Bill of Rights 15-22

Sec.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.

The matter of the writ of habeas corpus is somewhat made complex by Sec.18 of Art.7, specifically the last 2 paragraph, because of the
many restrictions on the imposition of martial law or the prevention of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. Those two provisions muddled
somewhat our understanding of what a writ of habeas corpus is all about. We must always bear in mind that the suspension of the writ of habeas
corpus is a tool of the state to protect itself . The last two paragraphs of section 18 renders the idea of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus
muddled. It would seem that these last two paragraphs of Sec.18 has rendered useless the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. In the first
place, the purpose of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is to prevent the courts from inquiring into WHY A PERSON IS BEING DETAINED.
Perhaps this person is a threat to the security of the state that is why the state suspends the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. However, the
last two paragraphs of section 18 says that the writ may only be effective for those who were charged. If you are charged already in court, then the
jurisdiction over the matter of being detention shifts from the executive to the judiciary. So, if the provision of the section 18 says that there has to
be a case for rebellion or invasion filed first then, the suspension of the writ is useless. Kaya mayroong suspension para maitago ung tao, e if it is
already a condition that “before the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus shall be effective, there must be a case filed” . So if there is a case filed,
the jurisdiction over the subject matter shifts already to the courts and no longer to the executive. So you cannot, in effect, effectively implements
the suspension of the privilege of habeas corpus.

Lansang vs. Garcia. The SC suggested a way to determine the fact of detention if there is a suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
and the case is filed. Lansang says that there has to be a commissioner to determine not only the custody of the person being detained but likewise
the matter of suspension of the writ of habeas corpus. But that is no longer necessary because even in so far as w/n the suspension of the privilege
of the writ is justiciable, that is already answered by the 1987 Constitution, YES it is justiciable.

Is the suspension of the privilege of the writ subject to judicial review?

- Yes. Sec.18, art.7.

Corollary to the provision on bail, if a person accused or detained for an offense covered by the suspension of the writ entitled to the relief of
bail?
- Yes, under the express provision of sec.13 of the Bill of Rights, again in relation to sec.18 of art.7.
- It renders useless the case entitled by Bernas: Nava vs. Gatmaitan; Padilla-Garcia vs. Enrile; Morales vs. Enrile

**The rest of the commentary of Bernas deals with the change in so far as the jurisprudence on suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus as well as the declaration of martial law, as contained in art.18, sec.7.**

Sec.16 All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.

Sec.14—states that one of the rights of the accused is a speedy trial. Only for the TRIAL STAGE
Sec.16—Speedy disposition of their cases. Composes everything from the time the case has STARTED up to the time it is supposed to be FINISHED;
and it covers not only JUDICIAL (unlike speedy trial) but likewise of QUASI-JUDICIAL or ADMINISTRATIVE BODY.

**The right to Speedy Trial Act still has effectiveness in the speedy disposition of cases in judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative cases. **
Therefore, Sec.16 gives a broader protection than sec.14.

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

The provision is a guarantee against self-incrimination and it is justified on 2 grounds:

1. Public policy. Because if the party is required to testify, it would place him under the greatest temptation to commit perjury because he
will always lie for himself. **there is a danger of committing perjury
2. Humanity. Because it would prevent the extorting of confessions under duress. The witness can be pressured to testify against himself to
testify further for himself.
Right of the ACCUSED in Sec.17
- The accused cannot be compelled to take the witness stand.
- He may refuse altogether to testify, so no one can compel him to testify.
- He may testify f he wants to.

A mere witness, not the accused

- He cannot refuse to testify or to take the witness stand.

1
 - He has the right against self-incrimination. However, that right may be called upon when he is asked incriminating questions.

The right against self-incrimination is extended to respondents in administrative investigations partaking of the nature of criminal
proceedings or analogous to criminal proceedings.
Like what? Forfeiture of property under the Anti-Graft Law.
The Anti-Graft Law has a twin statute/law and this law has something to do with the forfeiture of properties
found to be unexplained.
If the Ombudsman or the COA will investigate you, they will try to find out your sources of income. If your
property in your name is much more than what you can earn, then the Anti-Graft Law is filed against you or
standing alone under this forfeiture, the Government may file forfeiture proceedings against you.
That kind of the proceeding is analogous to a criminal action. Therefore, the right against self-incrimination
can be had.

To violate the right, it is not necessary that a categorical admission of a specific offense be sought or asked. The right to self-
incrimination includes refusal to testify to a fact which would be a necessary link in a chain of evidence to prove the commission of a crime.

