Consti Reviewer Section 1-22

8/4/2019 Consti Reviewer Section 1-22

1/22

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

Churchill vs

Rafferty

If a law relates to the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of

the community, it is within the scope of police power of the state

It has long been recognized that uses of private property which are offensive to the

senses of smell or hearing may be so regulated or segregated as to disturbs little as

possible the pursuits of other personsThe remedy of a suit to recover back the tax after it is paid is provided by statute,

and a suit to restrain its collection is forbidden

Police power the power vested in the legislature by the constitution to make,

ordain, and establish all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, statute, andordinances, either with penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as

they shall judge to be for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the

subjects of the same

US vs Toribio Power of eminent domain the right of a government to take and appropriate

private property to public use, whenever the public exigency requires it; which can

be done only on condition of providing a reasonable compensation therefor

To justify the state in the exercise of its sovereign police power it must appear,

first, that the interests of the public generally, as distinguished from those of a

particular class, require such interference; and, second, that the means are

reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose ,and not undulyoppressive upon individuals

Callalang vs

Williams

The legislature cannot delegate its power to make the law; but it can make a law to

delegate a power to determine some fact or state of things upon which the law

makes, or intends to make, its own action depend

De la Cruz vs

Paras

It is a general rule that ordinances passed by virtue of the implied power found in

the general welfare clause must be reasonable, consonant with the general powersand purposes of the corporation, and not inconsistent with the laws or policy of the

state

Police power is granted to municipal corporations in general term as follows:

general power of council to enact ordinances and make regulations

Magtajas vs

Pryce

Properties

The morality of gambling is not a justiciable issue

The tests of a valid ordinance are well established. A long line of decisions has

held that to be valid, an ordinance must conform to the following substantive

requirements: 1) it must not contravene the constitution or any statute; 2) it must

not be unfair and oppressive; 3) it must not be partial or discriminatory; 4) it must

not prohibit but may regulate trade; 5) it must be general and consistent with

public policy; 6) it must not be unreasonable

Iloilo ice and

Cold Storage

Co vsMunicipal

council of

Iloilo

Nuisance anything that worketh hurt, inconvenience or damage

1. Nuisance per se those which are unquestionably and under all

circumstances nuisance2. Nuisance per accidens those nuisance such only because of the special

circumstances and conditions surrounding them

A nuisance which affects the immediate safety of persons or property, or which

constitutes an obstruction to the streets and highways under circumstances

presenting an emergency, may be summarily abated under the undefined law of

necessity. But, in any case, the declaration of the municipal council that the thingor act is a nuisance is not conclusive. The owner of the alleged nuisance has the

right to test the validity of the action in court of lawIf no compelling the summary abatement of a nuisance, the municipal authorities,

under their power to declare and abate nuisance, do not have the power to compelthe abatement of a particular thing or act as a nuisance without reasonable notice

to the person alleged to be maintaining or doing the same of the time and place of

hearing before a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing or act does in

law constitute a nuisance


2/22

People vs

Pomar

The police power of the state is a growing and expanding power. As civilization

develops and public conscience becomes awakened the police power may be

extended, as has been demonstrated in the growth of public sentiment with

reference to many subjects, but that power cannot grow faster than the

fundamental law of the state, nor transcend or violate the express inhibitions of the

peoples law the constitution

US vsSalaveria The general welfare clause has two branches. One branch attaches itself to themain trunk of municipal authority, and relates to such ordinances and regulations

as may be necessary to carry into effect and discharge the powers and duties

conferred upon the municipal council by law. The second branch of the of the

clause is much more independent by the specific functions of the council whichare enumerated by law

Callanta vsCarnation

Philippines

It is a principle in American Jurisprudence which, undoubtedly, is well recognizedin this jurisdiction that ones employment, profession, trade or calling is a

property right, and the wrongful interference therewith is an actionable wrong.

The right is considered to be property within the protection of a constitutional

guaranty of due process of law

Pedro vs

Provincial

Board

A license authorizing the operation and exploitation of a cockpit is not property of

which the holder may not be deprived without due process of law, but a mere

privilege which may be revoked when the public interest so require

Luque vs

Villegas

No franchise or right can be availed of to defeat the proper exercise o police power

Corona vs

United Harbor

Pilots

Association

When one speaks of due process of law, a distinction must be made between

matters of substance procedural due process refers to the method or manner by

which the law is enforced, while substantive due process requires that the law

itself, not merely the procedure by which the law would be enforced, is fair,

reasonable, and just

As long as a party was given the opportunity to defend his interest in due course

he cannot be said to have been denied due process of law, for this opportunity tobe heard is the very essence of due process

Notice and hearing, as the fundamental requirements of due process, are essential

only when the administrative body exercise its quasi-judicial function, but in the

performance of its executive or legislative functions, such as issuing rules and

regulations, an administrative body need not comply with the requirements of

notice and hearing

US vs Ling Su

Fan

Due process of law

1. That there shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers

of the legislative department of the government

2. That this law shall be reasonable in its operation

3. That is shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure

prescribed4. That it shall be applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or all of the

class

When life liberty and property are in question there must be in every instance

judicial proceedings, and that the requirement implies a written accusation and

hearing, before an impartial tribunal with proper jurisdiction, an opportunity to

defend and a conviction and a judgement before punishment can be inflicted,depriving one of his life, liberty, or property

Banco Espanol

Filipino vs

Palanca

Due process of law as applied to judicial hearings

1. There must be a court or tribunal cloathed with judicial power to hear and

determine the matter before it

2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or

over the property which is the subject of the proceeding3. The defendant must be given the opportunity to be heard

4. Judgement must be rendered upon lawful hearing


3/22

Guzman vs

National

University

No disciplinary action may be imposed on students without abiding by the

requirements of due process

A school cannot refuse to re-enroll a student if it believes of acts inimical to the

school, without first conducting an investigation

1. The student must be informed in writing of the nature and the cause of

any accusation against them

2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against them with theassistance of counsel, if desired

