CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2

(Notes and Cases)

By

Atty. GALLANT D. SORIANO, MNSA

Lt. Col. PN (M)
 RIGHT AGAINST
EXCESSIVE FINES, DEGRADING
OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS

(Article III, Section 19)

EXCESSIVE FINES, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS

Sec. 19 (1), Art. III, 1987 Constitution - Excessive

fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading
or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall
BASIC death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling
PROVISION reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.

Sec. 19 (2), Art III, 1987 Constitution - The employment

of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment
BASIC
against any prisoner or detainee or the use of
PROVISION substandard or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Sec. 19(1), Art. III, 1973 Constitution - Excessive fines

Comparative shall not be imposed, nor cruel, or unusual punishment
inflicted.
EXCESSIVE FINES, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS

where the nature of the violation

c o m p a r e d w i t h t h e fi n e i s
Excessive
disproportionate, or if it exceeds the
Fine
utmost limit of punishment which the
vindication of the law demands.

if it is flagrantly and plainly oppressive,

Cruel wholly disproportionate to the nature of
Punishment the offense as to shock the moral sense of
the community.
 SCOPE OF RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

1. the imposition of the minimum penalty

prescribed by for this offenses (a fine of P300) Neither EXCESSIVE NOR CRUEL

against Francisco Valera who was found with ten

grams of opium ashes in his possession, is U.S. vs. Valera
considered to be not excessive, considering the G.R. No. L-8956. Feb. 4, 1914

nature and the gravity of the injury to the body

politic which would result from the unchecked VIOLATION OF THE OPIUM LAW

spread of the opium habit,

2. where a mechanical failure in the electric chair

CRUELTY refers to cruelty in METHOD,
NOT that cruelty which is part of the
actual suffering accompanying a lawful

prevented the execution of the convict, a second

sentence of death.

attempt to execute the convict would not violate Louisiana vs. Resweber
the cruel and unusual punishment clause as there is 329 U.S. 459. Jan. 13, 1947

no intent to inflict unnecessary pain involved in the

proposed execution. Willie Francis and in the State of
Louisiana, a 16-year old black youth WAS
CONVICTED OF murder
 SCOPE OF RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

3. confinement from 5 to 10 years for possessing of

carrying firearm is not cruel or unusual, having due People vs. Estoista
regard to the prevalent conditions which the law G.R. No. L-5793. Aug. 27, 1953

proposes to suppress or curb. Homicide through reckless imprudence and

Illegal possession of firearms — ACQUITTED on
It WOULD HAVE BEEN 5 years BUT it was
reduced to 6 months CONSIDERING his
the 1st. Sentenced to 1 year for the 2nd. MALICE

The hope of large or easy gain,

4. it takes more than merely being harsh, excessive, out obtained without special effort,
turns the head of the workman,
and habitual gambling is a CAUSE
of proportion, or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious of LAZINESS AND RUIN.

to the Constitution. "The fact that the punishment People vs. Dionisio
G.R. No. L-25513. Mar. 27, 1968
authorized by the statute, is severe does not make it cruel CONDUCTED a horse race and
collected BETS — fine not less than 1

and unusual." housand nor more than 2 thousand OR

imprisonment not less one month nor
more than 6 months.

5. the death penalty per se is not a cruel, degrading or

inhuman punishment. Punishments are cruel when
they involve torture or a lingering death; but the
RAPE OF common law spouse’s 10 - year old daughter

punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of Echegaray vs. Sec. of Justice
G.R. No. 117472. June 25, 1996
that word as used in the constitution. It implies there
something inhuman and barbarous, something more DEATH PENALTY - Cruel (NOPE)

than the mere extinguishment of life.

END