What is prohibited is the use of PHYSICAL or MORAL compulsion to extort communication from the witness. It does not include intrusion
of his body in evidence when it may be material.
Beltran vs. Samson. It was held that, since witnesses in a preliminary investigation are protected by the prohibition, they may not be
compelled to take a dictation in order to compare their handwriting with that found in a supposedly falsified document. When the accused decides
to take the witness stand or a witness who is on the witness stand, voluntarily answers an incriminating question, he is deemed to have waived
his right.

Sec.18 (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW

- Freedom of speech, freedom of expression—sec.1

NO INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Exception: punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
- Charged of a crime
- Convicted of such crime
- Punishment is voluntary servitude—example: imprisonment, hard labor.
**it can be done only in a criminal proceeding, not even in a civil proceeding.

Involuntary servitude may exist only when it is a punishment for a crime for which the party is convicted.

May a return to work order be violative of the constitutional prohibition against involuntary servitude? (labor cases) usually mayroong
arbitrations or yung labor arbiter or the secretary of labor or the director of labor would give an order for a return to work, pag may strike, to the
employees.
- It is not. Kung ayaw nung employee na bumalik, e di wag. Hindi mo naman pwedeng pilitin.

Atloracion vs. Gatmaitan. Case of a former stenographer who came to transcribe a stenographic notes, e nag retire, tinawag siya ulit ng husgado.
Sabi niya itranscribe mo yan. Nakarating yung kaso sa SC.
If she refuse to comply will it be an involuntary servitude? SC said it is NOT, but the opinion of Justice Fernando—what if stenographer
adamantly refuse to transcribe and the court has no other alternative but to cite her for contempt and therefore, she may go to jail, would it be a
violation of a voluntary servitude? YES it would seem so because the incarceration here is that by virtue of a decision where this court
stenographer should have been accused in court and that there be a sentence. Unless sasabihin mo na yung contempt proceeding takes the place
of a criminal complaint. But anyway, the stenographer complied. She transcribes her notes and that’s it.

Sec.19 (1) excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed
shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

2
 (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner or detainee, or the use of substandard
or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

1st Sentence, Par.1

A punishment that is cruel or degrading or inhuman is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
 1935 Constitution merely says “cruel and unusual punishment”.
 1973 Constitution: “cruel or unusual punishment”.
 1987 Constitution: “cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment”.
- So if the punishment is either of the 3, it is unconstitutional.

People vs. Mercado. SC said the death penalty per se is not cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment. Pwede naman yung papatayin ka nang happy
ka pa. That is why we already outlawed the electric chair because there were instances na hindi namamatay yung ine-electrocute.
What is punishment that is CRUEL?
- If it involves torture or lingering death. But the punishment of death is not cruel within the meaning of that word as used in the
Constitution. Unconstitutional punishment implies something inhuman, barbarous, something more than the mere extinguishment of
life.
**Solitary confinement is being done for disciplinary actions.

2nd sentence, Par.1

Abolition of the death penalty
 1971 Convention: They made it clear that there was no intention to pass judgment on capital punishment as cruel and unusual. It said
that the matter should be left to legislative discretion.
 1986 Constitutional Commission: Went ahead to abolish the death penalty but said it is the discretion of Congress to revive it “for
compelling reasons like heinous crimes”. So the framers of the 1987 Constitution canalized it “only for heinous crimes”
 1993 under RA 7659: the death penalty was re-imposed for heinous crimes. However, RA 9346 again disallows the imposition of the
death penalty. **Some sectors of society are rethinking again to re-impose death penalty for specific crimes.

Par.2
Conforms itself with the manner of treating prisoners in detention. There is also cruel and unusual punishment, confinement amounts to cruel and
unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional when it is characterized by conditions and practices so bad as to be shocking to the conscience.

Sec. 20 No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll-tax.

Applicable only in a CIVIL PROCEEDING not in a criminal proceeding.

**Poll-tax is a cedula.
No person shall be imprisoned for debt in virtue of an order in a civil proceeding. Either as a substitute for destruction of debt or as means of
compelling satisfaction. If there is a criminal case filed and the accused is convicted, then, he can go to prison.
Example:
1. Estafa
2. Bouncing checks
- Criminal intent is punishable not the debt.

Sec.21 No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

Jeopardy- being placed in danger of punishment or annoyance and vexation of a criminal prosecution.
2 TYPES OF JEOPARDY:
1. Jeopardy of punishment for the same offense.
2. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.

