Commission was created by the 1987 Constitution as an independent office

Its powers and functions are the following

(1) Investigate, on its own or on complaint by any party, all forms of human rights violations involving
civil and political rights;

(2) Adopt its operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for violations thereof
in accordance with the Rules of Court;

(3) Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human rights of all persons within the
Philippines, as well as Filipinos residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid
services to the underprivileged whose human rights have been violated or need protection;

(4) Exercise visitorial powers over jails, prisons, or detention facilities;

(5) Establish a continuing program of research, education, and information to enhance respect for the
primacy of human rights;

(6) Recommend to the Congress effective measures to promote human rights and to provide for
compensation to victims of violations of human rights, or their families;

(7) Monitor the Philippine Government's compliance with international treaty obligations on human
rights;

(8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any person whose testimony or whose possession of documents
or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it
or under its authority;

(9) Request the assistance of any department, bureau, office, or agency in the performance of its
functions;

(10) Appoint its officers and employees in accordance with law; and

(11) Perform such other duties and functions as may be provided by law.

It cannot try and decide cases (or hear and determine causes) as courts of justice, or even quasi-judicial
bodies do. To investigate is not to adjudicate or adjudge. Whether in the popular or the technical
sense, these terms have well understood and quite distinct meanings.

"Human rights" is so generic a term that any attempt to define it, albeit not a few have tried, could at
best be described as inconclusive.

Writ of preliminary injunction may only be issued "by the judge of any court in which the action is
pending [within his district], or by a Justice of the Court of Appeals, or of the Supreme Court. A writ of
preliminary injunction is an ancillary remedy. It is available only in a pending principal action, for the
preservation or protection of the rights and interests of a party thereto, and for no other purpose."

Order to desist (a semantic interplay for a restraining order) in the instance before us, however, is not
investigatorial in character but prescinds from an adjudicative power that it does not possess (CHR)
Civil rights are those (rights) that belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in wider sense, to all
its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or administration of the government. They
include the rights of property, marriage, equal protection of the laws, freedom of contract, etc. Or, as
otherwise defined civil rights are rights appertaining to a person by virtue of his citizenship in a state or
community. Such term may also refer, in its general sense, to rights capable of being enforced or
redressed in a civil action. Also quite often mentioned are the guarantees against involuntary servitude,
religious persecution, unreasonable searches and seizures, and imprisonment for debt.

Political rights are said to refer to the right to participate, directly or indirectly, in the establishment or
administration of government, the right of suffrage, the right to hold public office, the right of petition
and, in general, the rights appurtenant to citizenship vis-a-vis the management of government.34

Motion for reconsideration shall be filed within five (5) days from receipt of its decision or order and
that an appeal from the decision, resolution or order of the C.I.R., sitting en banc, shall be perfected
within ten (10) days from receipt thereof

Inviolable character of man as an individual must be "protected to the largest possible extent in his
thoughts and in his beliefs as the citadel of his person

Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of
opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small encroachments, and the scorn
and derision of those who have no patience with general principles.

 Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the primacy of human rights over property rights is
recognized. Primacy of human rights — freedom of expression, of peaceful assembly and of
petition for redress of grievances — over property rights has been sustained.
 Operates as a protective cloak under which the individual may assert his liberties. Nonetheless,
"the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be an absolute guaranty of individual rights and
liberties. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according
to one's will. It is subject to the far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater
number

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

The guaranty of liberty does not, however, imply unbridled license for an individual to do whatever he
pleases, for each is given an equal right to enjoy his liberties, with no one superior over another. Hence,
the enjoyment of one's liberties must not infringe on anyone else's equal entitlement.

Rights of free expression, free assembly and petition, are not only civil rights but also political rights
essential to man's enjoyment of his life, to his happiness and to his full and complete fulfillment.

The freedoms of expression and of assembly as well as the right to petition are included among the
immunities reserved by the sovereign people,

Property and property rights can be lost thru prescription; but human rights are imprescriptible. If
human rights are extinguished by the passage of time, then the Bill of Rights is a useless attempt to limit
the power of government and ceases to be an efficacious shield against the tyranny of officials, of
majorities, of the influential and powerful, and of oligarchs — political, economic or otherwise.
Valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent criterion, namely existence of a grave and
immediate danger of a substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.

