ANNOTATION

DUE PROCESS

By
ALICIA GONZALEZ-DECANO*
___________________
I. Preliminary Statement, p. 558
II. Due Process Defined, p. 559
III. Jurisprudence on Due Process, p. 560
IV. Illustrative Cases, p. 560
___________________
I. Preliminary Statement
Our countrymen clamor for justice as many of them are
deprived of such priceless jewel of democracy. As we looked
around, we see various shocking incidents of life such as:
carefree innocent young children being locked up in jail;
bystanders, protesters, demonstrators, being picked up and
ganged up; young boys and girls in school being kidnapped;
women roaming around the cities of Metro Manila, either
for the purpose of looking for odd jobs or wandering just to
view the cities of pleasure, money and sins; and men and
women

_______________

* Retired Judge, Professorial Lecturer IV and Consultant (Law and

Political Science Cluster, UST Graduate School) and Dean, College of Law
& Law Professor, Pan Pacific University North Philippines (PUNP),
Urdaneta City.

559

VOL. 627, AUGUST 10, 2010 559

Due Process

languishing in jail, whose cases have never been

terminated due to the snail pace of justice, without due
process.
It is on this scenario that this article is thought of.
Before going into the doctrines or jurisprudence on due
process, a definition of term is in order.
II. Due Process Defined
 Due process is a law which hears before it condemns;
which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only
after trial (Raquiza vs. Bradford, 75 Phil. 50, cited by Sibal,
Philippine Legal Encyclopedia, Central Book Supply, Inc.,
Q.C., 1986, p. 257)
Due process of law does not necessarily mean a judicial
proceeding in the regular courts. The guarantee of due pro-
cess, viewed in its procedural aspect, requires no particular
form of procedure. It implies due notice to the individual of
the proceedings, an opportunity to defend himself and the
problem of the propriety of the deprivations, under the
circumstances presented, must be resolved in a manner
consistent with essential fairness. It means essentially a
fair and imported trust and reasonable opportunity for the
preparation of defense. (Aquino, Jr. vs. Military
Commission, No. 2, 63 SCRA 546 [1975], cited by Sibal,
supra)
Procedure is merely means to an end, and rules of
procedure must be construed liberally so as to afford
litigants a speedy and inexpensive means of resolving their
controversy. On the other hand, the principle of due
process, in general means simply that before a party may
be held bound by court proceedings, he must have been
impleaded therein or notified thereof and thus given an
opportunity to defend his rights. (Torres vs. Caluag, 17
SCRA 808 [1966], cited by Sibal, supra)
560

560 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Due Process

III. Jurisprudence on Due Process
Due process may be procedural, or may be a denial of
the constitutional processes. Procedural, when the regular
rules of law are complied with. Constitutional due process,
when the elements or the material requirements of the
Constitution are complied with.
Due process may likewise be criminal due process which
requires that the accused must be proceeded against under
the orderly processes of law. There is likewise known due
process in labor cases.
IV. Illustrative Cases
The following cases are illustrative of all these kinds of
due process:
 1. In the case of Manuel Roxas, et al. vs. Vasquez, G.R.
No. 114944, May 29, 2002, 382 SCRA 396, the Supreme
Court held:

x x x It appears that petitioners were deprived of due process

when the Special Prosecutor reinstated the complaint against
them without their knowledge. Due process of law requires that
every litigant must be given an opportunity to be heard. He has
the right to be present and defend himself in person at every
stage of the proceedings. x x x

The Highest Tribunal continued:

x x x It did not give petitioners notice of the reinvestigation,

which would have enabled them to participate in the proceedings.
But when it later found probable cause against petitioners, it
should have first given them notice and afforded them an
opportunity to be heard before ordering their inclusion in
Criminal Case No. 18956. The finding of probable cause against
petitioners in proceedings which they had neither knowledge of
nor participation in (sic) violated their right to procedural due
process. At the very least, they should have been notified that the
complaint against them has not yet been finally disposed of; or
that the fight was not yet over, so to

561

VOL. 627, AUGUST 10, 2010 561

Due Process

speak. They should have been apprised of their possible

implication in the criminal case to enable them to meet any new
accusations against them head-on, and to prepare for their
defense. x x x