3. They shall be informed of the evidence against them

4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf

5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating committee or

official designated by the school authorities to hear and decide the case

Ynot vs

Intermediate

Appellate

Court

The due process clause was kept intentionally vague so it would remain also

conveniently resilient. This was felt necessary because due process is not, like

some provisions of the fundamental law, an iron rule laying down an implacable

and immutable command for all seasons and all persons. Flexibility must be the

best virtue of the guaranty. The very elasticity of the due process clause was meant

to make it adapt easily to every situation, enlarging or constricting its protection as

the changing times and circumstances may requireInstances where notice are not imperative

1. Conclusive presumption

2. Summary abatement of nuisance per se

3. Inherently pernicious

People vs

Cayat

Classification, to be reasonable

1. Must rest on substantial distinction

2. Must be germane to the purpose of the law

3. Must not be limited to existing conditions only

4. Must apply equally to all members of the same class

Smith Bell &

Co vs

Natividad

Citizenship is a legal and valid ground for classification

Ichong vs

Hernandez

Equal protection of the laws it does not demand absolute equality among

residents; it merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like

circumstances and conditions both as to privileges conferred and liabilitiesenforced

King vs

Hernaez

The nationalization of an economic measure when founded on grounds of public

policy cannot be branded as unjust, arbitrary, or oppressive or contrary to the

Constitution because its aim is merely to further the material progress and welfare

of the citizens of a country

Ormoc Sugar

Central vsOrmoc City

The equal protection clause applies only to persons or things identically situated

and does not bar a reasonable classification of the subject of legislation

Section 2 The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against

unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be

inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause

to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation in the

complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to besearched and the persons or things to be seized

US vs Arceo Under the police power of the state the authorities may compel entrance to

dwelling against the will of the owners for sanitary purposes. The government has

the right upon the grounds of public policy. It has the right to protect the health

and lives of all its people.

Valmonte vs

de Villa

Checkpoints are not illegal per se

For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body

search, and the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search, said routine


4/22

checks cannot be regarded as violative of an individuals right against

unreasonable search

People vs

Escano

Exceptions to the warrant requirement

1. Search incidental to arrest

2. Search of moving vehicle

3. Evidence in plain view

4. Customs searches5. Consented warrantless search

6. Stop-and-frisk situations

Webb vs de

Leon

What the constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of

the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying

himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of warrant of a arrest,the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.

1. Personally evaluate the report and the documents submitted by the fiscal

regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis therof, issue a

warrant

2. If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the

fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of

witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of

probable causeStonehill vs

Diokno

It is well settled rule that legality of seizure can be contested only by the party

whose rights, have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawfulsearch and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of third parties

The documents, papers and things seized under a unconstitutional searches and

seizures are inadmissible as evidence

Qua Chee Ganvs Deportation

Board

The discretion of whether a warrant of arrest shall issue or not is personal to theone upon whom authority devolves. And authorities are to the effect that while

ministerial duties may be delegated, official functions requiring the exercise of

discretion and judgement, may not be so delegated

The Commissioner of Immigration, an executive officer, cannot issue warrants of

arrest in aid merely of his investigatory power

Lim vs Felix Interpretation of personal determination by the judge

1. The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge. It is not

for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor nor for the election supervisor to

ascertain. Only the judge and the judge alone makes this determination

2. By itself the prosecutors certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It

is the report, the affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes (if any),

and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutors certification

which are material in assisting the judge to make his determination

Moreno vs

Ago Chi

If the property was in no way connected with the commission of the offense, at the

termination of the trial it is the duty of the court to order the officer in possession

of the same to return it to the defendant. The custody of the officer of such

property in no way deprives the defendant of his right therein and such custody

should be considered as the custody of the defendant under these circumstances

Nolasco vs

Pano

The Bill of Rights orders the absolute exclusion of all illegally obtained evidence:

"Any evidence obtained in violation of this . . . section shall be inadmissible for

any purpose in any proceeding"

All the articles thus seized fag under the exclusionary rule totally and

unqualifiedly and cannot be used against any of the three petitioners

Papa vs Mago It is the settled rule, therefore, that the Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive

jurisdiction over imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the customslaws, from the moment the goods are actually in its possession or control, even if

no warrant of seizure or detention had previously been issued by the Collector of

Customs in connection with seizure and forfeiture proceedings

It is our considered view, therefor, that except in the case of the search of a


5/22

dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may

effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs

laws.

People vs

Malmstead

Probable cause justified the warrantless search that was made on the personal

effects of the accused

The required probable cause that will justify a warrantless search and seizure is not

determined by any fixed formula but is resolved according to the factsCaballes vs

CA

The constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures is not

absolute but admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) warrantless search

incidental to a lawful arrest recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of

Court and by prevailing jurisprudence; (2) seizure of evidence in plain view; (3)

search of moving vehicles; (4) consented warrantless search; (5) customs search;

(6) stop and frisk situations (Terry search); and (7) exigent and emergencycircumstances.

The consent must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal detention

and search, i.e., the consent is unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given,

uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. Hence, consent to a search is not to be

lightly inferred, but must be shown by clear and convincing evidence

To constitute a waiver, it must first appear

1. The right exists

2. That the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, ofthe existence of such right

3. The said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right

The consent given under intimidating or coercive circumstances is no consent

within the purview of the constitutional guaranty

De Garcia vs

Locsin

warrant to be valid

1. it must be issued upon probable cause

2. the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by

the applicant or any other person

3. in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under

oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may

produce

4. the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and

persons or things to be seizedcertainly, the constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures,

being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights

are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her behalf

Section 3 The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful

order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law

Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for

any purpose in any proceeding

Uy Kheytin vs

Villareal

Search warrant cannot be used everyday for ten days and for a different purpose

each day

People vs

Marti

The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore

applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked

with the enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State

to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power isimposed

Section 4 No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press, or the

right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of

grievances.

Secretary of

Justice vs

Sandiganbayan

The propriety of granting or denying the instant petition involve the weighing out

of the constitutional guarantees of freedom of the press and the right to public

information, on the one hand, and the fundamental rights of the accused, on the

other hand, along with the constitutional power of a court to control its


6/22

proceedings in ensuring a fair and impartial trial. When these rights race against

one another, jurisprudence7 tells us that the right of the accused must be preferred

to win.

