CRIMINAL LAW 1 an interview and conference with the accused
Notes Malicsi and Rodrigo in the house of Valentin
(JD 1 – SP-C)
E. Power to Define and Punish Crimes
Maintenance of Public Order
(Sec. 5, Art. III)
The maintenance of peace and order, the
protection of life, liberty, and property, and
promotion of the general welfare are essential for
the enjoyment by all the people of the blessings of
democracy.
Legislative Power
(Sec. 1, Art. VI)
The legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress of the Philippines which shall consist of a
Senate and a House of Representatives, except to
the extent reserved to the people by the provision on
initiative and referendum.
U.S. v. Pablo, 35 Phil 94 (1916)
Parties:
Andres Pablo
Facts:
Andres Pablo, a policeman of the
municipality of Balanga, went by order of his
chief to the barrio of Tuyo to raid a jueteng game
which, according to the information lodged, was
being conducted in that place.
But before the said officer arrived, there the
players, perhaps advised of his approach by a spy,
left and ran away;
However, on his arrival at a vacant lot the defendant
there found Francisco Dato and, at a short distance
away, a low table.
After a search of the premises, he also found
thereon a tambiolo (receptacle) and 37 bolas
(balls). Notwithstanding that the officer had seen
the men Maximo Malicsi and Antonio Rodrigo
leave the said lot, yet, as at first, he had seen no
material proof that the game was being played, he
refrained from arresting them, and on leaving the
place only arrested Francisco Dato, who had
remained there.
Before the case came to trial in the justice of
the peace court, the policeman Andres Pablo had
Sioson. On this occasion, he was instructed not to
testify against Malicsi and Rodrigo, and in fact
received through Gregorio Ganzon the sum of
P15,000.00.
Because of this development, the provincial
fiscal filed a complaint in the Court of First
Instance charging Andres Pablo with the crime of
perjury in violation of section 3 of Act No. 1697
declaring that he willfully, unlawfully, and
feloniously affirmed and swore under oath in
legal form before the justice of the peace during the
hearing of the case of Rodrigo and Malicsi for
violation of Municipal Ordinance No. 5 of the
municipality of Balanga when he excluded the two
accused from involvement in the incident despite
being utterly false and material to the decision of
the case.
Issue:
Whether the respondent is guilty of the
crime of perjury or of false testimony under Art.
318 to 324 of the Revised Penal Code.
Ruling:
Yes. The respondent is guilty of such crime
under Article 318 to 324 of the Penal Code since
such Articles are not expressly repealed by the
Administrative code when it repealed Act No. 1697.
F. Constitutional Limitations on Authority to
Enact Penal Laws
Due Process and Equal Protection
(Sec. 1, Art. III)
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.
Freedom of Expression
(Sec. 4, Art. III)
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.

Freedom of Religion
(Sec. 5, Art. III)
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.
Criminal Due Process
(Sec. 14, Art. III)
(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.
No excessive fines nor cruel , degrading, or
inhuman punishment
(Sec. 19, Art. III)
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall the 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) 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.
Bill of Attainder
(Sec. 22, Art. III)
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall
be enacted.
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which
inflicts punishment without judicial trial.
People v. Ferrer, et.al
Parties:
Facts:
Feliciano Co and Nilo Tayag, together
with five others, were charged with violation of R.
A. No. 1700 or the Anti-Subversion Law which
outlaws the Communist Party of the Philippines and
other “subversive associations,” and punishes any
person who “knowingly, willfully and by
overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes or
remains a member” of the Party or of any other
similar “subversive” organization. Both accused
moved to quash the information on the ground
that the Anti-Subversion Law is a bill of
attainder. The trial court agreed, and thus,
dismissed the information against the two accused.
Issue:
Whether the Anti-Subversion Law
partakes of the nature of a Bill of Attainder?
Ruling:
No, Article III, section 1 (11) of the
Constitution states that "No bill of attainder
or ex post facto law shall be enacted."
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which
inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence
is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial
determination of guilt. The constitutional ban
against bills of attainder serves to implement the
principle of separation of powers by confining
legislatures to rule-making and thereby
forestalling legislative usurpation of the
judicial function.
If the Anti-Subversion Act a bill of
attainder, it would be totally unnecessary to
charge Communists in court, as the law alone,
without more, would suffice to secure their
punishment. But the undeniable fact is that
their guilt still has to be judicially established. The
Government has yet to prove at the trial that the
accused joined the Party knowingly, willfully and
by overt acts, and that they joined the
Party, knowing its subversive character and
with specific intent to further its basic
objective, i.e., to overthrow the existing
Government by force deceit, and other illegal means
and place the country under the control and
domination of a foreign power.