Bail is either a matter of right or a matter of discretion.

It is a matter of right for

cases within the jurisdiction of the MTC before conviction. It is a matter of
discretion for cases within the jurisdiction of the RTC or for cases within the
jurisdiction of MTC after conviction.
For cases punishable by LP or RP or Death, bail should be denied except if the
evidence of guilt is not strong.
Ano ang kailangan na malaman natin about bail for purposes of review in
Constitutional law?
Bail is not only available in a criminal proceedings but it can be extended in other
proceedings wherein there will be deprivation of liberty like extradition
proceedings. As decided in the case of US vs Purganan and reiterated in Enrile vs
Sandiganbayan, Aug. 18. 2015. Klaro na sinasabi ng ating SC as a matter of human
right aside from criminal proceedings, if proper it can also be extended in other
proceedings wherein there will be deprivation of liberty like extradition case but it
was also stated by the SC that it is within the right of the government to resist such
application of bail in proceedings such as this when there is national or security
involved in opposing the application of bail. Balance right of bail, consider the
right of the accused and the right of the state to interpose objections against any
application of bail if the circumstances so warrant by virtue of national interest and
security. Not limited in criminal proceedings, so long as it has the tendency to
deprive liberty, it is also available.
Question on Finals or Mock Bar: Available ba ung bail sa isang legislative
contempt proceeding? Example. Case of Balag vs Senate of the RP, na imprisoned
indefinitely ung isang witness sa senado na ayaw makicooperate. Can bail be made
available in a legislative proceeding? (hindi sinagot ni sir) ☹
Presumption of innocence
Every accuse enjoys the presumption of innocence and this is related to the concept
of burden or quantum of proof in the rules on evidence because it will be the
prosecution who will have the burden of proof in proving that the accused indeed
committed the crime charged. Except in cases allowed by law, if you have a
reversed trial because the accused invokes self defense under Art 11 of RPC. You
have now an admission that a crime was committed, albeit the accused will be
interposing justifying circumstances. What is the result if ever the accused will
invoke self defense? It will discharge the prosecution of the burden of proving the
crime charged because there is already admission. The burden of proof and burden
of evidence will shift to the accused to prove that he committed the crime with
justifying circumstances.
Add in REM, there is a concept of burden of evidence.
Relate it to the doctrine of equipoise rule, when the evidence adduced of a party in
a criminal case is equally balanced, the constitutional presumption should tilt the
balance in favor of the accused. Kung balance ang ebidensya, the state and
prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt.
Right to be heard in a criminal case
This constitutional right includes the right to present evidence in ones defense; the
right to be present and defend ones self in person at every stage of the proceedings.
Meaning in a criminal case, in all stages of the criminal case, the accused should be
properly informed in the developments of his criminal case. Malapit sa right to be
heard because this can only be given meaning if we will also recognize this other
right called right to assistance of counsel. Kasi dun naman pumapasok ung right to
be heard if the accused will be properly assisted by counsel, who should be
independent and competent.
Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him its part of
procedural due process that the information should be read to the accused and he
should decide what should be his plea whether guilty or not guilty. The reading of
the information aside from the fact that it is a remedial rule, it also gives meaning
to the constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature and cause of
accusation against him because the information will be the main document that
will inform the accused what are the charges filed against him. It is a matter of due
process that the accused shall understand the contents of the information. Pag hindi
naintindihan ng akusado ung information, kelangan mainterpret or should be read
in a language known to him.

Block B
That is the standard of the SC, even if the case could be considered as
administrative in nature or sui generis for as long as there is deprivation of liberty
bail could be made available but the state should be given an opportunity to give
consent or oppose the application for bail like in an extradition proceeding.
Because if the subject matter of the case will involve national interest or national
security, the state shall have the right to oppose any application for bail.
Halimbawa in relation to public international law, ang subject ng extradition case
is well known terrorist, wala siyang kaso dito sa ating bansa pero sa ibang bansa
meron, meron din karapatan ung estado to oppose any application for bail in an
extradition proceeding lalo nap ag flight risk or ung application for bail and the
eventual release of the extradite will affect national security and interest.
Presumption of innocence
Every accuse enjoys the presumption of innocence not the presumption of guilt. In
fact, we are among the few countries that follows this doctrine, presumption of
innocence. It will be incumbent to the state to prove the guilt of the accused with
the quantum of evidence required by law; in a criminal case, Guilt beyond
reasonable doubt which require not absolute certainty but only moral certainty on
the part of the judge hearing the criminal case to convince himself that the accused
committed the crime charged. Under the rules on evidence, Burden of proof will
not shift, meaning it is the obligation of the prosecution to prove all the elements of
the crime charged including the exact culpability of the accused and the existence
of aggravating circumstances if necessary. Connect presumption of innocence with
a very important doctrine which is the equipoise rule. when the evidence adduced
of a party in a criminal case is equally balanced, the prosecution failed to discharge
its burden. It shall result to acquittal because the prosecution failed to discharge its
burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Kaya ang
objective mo sa criminal trial, at least pantayan mo lang ang evidence ng
prosecution.