An accused has a right to a public trial but it is a right that belongs to him, more

than anyone else, where his life or liberty can be held critically in balance. A

public trial aims to ensure that he is fairly dealt with and would not be unjustlycondemned and that his rights are not compromised in secrete conclaves of longago. A public trial is not synonymous with publicized trial; it only implies that the

court doors must be open to those who wish to come, sit in the available seats,

conduct themselves with decorum and observe the trial process

Ayer

Productions vs

Capulong

A public figure has been defined as a person who, by his accomplishments, fame,

or mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a

legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs, and his character, has become a 'public

personage

Such public figures were held to have lost, to some extent at least, their tight to

privacy. Three reasons were given, more or less indiscrimately, in the decisions"that they had sought publicity and consented to it, and so could not complaint

when they received it; that their personalities and their affairs has already public,and could no longer be regarded as their own private business; and that the press

had a privilege, under the Constitution, to inform the public about those who have

become legitimate matters of public interest

Gonzales vs

COMELEC

The primacy, the high estate accorded freedom of expression is of course a

fundamental postulate of our constitutional system. No law shall be passed

abridging the freedom of speech or of the press .... 13 What does it embrace? At the

very least, free speech and free press may be identified with the liberty to discuss

publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or

punishment. 14 There is to be then no previous restraint on the communication of

views or subsequent liability whether in libel suits, 15prosecution for sedition, 16 oraction for damages, 17 or contempt proceedings 18 unless there be a clear and

present danger of substantive evil that Congress has a right to prevent

Limitations:1. Clear and Present Danger - means that the evil consequence of the

comment or utterance must be extremely serious and the degree of

imminence extremely high' before the utterance can be punished. Thedanger to be guarded against is the 'substantive evil' sought to be

prevented."

2. Dangerous Tendency - "If the words uttered create a dangerous tendency

which the state has a right to prevent, then such words are punishable. It

is not necessary that some definite or immediate acts of force, violence,

or unlawfulness be advocated. It is sufficient that such acts be advocated

in general terms. Nor is it necessary that the language used be reasonably

calculated to incite persons to acts of force, violence, or unlawfulness. It

is sufficient if the natural tendency and probable effect of the utterance be

to bring about the substantive evil which the legislative body seeks toprevent

US vs Bustos(1909)

In order that a private communication, libellous in character, shall be privileged,certain conditions must exist

1. It must be made in good faith

2. It must be made in the performance of a duty, which duty must be legal,

moral or social

3. It must be made solely with the fair and reasonable purpose of protecting

a. The interest of the person making the communication


7/22

b. The interests of the person to whom the communication is made

Its purpose, among other things, was to permit all interested persons or citizens

with grievances, to freely communicate, with immunity, to the persons who could

furnish the protection asked for, requiring, however, at all times that such petitions

or communications shall be made in good faith or with justifiable motives. This

privilege must not be abused. If it appears that the communications was mademaliciously or to persons who cloud not furnish the protection, then the mere

pretext cannot afford the protection under the law, nor furnish an occasion for a

privileged communication.

US vs Bustos(1918)

In the usual case, malice can be presumed from defamatory words. Privilegedestroys that presumption. The onus of proving malice then lies on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff must bring home to the defendant the existence of malice as the true

motive of his conduct. Falsehood and the absence of probable cause will amount

to proof of malice.

Borjal vs CA A privileged communication may be either

1. Absolutely privileged communications are those which are not actionable

even if the author has acted in bad faith

2. qualifiedly privileged communications containing defamatory

imputations are not actionable unless found to have been made without

good intention justifiable motive

fair commentaries on matters of public interest are likewise privileged

publications which are privileged for reasons of public policy are protected by the

constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech

JBL Reyes vs

Bagatsiing

The applicants for a permit to hold an assembly should inform the licensing

authority of the date, the public place where and the time when it will take place.

If it were a private place, only the consent of the owner or the one entitled to its

legal possession is required

Bayan vs

Ermita

The authority of a municipality to impose regulations in order to assure the safety

and convenience of the people in the use of public highways has never been

regarded as inconsistent with civil liberties but rather as one of the means of

safeguarding the good order upon which they ultimately depend

This could only mean that "maximum tolerance" is not in conflict with a "no

permit, no rally policy" or with the dispersal and use of water cannons undercertain circumstances for indeed, the maximum amount of tolerance required is

dependent on how peaceful or unruly a mass action is. Our law enforcers should

calibrate their response based on the circumstances on the ground with the view to

preempting the outbreak of violence

Furthermore, there is need to address the situation adverted to by petitioners where

mayors do not act on applications for a permit and when the police demand a

permit and the rallyists could not produce one, the rally is immediately dispersed.In such a situation, as a necessary consequence and part of maximum tolerance,

rallyists who can show the police an application duly filed on a given date can,

after two days from said date, rally in accordance with their application without

the need to show a permit, the grant of the permit being then presumed under thelaw, and it will be the burden of the authorities to show that there has been a denial

of the application, in which case the rally may be peacefully dispersed following

the procedure of maximum tolerance prescribed by the law

Section 5 No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise

thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without

discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for

the exercise of civil or political rights.

Austria vs An ecclesiastical affair is "one that concerns doctrine, creed, or form of worship of


8/22

NLRC the church, or the adoption and enforcement within a religious association of

needful laws and regulations for the government of the membership, and the

power of excluding from such associations those deemed unworthy of membership

The state has jurisdiction to try a case of dismissal which involves a employer-

employee relationship because the doctrine of church-state separation is

inapplicable.American

Bible Society

vs City of

Manila

The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its

enjoyment. . . . Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make

its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its

maintenance. Those who can tax the privilege of engaging in this form ofmissionary evangelism can close all its doors to all those who do not have a full

purse. Spreading religious beliefs in this ancient and honorable manner would thus

be denied the needy

Ebralinag vs

Division

Superintendent

of Schools of

Cebu

The right to religious profession and worship has a two-fold aspect, freedom to

believe and freedom to act on ones belief. The first is absolute as long as the

belief is confined within the realm of thought. The second is subject to regulation

where the belief is translated into external acts that affect the public welfare.

