AT8 CLJ2 Jose federico DG.

Aniceto BSCRIM lll-2

1. What do you understand by civil rights. Cite examples?

Civil rights are the prohibition of discrimination based on race, religion, and gender. the right to personal
security, including the right to vote and participate in democratic political processes and the right to life
and liberty.

2. How is civil rights distinguished from political rights? Cite examples.

Political rights are given to the citizens by the state, right to contest election, right to vote, right to hold
any public office, etc. Economic rights include right to work, to rest, to housing, to buy own property in
any part of country and to possess any job or profession in the country.

3. Why are these rights called “Negative Rights”? cite examples.

negative right, that person has the right to be free to do some action or to do no action. They are to be
free from the interference of another person or group of persons. Usually, negative rights views focus
on rights of a citizen to noninterference on the part of their government.

4. Mention at least three (3) basic civil rights and how they are applied in philippine society.

•right to life and liberty

•personal security Freedom to torture

•freedom from discrimination and freedom from arbitrary arrest

5. Discuss at least three (3) provisions of the Philippine Constitution which guarantees the right to
exercise political rights.

legislative branch (the law-making body)

the executive branch (the law-enforcing body)

the judicial branch (the law-interpreting body)

6. Discuss at least three (3) rights of a person who is accused of a crime.

•the right to a fair trial

•due process

•the right to privacy

7. What do you understand by the principle of “presumption of innocence” of anaccused person?
What is the reason of such presumption?

In the law of evidence, a presumption of a particular fact can be made without the aid of proof insome
situations. The invocation of a presumption shifts the burden of proof from one party to the opposing
party in a court trial.

8. What do you understand by the right of persons to peaceably assemble? Arethere limitations or
restrictions to this right? Cite examples.

The right to peacebly assemble is sometimes used interchangeably with the freedom of association, is
the individual right or ability of people to come together and collectively express, promote, pursue, and
defend their collective or shared ideas.

Digest the following cases:

EMETERIA VILLAFLOR VS RICARDO SUMMER

sheriff of manila Respondent G.R. NO. 16444, September 8, 1920

Facts:

petitioner prays that a writ of habeas corpus issue to restore her to her libertyVillaflor... charged with
the crime of adultery. On this case coming on for trial... upon the petition of the assistant fiscal for the
city of Manila... the court ordered... to submit her body to the examination of one or two competent
doctors to determine if she was pregnant... or not.accused refused to obey the order on the ground that
such examination of her person was a violation of the constitutional provision relating to self-
incrimination.Thereupon she was found in contempt of court and was ordered to be committed toBilibid
Prison until she should permit the medical examination required by the court.

Issues:

whether the compelling of a woman to permit her body to be examined by physicians to determine if
she is pregnant, violates... no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against
himself.
Ruling:

The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, in two decisions, has seemed to limit the protection to a
prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination.The constitutional limitation was said to be
"simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the defendant's own lips, against his will, an
admission of his guilt."

The Supreme Court of the Philippine Islands, in two decisions, has seemed to limit theprotection to a
prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination.The constitutional limitation was said to be
"simply a prohibition against legal process to extract from the defendant's own lips, against his will, an
admission of his guilt.

FRANCISCO BELTRAN VS FELIX SAMSON

Facts:

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition... etitioner complains that the respondent judge ordered him to
appear before the provincial fiscal to take dictation in his own handwriting from the latter.for the
purpose of comparing the petitioner's handwriting and determining whether or not it is he who wrote
certain documents supposed to be falsified.petitioner, in refusing to perform what the fiscal demanded,
seeks refuge in the constitutional provision contained in the Jones Law and incorporated in General
Orders, No. 58 English text of the Jones Law, which is the original one, reads as follows: "Nor shall he be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.

Issues:

whether the constitutional provision invoked by the petitioner prohibits compulsion to execute what is
enjoined upon him by the order against which these proceedings were taken.

whether the writing from the fiscal's dictation by the petitioner for the purpose of comparing the latter's
handwriting and determining whether he wrote certain documents supposed to be falsified, constitutes
evidence. against himself within the scope and meaning of the constitutional provision under
examination

Ruling:
Whenever a defendant, at the trial of his case, testifying in his own behalf, denies that a certain writing
or signature is in his own hand, he may on cross-examination be compelled to write in open court in
order that the jury may be able to compare his handwriting with the. one in question.

waived his personal privileges.

But the cases so resolved cannot be compared to the one now before us.