Will there be instance where the burden of proof will shift? Reverse trial if the
accused will invoke a justifying circumstance like self defense, from the
prosecution the burden of proof will now shift to the accused because for instance,
the accused will invoke self defense, he is practically admitting to the commission
of the crime and it will discharge the prosecution in proving the elements of the
crime charged. Question is, in self-defense, is there really a justifying
circumstance. The elements of self-defense present in the crime charged, it must be
proven by the accused and not the prosecution. Same rule will apply if the accused
will invoke exempting circumstances because the burden of proof will be shifted.
In the new rules on evidence, meron ng burden of proof, meron din burden of
evidence, burden of evidence will shift. What is the burden of evidence? It is the
psychological necessity of proving or countervailing the evidence presented
against you. That is Remedial law.
Right of the accused to be heard in a criminal proceeding. The constitutional right
includes the right to present evidence in one’s defense and the right of the accused
to be present in every stage of the proceedings. The important stages ng criminal
trial, from arraignment, pretrial, identification, promulgation, Karapatan ng
akusado to be present because it is part of his right to be heard. It can be waived
but you cannot just deny the accused without any reason of his presence during
these stages.
Assistance of an independent and competent counsel, before, during and after
should not be denied of independent and competent counsel. – one who has no
adverse interest on the rights of the accused. If the lawyer works as state
prosecutors, that will be against the interest of the accused. Not all governmental
lawyers, are disqualified.

11-15
Remember in so far with death penalty in connection to international law, the Int'l
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a very important international human
rights instruments kasi meron tayong international bill of rights, the universal
declaration of human rights, the international covenant in civil and political rights,
international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights. Sa international
covenant on civil and political rights, you have two optional protocols: Kahit na
signatory na sa ICCPR, it will be the choice of the state whether or not to follow
this two optional protocols. 1) establishment of the international human rights
committee wherein direct complaints for human rights violations may be filed even
without the assistance of your own state. Kung human rights victim ka, wlang
vindication ng iyong human rights or protection of human rights sa sariling bansa,
you can file a direct complaint before the international human rights committee.
Allowing direct complaints for human rights victim before that international
committee. Signatory ang pilipinas jan. 2) calls for the abolishment death penalty.
The Philippines did not yet sign the 2 nd optional protocol because in our
constitution there is an option given to our congress whether or not to reinstate the
death penalty. Kahit pinirmahan natin ung ICCPR, the Philippines cannot be
compelled to follow the 2nd optional protocol. If we talk about treaties and
international conventions, that is always subject to voluntary consent. In fact a
state can qualify or make reservations if ever it wants to participate in a treaty or
international convention. For the Philippines, we exercise that option for now not
to abolish death penalty in our jurisdiction.
Double Jeopardy, Natanong sa Bar examination. Merong rape case, acquitted ung
akusado, anong ginawa ng private complainant, ayon sa questions and facts
presented in the bar, the private complainant filed a petition for certiorari under
rule 65 questioning the acquittal of the accused. Will there be a violation of the
constitutional right of double jeopardy which is available after the termination of
the criminal trial whether that criminal trial resulted into a conviction or acquittal.
Elements of Double Jeopardy:
1. The existence of the first jeopardy;
2. Termination of the first jeopardy; and
3. Existence of the second jeopardy.
Explain the existence and termination of the first jeopardy and existence of the
second jeopardy.
Existence of the first jeopardy – There is a valid criminal information wherein the
accused entered a plea. Only two valid pleas in a criminal case, 1) guilty; or 2) not
guilty.
Termination of the first jeopardy – There is a criminal case, an information was
read to an accused to which he entered a plea, trial thereafter ensued and after the
trial the accused was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed without the
express consent of the accused.
Dismissed without the express consent of the accused – a criminal case can be
dismissed ie. Lack of interest of the complainant, an offer of provisional dismissal
can be offered to the accused. But a provisional dismissal should be with the
consent of the accused. If the prosecution will agree to a dismissal whether or
permanent, without the express consent of the accused, double jeopardy will
already attach.
Existence of the second jeopardy – The filing of another criminal case involving
the same parties, same facts and same evidence similar to the first case filed. It will
include motions filed by the prosecution which will somehow reinstate or refile the
first criminal case filed. As a general rule, motions for reconsideration against a
judgment of acquittal filed by prosecution, appeals before higher courts
challenging an acquittal rendered by a trial court is tantamount to second jeopardy.