The court upholds the right under our constitution to refuse to salute the Philippine

flag on account of their religious beleifs

Aglipay vs

Ruiz

It is almost trite to say now that in this country we enjoy both religious and civil

freedom. All the officers of the Government, from the highest to the lowest, in

taking their oath to support and defend the constitution, bind themselves to

recognize and respect the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom, with itsinherent limitations and recognized implications. It should be stated that what is

guaranteed by our Constitution is religious liberty, not mere religious toleration

Section 6 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.

Villavicencio vs

Lukban

Section 7 The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized. Access

to official records, and to documents, and papers pertaining to official acts, transactions, or

decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for policy development, shall be

afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law

Legaspi vs CSC It follows that, in every case, the availability of access to a particular public

record must be circumscribed by the nature of the information sought, i.e., (a)

being of public concern or one that involves public interest, and, (b) not being

exempted by law from the operation of the constitutional guarantee

In case of denial of access, the government agency has the burden of showingthat the information requested is not of public concern, or, if it is of public

concern, that the same has been exempted by law from the operation of theguarantee

In the final analysis, it is for the courts to determine in a case by case basis

whether the matter at issue is of interest or importance, as it relates to or affects

the public

Tanada vs

Tuvera (1985)

When the question is one of public right nad the people object of the mandamus

is to procure the enforcement of a public duty, the people are regarded as the real

party in interest and the realtor at whose instigation the proceedings are instituted

need not show that he has any legal or special interest in the result, it being

sufficient to show that he is a citizen and as such interested in the execution of


9/22


10/22

Teachers

Association vs

Laguio Jr

organize is limited to the formation of unions or associations, without including

the right to strike

GSIS vs

Kapisanan

It is relevant to state at this point that the settled rule in this jurisdiction is that

employees in the public service may not engage in strikes, mass leaves, walkouts,

and other forms of mass action that will lead in the temporary stoppage or

disruption of public service. The right of government employees to organize islimited to the formation of unions or associations only, without including the

right to strike

Section 9 Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Estate of JBL

Reyes vs City

of Manila

Compliance with these conditions is mandatory because these are the only

safeguards of oftentimes helpless owners of private property against violation of

due process when their property is forcibly taken from them.

However we must not lose sight of the fact that individual rights affected by theexercise of such right are also entitled to protection, bearing in mind that the

exercise of this superior right cannot override the guarantee of due process

extended by the law to owners of the property to be expropriated

Republic vsVda de

Castellvi

"Eminent Domain, we read the definition of "taking" (in eminent domain) -Taking' under the power of eminent domain may be defined generally as entering

upon private property for more than a momentary period, and, under the warrant

or color of legal authority, devoting it to a public use, or otherwise informally

appropriating or injuriously affecting it in such a way as substantially to oust the

owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment thereof.

circumstances must be present in the "taking" of property for purposes of eminent

domain.

1. the expropriator must enter a private property2. the entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary

period

3. the entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legalauthority

4. the property must be devoted to a public use or otherwise informallyappropriated or injuriously affected5. the utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to

oust the owner and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the

property

Neither can it be said that the right of eminent domain may be exercised by

simply leasing the premises to be expropriated

In determining the value of land appropriated for public purposes, the same

consideration are to be regarded as in a sale of property between private parties.

The inquiry, in such cases, must be what is the property worth in the market,

viewed not merely with reference to the uses to which it is at the time applied, but

with reference to the uses to which it is plainly adapted, that is to say, What is itworth from its availability for valuable uses?

In expropriation proceedings, therefore, the owner of the land has the right to its

value for the use for which it would bring the most in the market.The owner may

thus show every advantage that his property possesses, present and prospective,

in order that the price it could be sold for in the market may be satisfactorily

determined

Sumulong vs the stewardship concept, under which private property is supposed to be held by


11/22

Guerrero the individual only as a trustee for the people in general, who are its real owners.

As a mere steward, the individual must exercise his rights to the property not for

his own exclusive and selfish benefit but for the good of the entire community or

nation

Heirs of

Moreno vs

Mactan CebuInternational

Airport

The predominant precept is that upon abandonment of real property condemned

for public purpose, the party who originally condemned the property recovers

control of the land if the condemning party continues to use the property forpublic purpose; however, if the condemning authority ceases to use the property

for a public purpose, property reverts to the owner in fee simple

When the State reconveys land, it should not profit from sudden appreciations inland values. Any increase or decrease in market value due to the proposed

improvement may not be considered in determining the market value. Thus,

reconveyance to the original owner shall be for whatever amount he was paid by

the government, plus legal interest, whether or not the consideration was based

on the lands highest and best use when the sale to the State occurred

The Province of

Tayabas vs

Perez

The fundamental rule in expropriation matters is that the owner of the property

expropriated is entitled to a just compensation, which should be neither more nor

less, whenever it is possible to make the assessment, than the money equivalent

of said property. Just compensation has always been understood to be the just and

complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has tosuffer by reason of the expropriation

After considering the question from this angle, it appears clearly unjust to compel

the appellant to defray the expenses incurred in their transfer and reconstruction

in another place by the owners of said houses, who, strictly speaking, already

cease to be so from the time they are paid the price thereof

The appellees have no right to collect at the same time the just prices of their

houses and the cost of their transfer and reconstruction in another place. At most,

they are entitled to either one or the other, and nothing more.

The Manila

Railway

Company vsFabie

The Court of First Instance had the undoubted right to reject the report of the

commissioners, if that report was not founded upon legal evidence. The judge

had the undoubted right also to discharge the commission and appoint a new one.Conceding, without deciding, that he also had the right to formulate an opinion of

his own as to the value of the land in question, nevertheless, if he formulate such

an opinion, he must base it upon competent evidence

Processing

Zone vs Dulay

It is violative of due process to deny to the owner the opportunity to prove that

the valuation in the tax documents is unfair or wrong. And it is repulsive to basic

concepts of justice and fairness to allow the haphazard work of a minor

bureaucrat or clerk to absolutely prevail over the judgment of a court

promulgated only after expert commissioners have actually viewed the property,

after evidence and arguments pro and con have been presented, and after all

factors and considerations essential to a fair and just determination have been

judiciously evaluated.

