Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Chapter 2

    Uploaded by

    Ridz Tingkahan
    11 views22 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    11 views22 pages

    Chapter 2

    Uploaded by

    Ridz Tingkahan

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 22
    uo, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ‘A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH FOR THE BENCH AND THE fap 2) Q: What are the remedies of the prosecut tio: finality of judgment of acquittal? ™ Beton A: The remedies or proceedings available after the fina, judgment are as follows, to wit: Y of 1) Appeal from the findings of civil liability; 2) Petition for Certiorari under Sec. 1, Rule 65, ‘h) Remedies After Finality of Judgment of Conviction: 1) Qi What are the remedies after finality of judgment conviction? ‘A: The remedies or proceedings available after the finality judgment are as follows, to wit: 1) Post Conviction Remedy under DNA Evidence Rule — Habeas Corpus; (Secs. 6 & 10 of the DNA Evidence Rule) 2) Probation; (P.D. 968) 3) Pardon; 4) Parole; 5) Amnesty; 6) Commutation of Sentence; 7) Suspension of Sentence; 8) Execution of Civil Liability; (Rule 39 of the Rule on Civil Procedure) 9) Service of Sentence. CHAPTER II CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS 1) _ Right to Due Process of Law: provides for the ght of ety pry Meet dee mo fo it mandates that “No person shall be deprive off, tberty, property without due proceas of law x22” 1) @!_ What isthe emtence of due process? ‘A: The essence of due process is a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit one’s evidence. ‘The essence of procedural due process is found in the : in support of his defense. (PDIC vs. Philippine Countryside Rural Bank, Inc, GR. No, 176438, January 24, 2011, 640 SCRA 322) 2) Q: Isa formal or trial-type hearing essential in case of due process? ‘A: No. The opportunity to be heard and explain one’s side is enough. ‘The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, q formal or trial-type hearing is not essential as the due 12 pROCBDURE, sgiMINAL PROCEDURE = pannensive nPmROHEH FORTHE IENCH AND THE Bag [A COMPREHEN 12 ir-side. (Areno, “Skycable PCC, G-R: No. W002, February 5, 2010, 611 ‘SCR 721) ere be a violation of the right to due p; 2 mets es oe 7 bmit ‘counter-affidavit?: exercise judicial or quasi-judicia, rerely recommendatory. the opportunity to su! ‘A: No. The NBI does not ‘powers and its findings are m« [excuee ‘There is no violation of di if the respondents are not answer or submit counter-evi Zecommendatory. (Shu vs. Dee, G. 4) Q: Cana student in a disciplinary case invoke his right to due process of law? ‘A: Yes. Oficial action must meet minimum standards of fairness to the individual, which generally encompass the right of adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those in courts of justice. Proceedings may be summary; cross-examination is not se part of the investigation or hearing; and a required proof in a student disciplinary action is only substant evidence. Official action must meet minimum standards of irene to the individual, which generally encompass the right a edequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heat ‘Superintendent of the Philippi itary Academs GR. No. 211362, February 24, tis) pee eee tue process in an NBI investigation given an opportunity to file an idence. The NBL does not exercise R, No, 182573, April 23, 2014) curren n ‘Constittional Provision 23 ‘ue proces ents the accused ‘semen specimen taken from ‘Az | No. Due process does not require the State to preserve the although it might be useful able to show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or ‘The failure of the gove epoca lure of the goverment to produce the semen victim does not entitle the accused in a ape case to outright acquittal on the ground of violation of his right to due process. Due process does not require the State to preserve the semen specimen from a rape victim although it might be useful to the accused, unless the latter is able to show bad faith on the part ofthe prosecution or the police. Webb claims, citing Brady v. Maryland, that he is entitled to outright acquittal on the ground of violation of his right to due process: given the State's failure to produce on order of the Court either by negligence or willful suppression the semen specimen taken from Carmela. The medical evidence clearly established that Carmela was raped and, consistent with this, semen specimen was found in her. Its true that Alfaro identified Webb in her testimony as Carmela’s rapist and killer but