Freedoms of speech and of the press as well as of peaceful assembly and of petition for redress of
grievances are absolute when directed against public officials or "when exercised in relation to our right
to choose the men and women by whom we shall be governed,"

Industrial Peace Act. Section 3 of Republic Act No. 8 guarantees to the employees the right "to engage
in concert activities for . mutual aid or protection"; while Section 4(a-1) regards as an unfair labor
practice for an employer interfere with, restrain or coerce employees in the exercise their rights
guaranteed in Section Three."

Violation of a constitutional right divests the court of jurisdiction; and as a consequence its judgment is
null and void and confers no rights.

Supreme Court has the inherent power to "suspend its own rules or to except a particular case from its
operation, whenever the purposes of justice require."

Extradition treaty is the formal process of one state surrendering an individual to another state for
prosecution or punishment for crimes committed in the requesting country's jurisdiction.

DOJ Circular No. 41, which was issued pursuant to the rule-making powers of the DOJ in order to keep
individuals under preliminary investigation within the jurisdiction of the Philippine criminal justice
system.

The Constitution is inviolable and supreme of all laws

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be
established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights
which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or
instrumentality of the Government.62

Moot and academic since there is no longer any actual case or controversy to resolve

 Moot and academic case is one that ceases to present a justiciable controversy by virtue of
supervening events, so that a declaration thereon would be of no practical use or value.
 The "moot and academic" principle is not a magical formula that can automatically dissuade the
courts in resolving a case.
 Courts will decide cases, otherwise moot and academic, if: first, there is a grave violation of the
Constitution; second, the exceptional character of the situation and the paramount public
interest is involved; third, when constitutional issue raised requires formulation of controlling
principles to guide the bench, the bar, and the public; and fourth, the case is capable of
repetition yet evading review

Supreme Court is not only the highest arbiter of legal questions but also the conscience of the
government.
State's exercise of police power is also well-recognized in this jurisdiction as an acceptable limitation to
the exercise of individual rights. It was defined as the inherent and plenary power in the State which
enables it to prohibit all things hurtful to the comfort, safety, and welfare of society.

Right to travel is part of the "liberty" of which a citizen cannot be deprived without due process of
law.75 It is part and parcel of the guarantee of freedom of movement that the Constitution affords its
citizen

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 maybe provided by law.

 Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the
liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers
or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They
can impose limits only on the basis of "national security, public safety, or public health" and "as
may be provided by law,"
 Liberty under the foregoing clause includes the right to choose one's residence, to leave it
whenever he pleases and to travel wherever he wills
 Section 5, 1973 Constitution: The liberty of abode and of travel shall not, be impaired except
upon lawful order of the court, or when necessary in the interest of national security, public
safety, or public health.

Right to travel is not absolute. There are constitutional, statutory and inherent limitations regulating
the right to travel. Section 6 itself provides that the right to travel may be impaired only in the interest
of national security, public safety or public health, as may be provided by law.

Powers and Functions (DOJ) to accomplish its mandate, the Department shall have the following powers
and functions:

(1) Act as principal law agency of the government and as legal counsel and representative thereof,
whenever so required;

(2) Investigate the commission of crimes, prosecute offenders and administer the probation and
correction system;

(6) Provide immigration and naturalization regulatory services and implement the laws governing
citizenship and the admission and stay of aliens;

(7) Provide legal services to the national government and its functionaries, including government-owned
and controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;

(8) Such other functions as may be provided by law. (Emphasis supplied)

Section 3 does not authorize the DOJ to issue WLOS and HDOs to restrict the constitutional right to
travel.

Inherent power of the Executive to adopt rules and regulations to execute or implement the law is
different from the delegated legislative power to prescribe rules. The delegated legislative power
requires sufficient legislative standards for its exercise.
  The questioned circular does not come under the inherent power of the executive department
to adopt rules and regulations as clearly the issuance of HDO and WLO is not the DOJ's business

Hierarchy of rights, the Bill of Rights takes precedence over the right of the State to prosecute, and
when weighed against each other, the scales of justice tilt towards the former.

Preliminary investigation is an inquiry or proceeding for the purpose of determining whether there is
sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief that a crime cognizable by the Regional Trial Court
has been committed and that the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held for trial.