The determination of "just compensation" in eminent domain cases is a judicialfunction. The executive department or the legislature may make the initial

determinations but when a party claims a violation of the guarantee in the Bill of

Rights that private property may not be taken for pubhc use without just

compensation, no statute, decree, or executive order can mandate that its own

determination shag prevail over the court's findings. Much less can the courts beprecluded from looking into the "just-ness" of the decreed compensation

Section 10 No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

Clemens vs A contract to pay a certain sum in money, without any stipulation as to the kind


12/22

Nolting of money in which it shall be paid, may always be satisfied by payment of that

sum in any currency which is lawful money at the place and time at which

payment is to be made

La Insular vs

Machuca Go-

Tanco

Taxes are always an exception to section 10

Ortigas & Co vsFEATI Bank it should be stressed, that while non-impairment of contracts is constitutionallyguaranteed, the rule is not absolute, since it has to be reconciled with the

legitimate exercise of police power, i.e., "the power to prescribe regulations to

promote the health, morals, peace, education, good order or safety and general

welfare of the people

Section 11 Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be

denied to any person by reason of poverty.

Section 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be

informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel

preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be

provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of

counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the freewill shall be used against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other

similar forms of detention are prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be

inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as

compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their

families.

People vs Judge

Ayson

The right against self-incrimination is not self- executing or automatically

operational. It must be claimed. If not claimed by or in behalf of the witness, the

protection does not come into play. It follows that the right may be waived,

expressly, or impliedly, as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time.

right against self-incrimination

- It prescribes an "option of refusal to answer incriminating questions and not a

prohibition of inquiry."

- It is only when a particular question is addressed to him, the answer to whichmay incriminate him for some offense, that he may refuse to answer on the

strength of the constitutional guaranty

Custodial Interrogation "questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after

a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of

action in any significant way."

The right of the defendant in a criminal case "to be exempt from being a witnessagainst himself' signifies that he cannot be compelled to testify or produce

evidence in the criminal case in which he is the accused, or one of the accused.

He cannot be compelled to do so even by subpoena or other process or order of

the Court. He cannot be required to be a witness either for the prosecution, or for

a co-accused, or even for himself. In other words unlike an ordinary witness (or a

party in a civil action) who may be compelled to testify by subpoena, having only

the right to refuse to answer a particular incriminatory question at the time it isput to him-the defendant in a criminal action can refuse to testify altogether. He


13/22

can refuse to take the witness stand, be sworn, answer any question. And, as the

law categorically states, "his neglect or refusal to be a witness shall not in any

manner prejudice or be used against him."

Rights

1. BEFORE THE CASE IS FILED IN COURT (or with the publicprosecutor, for preliminary investigation), but after having been taken

into custody or otherwise deprived of his liberty in some significant

way, and on being interrogated by the police: the continuing right to

remain silent and to counsel, and to be informed thereof, not to be

subjected to force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means

which vitiates the free will; and to have evidence obtained in violation

of these rights rejected

2. AFTER THE CASE IS FILED IN COURTa. to refuse to be a witness

b. not to have any prejudice whatsoever result to him by such refusal

c. to testify in his own behalf, subject to cross-examination by the

prosecution

d. WHILE TESTIFYING, to refuse to answer a specific questionwhich tends to incriminate him for some crime other than that for

which he is then prosecuted

People vs

Tawat

The rule that any person otherwise competent as a witness, who heard the

confession is competent to testify as to the substance of what he heard if he heard

and understood all of it. An oral confession need not be repeated verbatim, but in

such case it must be given in its substance.

People vs Zuela The right to counsel attaches the moment an investigating officer starts to ask

questions to elicit information on the crime from the suspected offender. It is at

this point that the law requires the assistance of counsel to avoid the perniciouspractice of extorting forced or coerced admissions or confessions from the person

undergoing interrogation

An uncounselled extra-judicial confession without a valid waiver of the right tocounsel -- that is, in writing and in the presence of counsel -- is inadmissible in

evidence.

A confession is an acknowledgment in express terms, by a party in a criminalcase, of his guilt of the crime charged, while an admission is a statement by the

accused, direct or implied, of facts pertinent to the issue and tending, inconnection with proof of other facts, to prove his guilt

Under the law, circumstantial evidence is sufficient basis for conviction as long

as: (1) there is more than one circumstance; (2) the facts from which the

inferences are derived are proved, and (3) the combination of all the

circumstances is such as to produce conviction beyond reasonable doubt

People vs

Baloloy

It has been held that the constitutional provision on custodial investigation does

not apply to a spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the

authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the suspect orally admits

having committed the crime. Neither can it apply to admissions or confessionsmade by a suspect in the commission of a crime before he is placed under

investigation. What the Constitution bars is the compulsory disclosure of

incriminating facts or confessions. The rights under Section 12 of the

Constitution are guaranteed to preclude the slightest use of coercion by the state

as would lead the accused to admit something false, not to prevent him from

freely and voluntarily telling the truth


14/22

People vs

Domantay

R.A. No. 7438 has extended the constitutional guarantee to situations in which an

individual has not been formally arrested but has merely been "invited" for

questioning

Decisionsof this Court hold that for an extrajudicial confession to be admissible,

it must satisfy the following requirements: (1) it must be voluntary; (2) it must be

made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel; (3) it must beexpress; and (4) it must be in writing

"fruit of the poisonous tree." According to this rule, once the primary source

(the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or

derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible

People vs

Alegre

We hold that the better rule is that the silence of an accused under custody, or his

failure to deny statements by another implicating him in a crime, especially when

such accused is neither asked to comment or reply to such implications or

accusations, cannot be considered as a tacit confession of his participation in the

commission of the crime. Such an inference of acquiescence drawn from his

silence or failure to deny the statement would appear incompatible with the right

of an accused against self-incrimination

People vs Jerez While the initial choice of the lawyer in cases where a person under custodial

investigation cannot afford the services of a lawyer or (where the preferredlawyer is available as in the case at bar) is naturally lodged in the police

investigators, the accused has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen

for him and ask for another one. A lawyer provided by the investigators is

deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised any objection against the

former's appointment during the course of the investigation and the accused

thereafter subscribes to the veracity of his statement before the swearing officer.

