
confrontation. The Court stated that a committee be formed to control and supervise this.
Exceptions to the availability of the right:
1. Admissibility of a dying man’s declaration

2. Trial in absentia (accused was not present in the hearing, hence waived his right to
confront the witnesses)
X. RIGHT TO COMPULSORY PROCESS
- A person accused can obtain a subpoena from the court in order to compel the attendance
of witnesses in his behalf.
NOTE: If the person resides more than 100 kilometers from the place of trial, he is not bound
by a subpoena. This rule applies only to civil cases and not to criminal cases.
To establish the right, accused must show:

1. That the witness is really material
2. That he is guilty of no neglect in previously obtaining the attendance of the witness
3. That the witness will be available at the time desired
4. That no similar evidence should be obtained from other witnesses.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA:
Requisites:
1. Accused has been previously arraigned
2. He was notified of the proceedings (notice sent to last known address seems to be
sufficient)
3. Failure to appear is unjustified
Gen Rule: The right to attend trial is waivable
Exception:
1. Arraignment
2. During the identification stage (witness testifies to the identity of the accused)
3. Promulgation of judgment
JIMENEZ VS NAZARENO
There were several accused and after he was arraigned accused

escaped. The trial proceeded in his absence and the judge convicted his
co-accused. However, insofar as the one who escaped, the judge withheld
his decision that he can enjoy his constitutional right to confrontation
if he is arrested. (Some think that this is wrong. Accused should be
judged basing on the evidences presented during the trial in his
absence.)
ISSUE 1: Whether the court loses jurisdiction over a person who escapes
ISSUE 2: Whether the accused who escaped retains his right to

confrontation to present evidence to cross examination and to be heard.
RULING 1: No. Once jurisdiction is acquired, it is never lost.
RULING 2: These rights are no longer retained once the accused escapes.
The provision on trial in absentia will be useless. Escape tantamounts to
a waiver to your right to present evidence, confrontation, and etc.

Consti 2 Section 5-14

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti 2 Section 5-14

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Freedom of Religion

Art. III, Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an

- Prevents the state from promoting a religion

Related Provisions in the Constitution:

2. Art. II, Sec. 6

Matters prohibited by the Non-Establishment Clause:

Exceptions to the Non-Establishment Clause:

LEMON TEST - Test on Permissible Aid to Religion

The government appropriated P60T for design of new stamps which

The Lemon Test applied in the case:

FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE

- It prevents the State from stagnating a religious growth.

2 Fold-Aspect of religious freedom:

Freedom to Act in One’s Belief has 2 parts:

The children in Buenavista Comm. School in Masbate, who are members

Q: Who decides whether something is religious or not?

There were students, all members of the Jehovah’s witnesses, who

Who decides whether something is religious or not?

AMERICAN BIBLE VS CITY OF MANILA

 compare with the Tolentino case

- compare with the American Bible case

The accused is a chairman of a civic organization. In order to

(CONCURRING: To require a government permit before solicitation for religious purposes

The case involved a close shop agreement in CBA between employees

Also freedom of contract is part of property rights as PBL case. Human

During the height of the Marcos protests, petitioners went to hear

REGISTER OF DEEDS VS UNG SIU SI TEMPLE

A religious group composed of foreigners bought a piece of land and

-concerns religious test

Matters that the Court will not inquire into:

Q: What if the subsidy is in the form of laboratory equipment

Liberty of Abode and Right To Travel

Art. III, Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing

Two Rights Guaranteed in this Section:

- Can only be limited by:

Can be limited by the law on the interest of:

Manotoc was facing several charges of estafa and he was out on

Requirements an accused must show to be allowed to travel:

1. He must show the URGENCY for the travel

Decided under the 1987 Constitution

Q: Can administrative and executive officials limit the right to travel?

Personal discretion will not be sufficient to limit this right.

NOTE: They must first obtain a law or a court order.

MARCOS VS. MANGLAPUS

Fomer President Marcos sought to compel the Secretary of Foreign

NOTE: Inherent power of the executive:

Art. III, Sec. 7. The right of the people to

The purpose of these rights is to prevent abuse of government power.

Principle of Transparency under the Constitution:

VALMONTE VS. BELMONTE

RULING 1: Only information which are matters of public concern are

ISSUE 2: Is the information excluded by law on the ground of

AQUINO-SARMIENTO VS. MORATO

The petitioner, a member of the MTRCB, requested that she be

MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHT:

Right to Form Associations

Art. III, Sec. 8. The right of the people, including

Other rights linked to this right:

Rights included in this Section:

Exception to the Exception:

OCEEÑA VS. COMELEC

Occeña challenged as violative of Section 8 a law which prohibits a

The Reason or Policy Arguments of the Court:

There was a law passed requiring unions to be registered in order