3 requisites required to raise a defense of double jeopardy:

1. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.
- When jeopardy attaches? (U.S. vs. Ballentine-1907, 5 requisites)
a. Upon a good indictment.
- (Rule 117, Sec.7, New Rules of Court) there must be a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form
and substance to sustain a conviction.
- Example when Jeopardy does not attach:

3
  If the charge is fatally detective in form, as in a charge of rape where the complaint is signed not by the complainant
but by the police chief.
 When the substance of the information does not allege sufficient facts to constitute an offense.
 Under a detective information, the accused can never be convicted, hence, he cannot be said to have been in jeopardy of punishment
and therefore double jeopardy as a defense is not availed.
b. It must be filed before a competent court.
- Court has jurisdiction over the offense charged.
- The court has territorial jurisdiction over the crime charged
- Example when Jeopardy does not attach:
 When the court that takes cognizance of the case is without jurisdiction, because the crime charged is outside the
ambit of the court’s powers or because the crime was committed outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, all
proceedings in such court are void and the accused cannot be convicted. Jeopardy does not set in, he may be charge
again
 Conviction by a court that is without jurisdiction has the effect of a preliminary investigation. Preliminary
Investigation, however, does not place the accused in jeopardy because it has no purpose except that of determining
whether a crime has been committed and whether there is probable cause to believe the accused guilty thereof.
c. After arraignment (reading of information)
d. After plea (guilty or not guilty plea)
e. After the trial of the case has actually commenced by the questioning of at least one witness.
- It is categorically rejected. Rationale: The mere calling of a witness will not add a particle to the danger, annoyance, and
vexation suffered by the accused.
- In People vs. Ylagan-1933, problems on the attachment of jeopardy have revolved around the first 4 requisite.
2. The first jeopardy must have been terminated before the second.
- Bulaong vs. People, there is no double jeopardy when there has been no conviction, acquittal, dismissal or termination in a former case
for the same offense.
- There is acquittal when the case is terminated upon the merits of the case. Terminated upon the merits of the issue as when there is
pronouncement to the evidence that does not show the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
- There is dismissal when the case is terminated on any ground that does not decide the merits of the issue as to whether or not the
accused is not guilty of the offense charged. There is no pronouncement as to the guilt or innocence of the accused.
o Dismissal, if not on the merits, if done without the consent of the accused, is a bar to subsequent prosecution. Meaning,
double jeopardy sets in. hindi na pwedeng ifile yung case against you. (it is as if he was acquitted)
 If dismissed with consent of the accused, it does not bar to subsequent prosecution. It can be refiled depending on the
gravity of the offense, if it is not yet prescribed. (temporary dismissal)
 Even if the dismissal is definite, if made with the consent of the accused, it would not be a bar to subsequent prosecution. The consent
of the accused to the dismissal of his case works as a waiver.
 The effect of dismissal is determined by its nature and not its label.

Bulaong vs. People. Two informations were filed on the same day against the same person, CFI Laguna for rebellion under Art.134 of the RPC and
CFI Manila for subversion under the Anti-Subversion Act. On appeal of the Laguna case to the SC, the accused raised the defense of double
jeopardy on the ground that rebellion under Art.134 of the RPC was but a lesser cognate offense to that in Anti-Subversion Act under which he had
a case pending in the CFI Manila. The court rejected this defense because neither of the two cases had as yet been terminated. In a footnote, the
court added: “Appellant should direct his plea to the CFI Manila, for his final conviction in the case at bar would preclude his further prosecution
there, assuming that the charge therein is indeed for a lesser cognate offense to that alleged in the pending case therein.

People vs. Velasco. Demurrer to evidence on the ground of insufficiency of evidence was considered dismissal on the merits and a bar to a motion
for reconsideration by the prosecution. ** Demurrer to evidence is a proceeding or action of the defense to file a motion to dismiss after the
prosecution shall have finished presenting their evidence. (It is a motion to dismiss if counsel believes that there is no evidence to convict the
accused after the prosecutor is done presenting evidence/witnesses.)

 If dismissal is predicated on the right of the accused to speedy trial, the dismissal is on the merits.
- The suggested procedure when the defense wants to exercise the right to speedy trial, is not to ask for dismissal outright but to
insist for immediate trial.
- When prosecution is not ready then the court must dismiss the case such dismissal amounts to acquittal.
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense of the first.
- Same Evidence Test, test to determine whether the second is same offense of the first, whether the evidence needed in one case will
support a conviction in the other. **evidence in the first case is used in the second case, it will lead to conviction, then it is the same
evidence as the first.

4
 - It is necessary that one offense is completely included in the other, thus, physical injury is not identical with attempted homicide for
purposes of double jeopardy. Physical injury is the same as attempted homicide because it is necessary included therein.
- Same offense actually means same physical act that is punished by ordinance and statute.