Thus, "once the prosecution has shown that there was compliance with the

constitutional requirement on pre-interrogation advisories, a confession is

presumed to be voluntary and the declarant bears the burden of proving that his

confession is involuntary and untrue. The burden is on the accused to destroy this presumption. A confession is admissible until the accused successfully proves

that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat or promise of reward

or leniency.People vs

Mojello

The Miranda doctrine requires that: (a) any person under custodial investigation

has the right to remain silent; (b) anything he says can and will be used against

him in a court of law; (c) he has the right to talk to an attorney before being

questioned and to have his counsel present when being questioned; and (d) if he

cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided before any questioning if he so

desires

while the choice of a lawyer in cases where the person under custodial

interrogation cannot afford the services of counsel ? or where the preferred

lawyer is not available is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the suspect

has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for

another one

The lawyer, however, should never prevent an accused from freely and

voluntarily telling the truth

where appellants did not present evidence of compulsion or duress or violence ontheir persons; where they failed to complain to officers who administered the

oaths; where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action against

their alleged maltreatment; where there appears no marks of violence on their

bodies and where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable


15/22

physician to buttress their claim, all these should be considered as factors

indicating voluntariness of confessions."

The test for determining whether a confession is voluntary is whether the

defendant's will was overborne at the time he confessed. In cases where the

Miranda warnings have been given, the test of voluntariness should be

subsequently applied in order to determine the probative weight of the confessionPeople vs Fabro The Constitution further requires that the counsel be independent; thus, he cannot

be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a

municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to that of the accused

People vs

Taliman

Facts or circumstances which are not only consistent with the guilt of the accused

but also inconsistent with his innocence, constitute evidence which, in weight and

probative force, may surpass even direct evidence in its effect upon the court

People vs Rojas The rights which Totoy was entitled to know were not specifically

communicated to him. Being informed of his "rights under the Constitution ofthe Republic of the Philippines" did not mean he was informed particularly of

his right to remain silent and to be assisted by counsel during his custodial

investigation. He was not told he did not have to answer if he did not feel like

answering. He was not told he had a right to be assisted by counsel. He was

not given a chance to retain counsel de parte if he wanted to, and neither was

he offered the services of counsel de oficio. Not knowing about his right to

counsel, he could not have waived it; and in any case, the waiver, to be valid,

would have needed the assistance of counsel under the ruling announced in

People v. Galit, which is still the prevailing doctrine notwithstanding the

reservations of some members of this Court

People vs Nicandro When the Constitution requires a person under investigation "to be informed"

of his right to remain silent and to counsel, it must be presumed tocontemplate the transmission of meaningful information rather than just the

ceremonial and perfunctory recitation of an abstract constitutional principle.

As a rule, therefor, it would not be sufficient for a police officer just to repeat

to the person under investigation the provisions of Section 20, Article IV of

the Constitution. He is not only duty-bound to tell the person the rights to

which the latter is entitled; he must also explain their effects in practical

terms, e.g., what the person under interrogation may or may not do, and in alanguage the subject fairly understands

By custodial interrogation, we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement

officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of

his freedom of action in any significant way

Like other constitutional rights, the right against self-incrimination, including

the right of a person under investigation to remain silent and to counsel, and

to be informed of such right, may be waived. To be valid, however, a waiver

of the right must not only be voluntary; it must be made knowingly and

intelligently , which presupposes an awareness or understanding of what isbeing waived

People vs Mahinay Presence of a counsel when a defendant executed an extra-judicial confessionis not enough, what is required is active assistance

RA 7438 - procedure, guidelines and duties which the arresting, detaining,

inviting, or investigating officer or his companions must do and observe at the

time of making an arrest and again at and during the time of the custodial

interrogation

1. The person arrested, detained, invited or under custodial investigation


16/22

must be informed in a language known to and understood by him of the

reason for the arrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest, if any;

Every other warnings, information or communication must be in a

language known to and understood by said person;

2. He must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and thatanystatement he makes may be used as evidence against him;

3. He must be informed that he has the right to be assisted at all times and

have the presence of an independent and competent lawyer, preferably of

his own choice;

4. He must be informed that if he has no lawyer or cannot afford the

services of a lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a lawyer mayalso be engaged by any person in his behalf, or may be appointed by the

court upon petition of the person arrested or one acting in his behalf;

5. That whether or not the person arrested has a lawyer, he must be

informed that no custodial investigation in any form shall be conducted

except in the presence of his counsel or after a valid waiver has been

made;

6. The person arrested must be informed that, at any time, he has the right

to communicate or confer by the most expedient means - telephone, radio,

letter or messenger - with his lawyer (either retained or appointed), any

member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor, priest or minister

chosen by him or by any one from his immediate family or by his

counsel, or be visited by/confer with duly accredited national or

international non-government organization. It shall be the responsibility

of the officer to ensure that this is accomplished;

7. He must be informed that he has the right to waive any of said rights

provided it is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and ensure

that he understood the same;

8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his right to a lawyer, he must

be informed that it must be done in writing AND in the presence of

counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that the waiver is void even if heinsist on his waiver and chooses to speak;

9. That the person arrested must be informed that he may indicate in any

manner at any time or stage of the process that he does not wish to be

questioned with warning that once he makes such indication, the police

may not interrogate him if the same had not yet commenced, or theinterrogation must ceased if it has already begun;

10. The person arrested must be informed that his initial waiver of his

right to remain silent, the right to counsel or any of his rights does not bar

him from invoking it at any time during the process, regardless of whether

he may have answered some questions or volunteered some statements;

11. He must also be informed that any statement or evidence, as the case


17/22

may be, obtained in violation of any of the foregoing, whether inculpatory

or exculpatory, in whole or in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence

People vs Pamon A confession constitutes an evidence of high order since it is supported by the

strong presumption that no person of normal mind would deliberately and

knowingly confess to a crime unless prompted by truth and his conscience.

This presumption of spontaneity and voluntariness stands unless the defense

proves otherwise.