2. People vs. Lacson, G.R. No. 149453, May 28, 2002,

382 SCRA 365, postulates the doctrine of due process when
the Highest Tribunal decreed:

x x x Fundamental fairness requires that both the prosecution

and the accused should be afforded the opportunity to be heard
and to adduce evidence on the presence or absence of the
predicate facts upon which the application of the new rule
depends. In the light of the lack of or the conflicting evidence in
the various requirements to determine the applicability of Section
8, Rule 117, this Court is not in a position to rule whether or not
the refiling of the cases for multiple murder against respondent
Lacson should be enjoined. The predicate facts involved disputed
facts and arguable questions of law. The reception of evidence on
these various issues cannot be done in this Court but before the
trial court. x x x

3. People vs. Alcalde, G.R. Nos. 139225-28, May 29,

2002, 382 SCRA 621, elucidates the violation of due
process.
Said the Supreme Court:

x x x The constitutional right to be informed of the nature and

cause of the accusation against him under the Bill of Rights
carries with it the correlative obligation to effectively convey to
the accused the information to enable him to effectively prepare
for his defense. At the bottom is the issue of fair trial. While not
every aberration of the mind or exhibition of mental deficiency on
the part of the accused is sufficient to justify suspension of the
proceedings, the trial court must be fully satisfied that the
accused would have a fair trial with the assistance the law
secures or gives. Under the circumstances in these cases, the trial
court gravely failed in this regard. x x x

The Highest Tribunal decreed further:

x x x Even if the zeal of an accuseds lawyer fell short of that

required of him, that is, for him to have asked the court to
suspend the arraignment of his client on the ground of the latters
unsound mental health, the greater demand of due process
overwhelms such

562

562 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Due Process

inadequate zeal. It is also worthy to maintain Atty. Vasquezs

apparent lackadaisical attitude in these cases which amounted to
disregard of the strict demand of fidelity to his oath as a lawyer,
duty to his client, and responsibility as an officer of the court. He
knew from the very beginning that Arnel was hospitalized for
mental disorder. The latters strange appearance at his
arraignment was enough reason for a counsel to ask for the
deferment of arraignment and for leave of court to have Arnel
subjected to psychological examination and psychiatric
evaluation. Then, too, he should have presented the doctor who
treated Arnel in the UST hospital for his recurring mental illness.
Irrefutably, Atty. Vasquezs behavior in the defense of Arnel, fell
short of the demanding duty to present every defense that the law
permits to the end that no person may be deprived of life or
liberty but by due process of law. Even if Atty. Vasquezs zeal for
Arnels case fell short of that required of him, that is, for him to
have asked the court to suspend the arraignment of Arnel, on the
ground of the latters unsound mental health, the greater demand
of due process overwhelms such inadequate zeal.

4. People vs. Bernas, G.R. Nos. 133583-85, February

20, 2002, 377 SCRA 391, illustrates the details of due
process when an accused pleads guilty to a capital offense
before the court. Due process dictates that the ruling of the
Supreme Court in the above-entitled case should be
followed to the latter. The Supreme Court held:

x x x The trial must observe the following rules when an

accused desires to plead guilty to a capital offense: (1) the court
must conduct a searching inquiry into the voluntariness and full
compensation of the consequences of the pleas; (2) the court must
require the prosecution to present evidence to prove the guilt of
the accused and the precise degree of his culpability; and (3) The
court must ask the accused if he desires to present evidence in his
behalf and allow him to do so if he desires.

The Supreme Court continued to explain the meaning of

Searching Inquiry and how it is done:

x x x Searching Inquiry should be conducted as follows: (1)

ascertain from the accused himself (a) how he was brought into
the custody of the law; (b) whether he had the assistance of a
competent

