Zion Angelo P. De Leon
On March 16, 1982, BP
WU-P Law | Constitutional Law
2 of an officer during trial shall not be considered a penalty. The suspension in the case is
1. Ex Post Facto Law, Characteristics
EX-POST-FACTO LAW is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences (or
status) of actions that were committed, or relationships that existed, before the enactment
of the law. In criminal law, it may criminalize actions that were legal when committed; it
may aggravate a crime by bringing it into a more severe category than it was in when it
was committed; it may change the punishment prescribed for a crime, as by adding new
penalties or extending sentences; or it may alter the rules of evidence in order to make
conviction for a crime likelier than it would have been when the deed was committed.
Conversely, a form of ex post facto law commonly called an amnesty law may
decriminalize certain acts. A pardon has a similar effect, in a specific case instead of a class
of cases. Other legal changes may alleviate possible punishments (for example by replacing
the death sentence with lifelong imprisonment) retroactively. Such legal changes are also
known by the Latin term in mitius.
Characteristics of Ex Post Facto Law
(a) Must refer to criminal matters
(b) Prejudicial to the accused
(c) Retroactive in application
· In Lacson v. Exec. Sec., the Court held that in general, ex post facto law
prohibits retrospectivity of penal laws. RA No. 8249 is not a penal law The contention that
the new law
diluted their right to a two-tiered appeal is incorrect because “the right to appeal is not a
natural right but statutory in nature that can be regulated by law. RA 8249 pertains only to
matters of procedure, and being merely an amendatory statute it does not partake the
nature of ex post facto law.”
· In Calder v. Bull, the Court said that when the law alters the legal rules
of evidence or mode of trial, it is an ex post facto law. Exception: (Beazell v. Ohio) unless
the changes operate only in limited and unsubstantial manner to the disadvantage of the
accused.
· In Bayot v. Sandiganbayan, the accused was convicted by the
Sandiganbayan for estafa on May 30, 1980. Accused appealed.
Blg. 195 was passed authorizing suspension of public officers against whom an
information may be pending at any stage. On July 22, 1982, the court suspended the
accused. The Supreme Court ruled that Art. 24 of the Revised Penal Code that suspension
merely a preventive and not a penal measure which therefore does not come under the ex
post facto prohibition.
2. Bill of Attainder, Elements
The essence of a bill of attainder is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial
determination of the legitimacy of a deprivation. 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.
History in perspective, bills of attainder were employed to suppress
government takings of life or property involving unpopular causes and political
minorities, and it is against this evil that the constitutional prohibition is directed.
The elements of a bill of attainder are: (i) the singling out of a definite class,
(ii) the imposition of a burden on it, without or far outweighing any non-punitive
legislative purpose, and a legislative intent to do so, and (iii) the lack of judicial trial.
These elements stigmatize the statute or any of its provisions as a bill of attainder.
Ref: Dissenting Opinion of J. Lazaro-Javier in More and Electric Power Corporation
vs. Panay Electric Company, Inc., GR No. 248061; Republic vs. Panay Electric
Company, Inc., September 15, 2020
3. Double Jeopardy, Requisites
Jurisprudence provides that for the right against double jeopardy to attach, the
following requisites must be present: (1) a first jeopardy must have attached prior to the
second; (2) the first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and (3) the second
jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.
With regard to the first element, for a first jeopardy to attach, there must be:
(1) a valid indictment,
(2) a court of competent jurisdiction
(3) the arraignment of the accused,
(4) a valid plea entered by the accused, and
(5) the acquittal or conviction of the accused, or the dismissal or termination of the
case without the accused's express consent.
As regards the fifth requisite, it is important to stress that it contemplates three
separate circumstances, namely (a) acquittal of the accused, (b) conviction of the
accused by final judgment, and (c) dismissal or termination of the case without the
accused's consent. Moreover, when the first jeopardy is terminated due to the acquittal
of the accused, "our rules on criminal proceedings require that a judgment of acquittal,
whether ordered by the trial or the appellate court, is final, unappealable, and
immediately executory upon its promulgation. This is referred to as the 'finality-of-
acquittal' rule."
Ref: Concurring Opinion of J. Caguioa in Estate of Murray Philip Williams vs. William
Victor Percy, GR No. 249681 August 31, 2022
4. Right Against Self-Incrimination, Purpose
The right against self-incrimination is accorded to every person who gives
evidence, whether voluntary or under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or
administrative proceeding. The right is not to be compelled to be a witness against
himself. It secures to a witness, whether he be a party or not, the right to refuse to
answer any particular incriminatory question, i.e., one the answer to which has a
tendency to incriminate him for some crime. However, the right can be claimed only
when the specific question, incriminatory in character, is actually put to the witness. It
cannot be claimed at any other time. It does not give a witness the right to disregard a
subpoena, decline to appear before the court at the time appointed, or to refuse to testify
altogether. The witness receiving a subpoena must obey it, appear as required, take the
stand, be sworn and answer questions. It is only when a particular question is addressed
to which may incriminate himself for some offense that he may refuse to answer on the
strength of the constitutional guaranty.
Ref: Rosete vs. Rosete , GR No. 136051 June 8, 2006
5. Right Against Self-Incrimination, Scope
The right (or sometimes called the "privilege") against self-incrimination has
consistently been held to extend to even non-criminal proceedings sanctioned by law
and to all cases in which punishment is sought to be visited upon a witness, whether a
party or not, such as forfeiture cases where only property rights are involved, and fact-
finding proceedings where the life and liberty of the person whose statements are being
taken, by reason of such, hang on the balance.
Ref: Claridades, A. (2023) Constitutional Law 2. Scope of the right, p. 355
6. Exemptions / Not Covered by Right Against Self-Incrimination
An exception to the right against self-incrimination is when there is an immunity statute.
a. Republic Act 1379 which exempts any person who voluntarily gives
information in forfeiture of Illegally obtained wealth cases from prosecution
or punishment for the offense with reference to which his information and
testimony were given;
b. Presidential Decree No. 749 which grants immunity from prosecution to
givers of bribes and other gifts and to their accomplices in bribery and other
graft cases against public officers;
c. Executive Order No. 14 (1986) which authorizes the Presidential Commission
on Good Government (PCGG) to grant immunity from criminal prosecution to
any person who testifies to the unlawful manner in which any respondent,
defendant, or accused has acquired or accumulated the property or properties in
question in cases where such testimony is necessary to prove violations of
existing laws; and
d. Presidential Decree No. 1886 which proscribes the use of the testimony or any
evidence produced by any witness (before the ad hoc Fact-Finding Board
created in 1983 to determine all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
Killing of former Senator Benigno S. Aquino, Jr.) against him in connection
with any the transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he is compelled to
testify or produce.
Ref: Claridades, A. (2023) Constitutional Law 2. Exception to the right, p. 356