A confession is admissible until the accused successfullyproves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat, or promise

of reward of leniency

An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is notadmissible against his co-accused

People vs Olvis Compulsion as it is understood here does not necessarily connote the use ofviolence; it may be the product of unintentional statements. Pressure which

operates to overbear his will disable him from making a free and rational

choice, or impair his capacity for rational judgment would in our opinion be

sufficient. So is moral coercion "tending to force testimony from the unwilling

lips of the defendant

People vs Jungco Pictures re-enacting a crime which are based on an inadmissible confession

are themselves inadmissible

People vs Morico An accused cannot be convicted of an offense not charged in the information.

To do so would constitute a violation of his constitutional rights, i.e., to be

informed of the charges against him and his right to due process

Counsel is required when an accused sign

1. Booking sheet

2. Arrest report3. Receipt of seized property

People vs Bandin when an arrested person signs a Booking Sheet and Arrest Report at a policestation, he does not admit the commission of an offense nor confess to any

incriminating circumstance. The Booking Sheet is merely a statement of the

accused's being booked and of the date which accompanies the fact of an

arrest. It is a police report and may be useful in charges of arbitrary detention

against the police themselves. It is not an extra-judicial statement and cannot

be the basis of a judgment of conviction

People vs

Ballisteros

Appellants cannot seek solace in the provision they have invoked. What is

provided by the modified formulation in the 1987 Constitution is that a

confession taken in violation of said Section 12 and Section 17 of the same

Article "shall be inadmissible in evidence against him," meaning the

confessant. This objection can be raised only by the confessant whose rights

have been violated as such right is personal in nature

Section 13 All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when

evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be

released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired

even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be

required.

De la Camara vsEnage

Such a right flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of everyaccused who should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as thereafter he

would be entitled to acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable

doubt

Guideline in the fixing of bail - 1) ability of the accused to give bail; (2)

nature of the offense; (3) penalty for the offense charged; (4) character and

reputation of the accused; (5) health of the accused; (6) character and strength

of the evidence; (7) probability of the accused appearing in trial; (8) forfeiture


18/22

of other bonds; (9) whether the accused wasa fugitive from justice when

arrested; and (10) if the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other

cases.

Discretion, indeed, is with the court called upon to rule on the question of

bail. We must stress, however, that where conditions imposed upon a

defendant seeking bail would amount to a refusal thereof and render nugatorythe constitutional right to bail, we will not hesitate to exercise our

supervisorypowers to provide the required remedy

Almeda vs Villaluz In this jurisdiction, the accused, as of right, is entitled to bail prior to

conviction except when he is charged with a capital offense and the evidenceof guilt is strong. This right is guaranteed by the Constitution,and may not be

denied even where the accused has previously escaped detention,or by reason

of his prior absconding

And even where cash bail is allowed, the option to deposit cash in lieu of a

surety bond primarily belongs to the accused. Thus, the trial court may not

reject otherwise acceptable sureties and insist that the accused obtain his

provisional liberty only thru a cash bond

Fortunately, the court is not without devices with which to meet the situation

(previous record of the accused) . First, it could increase the amount of the

bail bond to an appropriate level. Second, as part of the power of the court

over the person of the accused and for the purpose of discouraging likely

commission of other crimes by a notorious defendant while on provisional

liberty, the latter could be required, as one of the conditions of his bail bond,

to report in person periodically to the court and make an accounting of hismovements. And third, the accused might be warned, though this warning is

not essential to the requirements of due process, that under the 1973

Constitution 8"Trial may proceed notwithstanding his absence provided that

he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustified

there is double jeopardy only when all the following requisites obtain in the

original prosecution; (a) a valid complaint or information; (b) a competentcourt; (c) the defendant had pleaded to the charge; and (d) the defendant was

acquitted, or convicted, or the case against him was dismissed or otherwise

terminated without his consent.

Rodriguez vs Judge we said that a prospective extraditee is not entitled to notice and hearing

before the issuance of a warrant of arrest, because notifying him before hisarrest only tips him of his pending arrest. But this is for cases pending the

issuance of a warrant of arrest, not in a cancellation of a bail that had been

issued after determination that the extraditee is a no-flight risk

We emphasize that bail may be granted to a possible extraditee only upon a

clear and convincing showing (1) that he will not be a flight risk or a danger

to the community, and (2) that there exist special, humanitarian and

compelling circumstancesPeople vs Abner Section 1, Rule 110, of the Rules Court, provides that "bail is the security

required and given for the release of a person who is in the custody of the law,

that he will appear before any court in which his appearance may be required

as stipulated in the bail bond or recognizance

two methods of taking bail

1. by bail bond . A bail bond is an obligation given by the accused

with one or more sureties, with the condition to be void upon the


19/22

performance by the accused of such acts as he may legally be

required to perform

2. by recognizance A recognizance is an obligation of record, entered

into before some court or magistrate duly authorized to take it, with

the condition to do some particular act, the most usual condition in

criminal cases being the appearance of the accused for trial

Section 14 (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is

proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the

nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to

meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of

witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may

proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified

and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

US vs Ocampo

Estrada vs Desierto

Dumalo vsCOMELEC

a legislative/administrative determination of guilt should not be allowed to besubstituted for a judicial determination.

US vs Luling It has been frequently decided, in case of statutory crimes, that noconstitutional provision is violated by a statute providing that proof by the

state of some material fact or facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of

guilt, and that then the burden is shifted to the defendant for the purpose of

showing that such act or acts are innocent and are committed without

unlawful intention

People vs Presiding

Judge

the accused may waive his presence in the criminal proceedings except at the

stages where Identification of his person by the prosecution witnesses is

necessary

Reason for requiring the presence of the accused, despite his waiver, is, if

allowed to be absent in all the stages of the proceedings without giving the

People's witnesses the opportunity to Identify him in court, he may in his

defense say that he was never Identified as the person charged in theinformation and, therefore, is entitled to an acquittal

Conde vs Rivera We lay down the legal proposition that, where a prosecuting officer, without

good cause, secures postponements of the trial of a defendant against his

protest beyond a reasonable period of time, as in this instance for more than a

year, the accused is entitled to relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel

a dismissal of the information, or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas

corpus to obtain his freedom

Luque vs Kayanan It is the duty of both counsel and judge to maintain, not to destroy, the high

esteem and regard for courts. Any act on the part of one or the other that tends

to undermine the people's respect for, and confidence in, the administration of

justice is to be avoided. And this, even if both may have to restrain pride from

taking the better part of their system. To be expected then of petitioner and

respondent is a sense of shared responsibility, a crucial factor in theadministration of justice

All suitors, we must say, are entitled to nothing short of the cold neutrality of

an independent, wholly-free, disinterested and impartial tribunal. It has been

said that "next in importance to the duty of rendering a righteous judgment is

that of doing it in such a manner as will beget no suspicion of the fairness and

integrity of the judge.

