BILL OF RIGHTS

• The Bill of rights governs the relationship between the

individual and the state.
• The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against acts of
private individuals. The equal protection erects no shield
against private conduct, however discriminatory or
wrongful [Yrasuegui v. PAL, G.R. No. 168081 (2008)].
 DUE PROCESS

• “a law which hears before it condemns,

which proceeds on inquiry and render
judgment only after trial” (Dartmonuth
College v. Woodward)
• Universal application to all persons,
without regard to any difference in race,
color or nationality. Artificial persons are
covered by the protection but only in so
far as their property is concerned
 RIGHT TO LIFE

• It includes the right of an individual to his

body in its completeness, free from
dismemberment, and extends to the use
of God-given faculties which make life
enjoyable
 RIGHT TO LIBERTY

• the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary

personal restraint or servitude. It includes the right of
the citizen to be free to use his faculties in all lawful
ways.[Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro, G.R. No. L-
14078 (1919)]
 RIGHT TO PROPERTY

• Property - anything that can come under

the right of ownership and be the subject
of contract. It represents more than the
things a person owns; it includes the
right to secure, use and dispose of them
[Torraco v. Thompson, 263 US 197
(1923)].
 ASPECT OF DUE PROCESS
• Substantive due process
• This serves as a restriction on government’s law- and rule-making
powers
• Intrinsic validity of the law interfering with the rights of the
person to his life liberty and property
 REQUISITES

• The interest of the public in general

• The means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose
 PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

• This serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-

judicial agencies of the government
• Notice and hearing
 EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW

All persons or things similarly situated should be

treated alike, both as to rights conferred and and
responsibilities imposed.

The equal protection clause does not require

the universal application of the laws on all
persons or things without distinction. What
the clause requires is equality among equals
as determined according to a valid
classification.
 SEARCH AND SEIZURE

• Art III Section 2

• “A man’s house is his castle”
• Against the State; the right cannot be
invoked against a private individual.
 REQUISITES OF VALID WARRANT

• Presence of probable cause

• Probable cause is such set of facts and circumstances as
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe
that the offense charged in the Information or any offense
included therein has been committed by the person sought to
be arrested. 
• Such probable cause must be personally determined by the Judge
• After examination under oath and affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce
• Particularity of description
 PROBABLE CAUSE

• The term does not mean “actual and

positive cause” nor does it import absolute
certainty. It is merely based on opinion and
reasonable belief.
 VA L I D WA R R A N T L E S S A R R E S T

• Sec. 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court

• (a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense;
• (b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
 IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO

• Rebellion is a continuing offense.

Therefore, a rebel may be arrested
without a warrant at any time of the day
or the night as he is deemed to be in the
act of committing rebellion. [Umil v.
Ramos, G.R. No. 81567 (1991)]
 BUY-BUST

• A buy-bust operation is a valid in

flagrante arrest. The subsequent search
of the person arrested and the premises
within his immediate control is valid as
an incident to a lawful arrest[People v.
Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662 (2001)].
 HOT PURSUIT

• When an offense has just been

committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the
person to be arrested has committed it
• In warrantless arrests made pursuant to Section 5(b) of Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure, it is essential that the element of
personal knowledge must be coupled with the element of
immediacy; otherwise, the arrest may be nullified, and
resultantly, the items yielded through the search incidental
thereto will be rendered inadmissible in consonance with the
exclusionary rule of the 1987 Constitution.
 REQUISITES

1. Offense had just been committed; The

person must be immediately arrested
after the commission of the offense
[People v. Manlulu, supra].
2. Person making the arrest has probable
cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of the facts and
circumstances.
 PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

• Experience of an officer which gives the idea that there is

probable cause that the person caught is responsible. It has
been ruled that “personal knowledge of facts” in arrests
without a warrant must be based on probable cause, which
means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion
[Cadua v. CA, G.R. No.123123 (1999)].
• Reliable information alone, absent any overt
act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the
presence of and within the view of the
arresting officers, are not sufficient to
constitute probable cause that would justify
an in flagrante delicto arrest
• (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another.
• In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)
 VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH

• Warrantless Search Incidental to Lawful

Arrest
• This is because in searches incidental to
a lawful arrest, the law requires that
there first be a lawful arrest before a
search can be made - the process
cannot be reversed.
 EXAMPLE OF INVALID WARR ANT LES S SEAR CH
• Picardal vs. People
• The MMDA Regulation, however, provides that the penalty for a
violation of the said section is only a fine of five hundred pesos
(PhP500.00) or community service of one (1) day. The said
regulation did not provide that the violator may be imprisoned for
violating the same, precisely because it is merely a regulation
issued by the MMDA. Stated differently, the MMDA Regulation
is, as its name implies, a mere regulation, and not a law or
an ordinance.
• Therefore, even if it were true that the accused-appellant did
urinate in a public place, the police officers involved in this
case still conducted an illegal search when they frisked
Picardal for allegedly violating the regulation. It was not a
search incidental to a lawful arrest as there was no or there
could not have been any lawful arrest to speak of.
• It also appears that, according to City Ordinance
No. 98-012, which was violated by petitioner, the
failure to wear a crash helmet while riding a
motorcycle is penalized by a fine only. Under the
Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be
issued if the information or charge was filed for an
offense penalized by a fine only. It may be stated
as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest
be made for such an offense. (Luz vs. People)
 PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