 The presence of the accused is not necessary for the prosecutor to discharge his investigatory
duties

Police power pertains to the "state authority to enact legislation that may interfere with personal liberty
or property in order to promote the general welfare.

 DOJ cannot wield police power since the authority pertains to Congress.

DOJ Secretary may undertake such action since the issuance of HDOs is an exercise of this Court's
inherent power "to preserve and to maintain the effectiveness of its jurisdiction over the case and the
person of the accused.

Power to issue HDO is inherent to the courts

DOJ Secretary may issue HDO against the accused in criminal cases within the jurisdiction of the MTC
and against defendants, respondents and witnesses in labor or administrative cases, no matter how
unwilling they may be. He may also issue WLO against accused in criminal cases pending before the RTC,

The DOJ Secretary may likewise issue WLO against respondents in criminal cases pending preliminary
investigation, petition for review or motion for reconsideration before the DOJ.

All government employees, except those who are covered by special laws. The filing of application for
leave is required for purposes of orderly personnel administration. In pursuing foreign travel plans, a
government employee must secure an approved leave of absence from the head of his agency before
leaving for abroad.

The point is that the DOJ may not justify its imposition of restriction on the right to travel of the subjects
of DOJ Circular No. 41 by resorting to an analogy. Contrary to its claim, it does not have inherent power
to issue HDO, unlike -the courts, or to restrict the right to travel in anyway. It is limited to the powers
expressly granted to it by law and may not extend the same on its own accord or by any skewed
interpretation of its authority.

in a constitutional government like ours liberty is the rule and restraint the exception.

The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of communication and correspondence [to be]
inviolable

A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an
individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her.
The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged.
Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected
spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any
communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified
exceptions.7 But one thing is freedom of communication; quite another is a compulsion for each one to
share what one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each
owes to the other.

Conviction based on circumstantial evidence under Sec. 5, Rule 133,

a) more than one circumstance,

b) the facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
c) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce a conviction beyond reasonable
doubt.

The series of circumstances proved must be consistent with each other and that each and every
circumstance must be consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence.

To warrant conviction in criminal cases based upon circumstantial evidence, it must constitute an
unbroken chain of events so as to lead to a conviction that the accused is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt. In the case at bar, the circumstantial evidence do not prove an unbroken link of events that could
give rise to a reasonable and fair conclusion that appellant committed the imputed offense.

It is Axiomatic that conviction should be made on the basis of a strong, clear and compelling evidence

Accusation is not, according to the fundamental law, synonymous with guilt; the prosecution must
overthrow the presumption of innocence with proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Presumption of
innocence)

Absolute certain of guilt is not demanded by the law to convict of any carnal charge but moral certainty
is required, and this certainty is required as to every proposition of proof regular to constitute the
offense

Fundamental postulate that a finding of guilt is allowable only when no reasonable doubt could be
entertained, is unavailing

The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with which he is
chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put
such missing funds or property to personal use.

Crime of malversation has been committed is the presence of the following requirements under Article
217 of the Revised Penal

(a) That the offender be a public officer.

(b) That he had the custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office.

(c) That those funds or property were public funds or property for which he was accountable.

(d) That he appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or, through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them.
Equipoise rule provides that where the evidence in a criminal case is evenly balanced, the constitutional,
presumption of innocence tilts the scales in favor of the accused.

Court granted the request pursuant to section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence to give the accused and
the prosecution access to scientific evidence that they might want to avail themselves of, leading to a
correct decision in the case. The Right to Acquittal Due to Loss of DNA Evidence

Due process does not require the State to preserve the semen specimen although it might be useful to
the accused unless the latter is able to show bad faith on the part of the prosecution or the police

If the alibi is a weak defense will not overthrow against positive identification

To establish alibi, the accused must prove by positive, clear, and satisfactory evidence that

 he was present at another place at the time of the perpetration of the crime, and
 that it was physically impossible for him to be at the scene of the crime

To be acceptable, the positive identification must meet at least two criteria:

First, the positive identification of the offender must come from a credible witness. She is credible who
can be trusted to tell the truth, usually based on past experiences with her. Her word has, to one who
knows her, its weight in gold.

And second, the witness’ story of what she personally saw must be believable, not inherently contrived.
A witness who testifies about something she never saw runs into inconsistencies and makes bewildering
claims.