Essence of DJ – refiling or restating a criminal case which is already terminated
whether or not it resulted to conviction, acquittal or dismissal without consent.
Why is it prohibited to refiling of criminal cases against the same accused? Double
Jeopardy/ Res Judicata in Prison Grey.
Rational: Matter of fairness. An accused should not be vexed twice in a criminal
case because it will be unfair to the accused. In prosecuting crimes, the state shall
have all the resources to master the evidence that may lead to the conviction of the
accused. In a criminal trial, the state has always the upper hand because the state
have the resources compared to the accused. To balance this unevenly match in a
criminal trial, there are certain presumptions and rules available to the accused. Ie
presumption of innocence, double jeopardy which is prohibition in reinstating
criminal cases against the same accused.
Double jeopardy must be for criminal cases. If the first or second jeopardy is not a
criminal case involving the same facts, parties and evidence, ie. Administrative
case; No DJ because first and second jeopardy is criminal cases. Two similar
criminal cases not separate cases.
Bar Question. Is there violation of Double Jeopardy? Meron. Basically refiling/
reinstatement yan nung inappeal ng complainant tapos nilaban pa sa higher court
through a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The important consideration is on
the Rule of Double Jeopardy absolute? NO! not absolute, there is the concept
appeal by the state. Ung bar problem na yun uubra kung ung nag initiate will be the
state itself through the DOJ. Sila mag question ng judgment of acquittal. Only the
state can initiate an appeal against an acquittal and an appeal against acquittal is
subject on the following grounds/ exception: there must be good grounds for the
state to challenge or appeal a judgment of acquittal. 1)mistrial as may be proven by
the records; 2) prosecution was denied due process or the opportunity to prosecute
or prove their case ie. Hindi pumupunta ung testigo ng prosecution despite diligent
efforts/ subpoena;3) grave abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court. The
case upon the challenge by virtue of certiorari under Rule 65. Yun ung bar, pero
hindi ung state ang nag initiate ng appeal, it was the private complainant. 4) the
accused who will appeal his acquittal. 5) accused gives consent to the dismissal of
the case and if refiled there is no double jeopardy. Under Section 7 of Rule 117,
the court handling the criminal case must have competent jurisdiction in order to
apply the rules on double jeopardy. Kung walang jurisdiction, hindi mag attach
ung double jeopardy.
Section 15, Art III. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires
it.
Tulad ng natanong last week, the declaration of martial law will not automatically
result to the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus it will require
another proclamation or declaration from your President.
Writ of habeas corpus is not only a remedy available against the state withholding
the liberty of a person it is also available against a private person because the
essence of a habeas corpus is to produce the living body of a person detained
whether a private or public entity and justify the court why you are detaining that
person. If there is no justification, the writ of habeas corpus granted it will order
the release of that person whether you are a private or public entity.
SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll
tax.
If we say debt, it is any civil obligation arising from a contract. How about utang
na fraudulently made? Nanloko committing estafa, protected pa ba ng
constitutional right? Still yes in so far as the civil aspect because in a criminal case,
there is criminal aspect and civil aspect. Kung di mo mabayaran ung utang, ok
lang. Pero kung ang sentence mo merong imprisonment and subsidiary
imprisonment incase of fine, hindi yan papasok sa Section 20. Distinguish the
criminal aspect and civil aspect of the case. Aside from contract, this constitutional
provision also include debts, civil liabilities obtained through fraud because there
is no distinction made by the constitution whether it is a legal or illegal obligation
arising out of contracts.
Punishing bogus checks. Violation of BP 22. Lozada vs Martines. Hindi yan
protected ng constitutional protection. The greater purpose in punishing persons
issue bounce checks is to protect the economy.
Poll tax – sedula. Specified sum levied upon any person belonging to a certain
class without regard to property or occupation. Ie. Community tax certificate.
Pag di nakabayad ng sedula, walang criminal liability.
Dalawa nalang
Section 18 and Section 22
SECTION 18. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
Mind you, that in times of war and national emergency our constitution mandates
military and civil service. Only in times of war and national emergency. All abled
bodied men and women can be recruited by the military in order to serve the state
in times of war and national emergency.
SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.
Ex post facto law – a law that calls generally for the retroactive application of a
criminal law. As a general rule, criminal laws should be prospectively applied. If a
law will be amended or revised, that will make it easier for the prosecution to get a
judgment of conviction, it will alter the rules on evidence in order to secure an easy
conviction of a crime committed before the passage of the law, that is also an ex
post facto law.
Bill of attainder – it is a law that will inflict punishment without the benefit of a
judicial trial. Why is this prohibited? Because the accused must have his day in
court to prove his innocence.