People vs. Jovelo. The accused was prosecuted in the Justice of the Peace Court for violation of an ordinance prohibiting the carrying a deadly
weapons. The case was dismissed over the objections of the accused. Subsequently, he was prosecuted for the same act under Section 26 of Act
No. 1780 for having carried in his possession a deadly weapon while attending a meeting of the board of canvassers. The SC upheld the lower court
ruling that the second prosecution would place the accused in double jeopardy.
Yap vs. Lutero. If the two charges are based on one and the same act, conviction or acquittal under either the law or the ordinance shall bar a
prosecution under the other. One act means one physical act, one criminal intent. However, when one act violates 2 different statutes or 2
different provisions of a statute, prosecution under one is a bar to prosecution under the other.
 The test is not whether the defendant has already been tried for the same act, but whether he has been put in jeopardy for the same
offense.
 The determinative factor is not that two statutes were violated but that two offenses were committed.

If the single criminal act is impelled by a single criminal intent, the result unharmed cannot be split into different offenses.
Melo vs. People. Initially, what was filed is a criminal complaint for serious physical injuries. But when the case is pending, the one who was
stubbed died, so there is an intervening or supervening fact. Therefore, the fiscal has to file homicide. Did double jeopardy set in? NO, it did not
because of the supervening fact.
 The second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution. It is because after the first prosecution a new fact
supervenes for which the defendant is responsible, which charges the character of the offense and together with the facts existing at the
time, constitutes a new and distinct offense, the accused could not be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new offense.

Appeals. The protection against second jeopardy not only means that the accused cannot be prosecuted a second time for the same offense but
also that the prosecution cannot appeal a judgment of acquittal. A judgment of acquittal rendered within a court’s jurisdiction, even if erroneous,
ends the case finally. Provided that the judge considered the evidence, even if his appreciation of the evidence leading to acquittal is erroneous, an
appeal or motion for reconsideration by the prosecution will not be allowed.

Galman vs. Sandiganbayan. When the Judgement of acquittal or dismissal on the merit is void for lack of jurisdiction, the judgment cannot be a
base for a plea of double jeopardy. Jurisprudence at that time, “once you are acquitted, you are acquitted” there is no looking back.
- Sandiganbayan did not have jurisdiction through “judges abuse of constitutional rights such as to deny prosecution a day in court”. The
reopening of the case rested on the premise that the proceedings in the sandiganbayan were characterized by great abuse of discretion
amounting to loss of jurisdiction. The proceedings were invalid and the acquittal did not really acquit and did not therefore terminate the
case. (death of Benigno Acquino, Jr.)

Appeal by the accused. Can the accuse appeal his conviction? YES. When he appeals his conviction, he waives his right to double jeopardy.
However, the appellate court could impose a penalty higher than the original conviction. So, it does not violate the right of the accused to double
jeopardy.

Sec. 22 No ex-post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

There are 6 enumerations but the most popular is the number one.
An ex-post facto law has been defined as one—
1. Which makes an action done before the passing of the law which was innocent when done criminal, and punishes such action; or
- It was innocent when done and the law passed made it criminal and punishes the action.
2. Which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was committed;
- Jaywalking ordinance and statute
3. Which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed;
4. Which alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of
the offense in order to convict the defendant.
- Proof beyond reasonable doubt and law that says probable cause
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done was lawful;
6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he has become entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or a proclamation of amnesty.

If a law should be passed making double jeopardy no longer a defense then that would be ex-post facto law.

5
Ex-post facto laws cover only criminal or penal statutes. The prohibition applies only to criminal legislation which affects substantial rights of the
accused. It also applies to criminal procedural law prejudicial to the accused. Deprivation of the rights to follow one’s profession enforced to a civil
proceeding was nonetheless considered a penalty covered with ex-post facto legislation.

Can a law under which a person is being prosecuted be amended? YES it can be.
Can it be implemented retroactively? YES if it is beneficial to the accused. If it is not beneficial to the accused, then it cannot be given retroactive
effect.

Bill of attainder. It is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial.ginagawa palang sa husgado, nacoconvict ka na.
A classic example is the Anti-Subversion Act, Sec.4, stated that anyone who shall be a member of the CPP would be guilty of violation of the Anti-
Subversion law. That is a Bill of Attainder because there is no longer need of going to court to prove the guilt of the accuse, as being guilty already
by association. (anyway, it has been repealed)

The test for determining whether a law is a bill of attainder is whether it inflicts punishment without judicial trial. It prevents the legislature from
assuming judicial magistracy, it a safeguard against trial by legislation.

Judicial Legislation and Judicial Magistracy same case, both are prohibited.