Garcia vs Domingo The trial must be public. It possesses that character when anyone interested in

observing the manner a judge conducts the proceedings in his courtroom may


20/22

do so. There is to be no ban on such attendance. His being a stranger to the

litigants is of no moment. No relationship to the parties need be shown

Section 15 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.

Tan Me Nio The writ of habeas corpus is the remedy for one who is illegally imprisoned.No rule is better established and better known than that the writ of habeas

corpus will not issue in behalf of a person not actually restrained of his libertySection 16 All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-

judicial, or administrative bodies.

Talabon vs Iloilo

Provincial Warden

The above-quoted provision of section 4 of Rule 102, is in conformity with

the well-established rule that a petition for a writ of habeas corpus to secure

the discharge of one restrained of his liberty by virtue of a judgment, is a

collateral attack upon the said judgment; and the writ lies only where the

judgment attacked is absolutely void, because the court that rendered it had no

jurisdiction; and it does not lie where it is merely voidable by reason of errors,

omissions, irregularities, or defects in the judgment

Lopez vs

Ombudsman

The constitutional right to a "speedy disposition of cases" is not limited to the

accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases,

including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including

judicial and quasi-judicial hearings."

9

Hence, under the Constitution, anyparty to a case may demand expeditious action on all officials who are taskedwith the administration of justice.10

However, the right to a speedy disposition of a case, like the right to speedy

trial, is deemed violated only when the proceedings is attended by vexatious,

capricious, and oppressive delays; or when unjustified postponements of the

trial are asked for and secured, or even without cause or justifiable motive a

long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party having his case

tried. Equally applicable is the balancing test used to determine whether a

defendant has been denied his right to a speedy trial, or a speedy dispositionof a case for that matter, in which the conduct of both the prosecution and the

defendant is weighed, and such factors as the length of the delay, the reasons

for such delay, the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, andthe prejudice caused by the delay. The concept of speedy disposition is a

relative term and must necessarily be a flexible concept

Caballero vs

Alfonso

What the constitution prohibits are unreasonable, arbitrary, and oppressive

delay which render rights nugatory

Castillo vs

Sandiganbayan

this Court has held that the constitutional guarantee set forth in Section 16,

Article III of the 1987 Constitution, of "(t)he right to a speedy disposition of a

case, like the right to speedy trial, is deemed violated only when the

proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays." ". . .

(T)he concept of speedy disposition of cases is a relative term and must

necessarily be a flexible concept. Hence, the doctrinal rule is that in the

determination of whether that right has been violated, the factors that may beconsidered and balanced are the length of delay, the reason for such delay and

the assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused, and the prejudice

caused by the delay.

A mere mathematical reckoning of the time involved, therefore, would not be

sufficient. In the application of the constitutional guarantee of the right to

speedy disposition of cases, particular regard must also be taken of the facts

and circumstances peculiar to each case.

Section 17 No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

US vs Tan Teng But the prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a witness

against himself, is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral compulsion, to


21/22

extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body as evidence,

when it may be material. The objection, in principle, would forbid a jury

(court) to look at a person and compare his features with a photograph in

proof. Moreover we are not considering how far a court would go in

compelling a man to exhibit himself, for when he is exhibited, whether

voluntarily or by order, even if the order goes too far, the evidence if material,

is competent

The prohibition contained in section 5 of the Philippine Bill that a person shall

not be compelled to be a witness against himself, is simply a prohibition

against legal process to extract from the defendant's own lips, against his will,

an admission of his guilt

The main purpose of the provision of the Philippine Bill is to prohibit

compulsory oral examination of prisoners before trial. or upon trial, for the

purpose of extorting unwilling confessions or declarations implicating them in

the commission of a crime

Peole vs Gallarde The constitutional right of an accused against self-incrimination proscribes the

use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communications from theaccused and not the inclusion of his body in evidence when it may be

material. Purely mechanical acts are not included in the prohibition as the

accused does not thereby speak his guilt, hence the assistance and guiding

hand of counsel is not required.27 The essence of the right against self-

incrimination is testimonial compulsion, that is, the giving of evidence against

himself through a testimonial act

Beltran vs Samsom The right against self incrimination is not limited precisely to testimony, but

extends to all giving or furnishing of evidence

writing is something more than moving the body, or the hands, or the fingers;

writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it requires the application of

intelligence and attention; and in the case at bar writing means that thepetitioner herein is to furnish a means to determine whether or not he is the

falsifier, as the petition of the respondent fiscal clearly states

Cabal vs Kapunan The rule protecting a person from being compelled to furnish evidence whichwould incriminate him exists not only when he is liable criminally to

prosecution and punishment, but also when his answer would tend to expose

him to a ... forfeiture ....

This prohibition against compelling a person to take the stand as a witness

against himself applied only to criminal, quasi-criminal, and penal

proceedings, including a proceeding civil in form for forfeiture of property byreason of the commission of an offense, but not a proceeding in which the

penalty recoverable is civil or remedial in nature

Pascual vs Board

of MedicalExamiers

It is true that one aspect of such a right, to follow the language of another

American decision, is the protection against "any disclosures which thewitness may reasonably apprehend could be used in a criminal prosecution or

which could lead to other evidence that might be so used." If that were allthere is then it becomes diluted

Why it should be thus is not difficult to discern. The constitutional guarantee,

along with other rights granted an accused, stands for a belief that while crime

should not go unpunished and that the truth must be revealed, such desirable

objectives should not be accomplished according to means or methodsoffensive to the high sense of respect accorded the human personality

Section 18


22/22

Kaisahan ng mga

Manggagawa vs

Saw Mill

Section 19

People vs Estoista

Documents

Consti Reviewer Section 1-22