serious questions hhad been raised about her credibility. At the very least, there exists a possibility that Alfaro had lied. On the other hand, the semen specimen taken from Carmela cannot possibly lie ox Stil, Webb is not entitled to acquittal for the failure of the Brate to produce the semen specimen at this late stage. For one thing. the ruling in Brady u Maryland that he cites has long cane scan by the decision in Arizona v. Youngblood, where fed unless the latter is able to show bad tion or the police. Here, the State the existence of the be useful to the accust specimen and Wel to DNA test, (Alejano vs. People, GR: 2010) (CRIMI CH FOR THE Bo Oe 124 ou pREHENSIVE APPRONCH ine Constis the 1987 Philippine ( itus seo. 2, are of person to equal protection. before we ides for the ow ‘mandates that: laws. It ess Mor shall axy person BO denied equal .ction before the laws.” COMMENTS: What is the basic purpose of the Equal Protection prote ) @ Clause? FE an qual protection simply provides that all persons or things to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed, [ese] Equal prot ion simply provides that all persons or things similarly situated should be treated in a similar manner, butteas to rights conferred and responsibilities imposed. The purpose of the equal protection clause is to secure every person Fithin a state’s jurisdiction against intentional and arbitrary discrimination, whether occasioned by the express terms of a Statute or by its improper execution through the state’s duly constituted authorities. In the other words, the concept of equal justice under the law requires the state to govern impartially, and it may not draw distinctions between individuals solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate government objective. (Bureau of Customs Employee Association vs. Teves, GR. No. 181704, December 6, 2011) 2) Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures: waa a Art. I of the 1987 Philippine Constitution a eveasonable cearenee ot, the tight of the persons against searches and seizures. It provides that: “secr secure in ae) The right of the people to be Persons, houses, papers, and char Consitions effects against unrea, of whatever nature sontble searches and seizures COMMENTS: 1) Q What is the right of a person a Dy aha cha situa? Person against unreasonable A: The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizure of whatever nature and purpose shall be inviolable. 2) Q: What are the requirements in the issuance of a search warrant or warrant of arrest? ‘A: Itis a rule that no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except: a) Upon probable cause; b) It shall be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and c) Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons and things to be seized. 3) Q: Cana valid warrantless search or arrest be made during state of emergency? ‘A: No, a proclamation of a state of emergency by a provincial governor cannot serve as legal basis for general searches and seizures, including warrantless arrests. state of emergency by a provincial oclamation of @ at prvannot serve as legal basis for general searches and eermares, including, warrantless arrests: Even a declaration of sySIVE APPROACH FOR THE BENCH ANS THE BAR not suspend the operati ae functioning of the civi] a Jmblies, nor authorize the conferment of tye mblie, net and agencies over civilians whe® military covtfon, nor automatically suspend gy le alayan vs. Tan, GR. No, 187298, Jy 126 ‘A. COMPREHE! sti Jaw by the Preside sparta ton, nor SUPPIAD jurisdiction on femme or corminesietes van application for a search WATS criminal case alr conducted titer as ann near one yet to be filed. Whethe” Sled in cour*agee (of which the sear warrant i8 an incideng a (of wr re the teal court is. significant for has already been fled, oie proper remedy from @ grant op «on warrant. Where the se iliac enn ct warrant i esearch warrant is merely interiocw Ty. The Tuashal of Sore tn be done in the sold crimine sos, determination of the he accused therein.” In cont where a search ws of a criminal case yet ‘h warrants issued were subsequently Guashed by the Regional Trial Court, there was nothing left eo be done by the trial court. Thus, the quashal of the search warrants were final orders, not interlocutory, and an appeal may be properly taken therefrom. (World Wide Web Corporation, et al. vs. People, et al/Planet Internet Corporation us. Philippi Tong Distance Telephone Company, G.R. Nos. 161106/161266, January 13, 2014) 3. Right to Privacy of Communication and Correspondence: Sec. 3, Art. II of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides for the right of the person to privacy of communication ‘and correspondence. It provides that: ni privacy of communication shall be inviolable except upon ne order of the court, or when public safety and order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” a Coachtnn F n a COMMEN’ : Ts: dha Siercentt te the rights of te spondence? What mnt’ Person to communication ‘The privacy of pense communi, inviolable excope, “°™™ ication and correspondence shall be 1) Upon lawful order of the court 2) When public 5; prescribed ly tae Me Safety and order requires otherwise as 2) Q: Whatistheet of law? ffect of violation of the above provision Any evidens Ai Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 3) Q Is consent 2 ae traation Comets jfeamired inorder for a private ‘A: Nes, Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under R.A. According to the Court: “Absent a clear showing that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Republic Act 4200.” (Salcedo-Ortanez vs. Court of Appeals, GR. No. 110662, August 4, 1994) . Sec. 6, Art. Ill: Right to Liberty of Abode and to Trax _ 111 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution eer eried f abode and changing the same. provides for the right of liberty o! It provides that: ‘ hanging “SECTION 6. ‘The liberty: ‘of abode and cl the oe within the limits prescribed by law eae the fo ieapaired except upon lawful order of ti eo ee ene ge poner ie iia Sane poe estes erst *Teational security, Public seg ih ep an Bord, z i COMMENTS: on the right of the person to 1 @ what is the rule eae Ubeny of abode and to change the the same within the : The ofabode and changing ¢ limi fame att ape co oe mo of the court. 2) @: Can the right of What is the rule on the right ‘Asa general rue itis clearly stated in the Constitution tha, the person to travel be impa: “of the person to travel? A: 3) Q: Are there any exceptions? ‘Az Yes, the above provision of the Constitution provides for an exception on the right to travel based on the following grounds; a) _ In the interest of national security; b) Public safety; or ©) Public health, as may be provided by law. 4) Q: Can an urban or rural poor dweller be evicted and their dwelling demolished without violating their right to liberty of abode? A: Yes. R.A. 7279 allows summary evictions and demolition in cases where persons or entities occupy danger areas and when Persons occupy areas where government infrastructure projects with available funding are about to be implemented. [esetar: ] The ; shall not be eution Provides that urban or rural poor dwelt accordance with fea, 20 their dwelling demolished, excePt and in a just and humane manner. BA 270 allows summary eviction’ and demolition in casss- cone AFTER tonal Provisions 133 fanding are ane BEN natn cqeen@ienesonsocsupy and demolitions are eo “with available RA. 7279 requires conducted in aa gneure that evictions executing eviews compliance with a presente ARNE, See nate ation and/or demolition eens es oeesuTe thou any cones Ue Contultation, Bvions set nee ‘ourt order un¢ ions and demolitions ‘Ang Damay Ang Mahitirap ne ch 7279 axe vali 22, 2014) Hahirap vs. Robredo, Gk. No- 200905, Duly wee ms vies So yn i et te ar sonata complaint from leaving the country? we. cae oven travel and that theres nolaw which autoriars the Secretary Justice to este HOS, WLOs, or allow departure orders (ADO) Tefurther emphasized that the power to issue HDOs is inherent constitutional recognition”; it co-exists with the cout exists with the grant of judicial Section 6, Article II of the Constitution provides that 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.” Ourrightto travels held to be part and parcel of our freedom of movement guaranteed under our Constitution. Nevertheless, this freedom is not absolute, and may be restricted in the interest of national security, public safety or public health. 1s in the case of Silverio vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. ‘No Sa28e pn 28, 1991) the Supreme Court had clarified that holding an accused in a criminal case within reach of the courts e Philippines is considered ting his departure from th eee reatreton ‘on his right to travel so that he may bbe dealt with in accordance with law. subject of a criminal cnc 0 ng Ha “A COMPREHENSIVE APPROMS sa i rec ct eet keepers charge pending Petre ear whet ne on entrained riage ely hed moa try bessigation proceedings: y then was cl while the rule coe to leave the count uring preliminary inves ‘To address this Suppose’ Justice (DOV) issued in the F 4t conundrum, the Department a

    You might also like