• Requisites
1. Prior valid intrusion based on valid warrantless arrest in
which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their
official duties
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who
had the right to be where they are
3. Evidence must be immediately apparent
4. “Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without
further search
 SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES

• Securing a search warrant is not

practicable since the vehicle can be
quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
sought [Papa v. Mago, G.R. No. L-
27360, (1968)]
 CONSENTED SEARCH

• Requisites
1. Must appear that right exists;
2. Person involved had actual or constructive knowledge of the
existence of such right;
3. Said person had an actual intent to relinquish the right.
[People v. Aruta]
ENFORCEMENT OF FISHING, CUSTOMS,
AND IMMIGRATION LAW

• The police are allowed to conduct

warrantless searches on behalf of
the Department of Customs.
 STOP AND FRISK

• Test
Whether or not a reasonably prudent man
in the circumstances would be warranted
in the belief that his safety or that of
others was in danger [Terry v. Ohio, 392
U.S. 1 (1968)].
The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and seizure
incident to a lawful arrest is to protect the arresting officer
from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be
armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter
from destroying evidence within reach. It is therefore a
reasonable exercise of the State's police power to protect:
(a) law enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on
them by a person they have lawfully arrested; and (b)
evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks to
ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the integrity of
the evidence under the control and within the reach of the
arrestee. (Vaporoso v. People, GR No. 238659)
 PEOPLE V. CALANTIAO,

When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting

officer to search the person arrested in order to remove
any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist
arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the officer's safety
might well be endangered, and the arrest itself frustrated.
In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting
officer to search for and seize any evidence on the
arrestee's person in order to prevent its concealment or
destruction.
 EXCLUSIONARY RULE

• The exclusionary rule extends to

evidence obtained through uncounseled
confession
THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

• The Exclusionary Rule is also extended

to exclude evidence which is derived or
directly obtained from that which was
illegally seized
 EFFECTS OF UNREASONABLE
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

• An unlawful search will result in the

exclusion from admission as evidence of
that which was obtained from such
unlawful search and seizure.
 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

• 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.
 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

• (2) No torture, force, violence, threat,

intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against
him. Secret detention places, solitary,
incommunicado, or other similar forms
of detention are prohibited.
 RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

• (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.
• 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.
 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

the Court reiterates that it is aware that, in some

instances, law enforcers resort to the practice of
planting evidence to extract information or even to
harass civilians. Hence, the Court reaffirms the long-
standing rule that the presumption that regular duty
was performed by the police officers could not prevail
over the constitutional presumption of the innocence
of the accused ( Chico v. People, GR No. 230170)
• In this connection, the presumption of regularity in the
performance of official duty cannot overcome the stronger
presumption of innocence in favor of the accused.The right of
the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a
constitutionally protected right.  Thus, it would be a patent
violation of the Constitution to uphold the importance of the
presumption of regularity in the performance of official duty
over the presumption of innocence, especially in this case
where there are more than enough reasons to disregard the
former. (People vs. Buniag , GR No. 217661)
 MIRANDA VS. ARIZONA

• Miranda rights
• Rights are available only during custodial investigation
• Custodial Investigation under RA 7438.
• shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a
person who is investigated in connection with an offense
he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to
the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.
 RA 7438

• AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON

ARRESTED, DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE
ARRESTING, DETAINING AND INVESTIGATING
OFFICERS, AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR
VIOLATIONS THEREOF
• (a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial
investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel.
• (b) Any public officer or employee, or anyone acting under his
order or his place, who arrests, detains or investigates any
person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter,
in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to
remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel, preferably of his own choice, who shall at all times be
allowed to confer privately with the person arrested, detained
or under custodial investigation. If such person cannot afford
the services of his own counsel, he must be provided with a
competent and independent counsel by the investigating
officer.
• (c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to
writing by the investigating officer, provided that before such
report is signed, or thumbmarked if the person arrested or
detained does not know how to read and write, it shall be
read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by
the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in
the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained
person, otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and
void and of no effect whatsoever.
• (d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested,
detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing
and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel or
in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver, and in the
presence of any of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his
spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel as
chosen by him; otherwise, such extrajudicial confession shall
be inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding.
• (e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under
custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver
shall be null and void and of no effect.
(f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial
investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with
any member of his immediate family, or any medical doctor
or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any
member of his immediate family or by his counsel, or by any
national non-governmental organization duly accredited by
the Commission on Human Rights of by any international
non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Office
of the President. The person's "immediate family" shall
include his or her spouse, fiancé or fiancée, parent or child,
brother or sister, grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt,
nephew or niece, and guardian or ward.
 OTHER SECTIONS OF ARTICLE III

• Section 3 (Privacy and Communication)

• Section 4 (Free Speech)
• Section 5 (Freedom of Religion)
• Section 6 (Liberty of Abode)
• Section 7 (Freedom of Information)
• Section 8 (Freedom of Association)
• Section 17 (Self incrimination)
• SECTION 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or
non-payment of a poll tax.

• SECTION 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.

• SECTION 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder

shall be enacted.
THANK YOU!