563

VOL. 627, AUGUST 10, 2010 563

Due Process

counsel during the custodial and preliminary investigations; and

(c) under what conditions he was detained and interrogated
during the investigations. These the court shall do in order to rule
out the possibility that the accused has been coerced or placed
under a state of duress either by actual threats or physical harm
coming from malevolent or avenging quarters; (2) ask the defense
counsel a series of questions as to whether he had conferred with,
and completely explained to the accused the meaning and
consequences of a plea of guilty; (3) elicit information about the
personality profile of the accused, such as his age, socio-economic
status, and educational background, which may serve as a
trustworthy index of his capacity to give a free and informed plea
of guilty; (4) inform the accused of the exact length of
imprisonment or nature of the penalty under the law and the
certainty that he will serve such sentence. Not infrequently
indeed an accused pleads guilty in the hope of a lenient treatment
or upon bad advice or because of bad promises of the authorities
or parties of a lighter penalty should he admit guilt or express
remorse. It is the duty of the judge to see to it that the accused
does not labor under these mistaken impressions; (5) require the
accused to fully narrate the incident that spawned the charges
against him or make him reenact the manner in which he
perpetrated the crime, or cause him to supply missing details of
significance. x x x

5. People vs. Monteron, G.R. No. 130709, March 6,

2002, 378 SCRA 340, discusses constitutional due process.
The Highest Tribunal articulated:

x x x Constitutional due process demands that the accused in

a criminal case should be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. The rationale behind this constitutional
guarantee are: first, to furnish the accused with the description of
the charge against him as well enable to make his defense;
second, to avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for the
protection against a further prosecution for the same cause; and
third, to inform the court of the facts alleged, so that it may
decide whether they are sufficient in law to support a conviction,
if one should be had.

The Supreme Court ruled further:

564

564 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Due Process

x x x In fulfillment of the aforesaid constitutional guarantee,

Rule 116, Section 1(a) of the Rules of Court mandates that an
accused be arraigned in open court and asked to enter a plea of
guilty or not guilty of the crime charged. The purpose of
arraignment is to apprise the accused of the possible loss of
freedom, even of his life, depending on the nature of the crime
imputed to him, or at the very least to inform him of why the
prosecuting arm of the state is mobilized against him.
Consequently, when accused-appelant entered a negative plea
during his arraignment, the same was not binding on the court as
an indication of his innocence. Rather, it is a general denial of the
charges impugned against him and an exercise of his right to be
heard of his plea. x x x

6. People vs. Dumalahay, G.R. Nos. 131837-38, April 2,

2002, 380 SCRA 37, speaks of due process as followed in
the taking of extrajudicial confessors and the invoking of
the Miranda doctrine.
 Said the Supreme Court:

x x x Where it is shown that extrajudicial confessions were

given with all the safeguards required under the Miranda
Doctrine, the admissible in evidence. The sworn statements of the
three accused show that they were properly apprised of their right
to remain silent and right to counsel, in accordance with the
constitutional guarantee. At 8:00 in the morning of the next day,
the three accused proceeded to the office of Atty. Rexel Pacuribot,
Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro
City. All of the three accused, still accompanied by Atty. Ubay-
ubay, subscribed and swore to their respective written
confessions. Before administering the oaths, Atty. Pacuribot
reminded the three accused of the constitutional rights under the
Miranda Doctrine and verified that their statements were
voluntarily given. Atty. Pacuribot also translated the contents of
each confession in the Visayan dialect, to ensure that each
accused understood the same before signing it. No ill-motive was
imputed on these two lawyers to testify falsely against the
accused. Their participation in these cases merely involved the
performance of their legal duties as officers of the court. x x x
More importantly, the confessions are replete with details which
could only be supplied by the accused, reflecting spontaneity and
coherence which psychologically can not be associated with a
mood to

565

VOL. 627, AUGUST 10, 2010 565

Due Process

which violence and torture have been applied. These factors are
clear indicia that the confessions were voluntarily given. x x x

7. People vs. Orbita, G.R. No. 136591, July 11, 2002,

384 SCRA 393, speaks of due process. In more specific
terms, the Supreme Court expounded:

x x x The accused can not complain that he was denied due

process when the trial court convicted him of raping the
complainant, a mental retardate, under an information that did
not allege her mental state, where he had notice that the
prosecution would prove that the complainant had a mental age of
a child below ten (10) and was given all the opportunity to meet
the evidence of the prosecution on the issue. He could not say he
was taken by surprise and was not able to defend himself. Indeed,
he has never taken this posture.
x x x
 8. Philippine Airlines, Inc. vs. NLRC (4th Division),
G.R. No. 115785, August 4, 2000, 337 SCRA 286, explains
Constitutional due process in this wise:

x x x The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be

heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity
to explain ones sidewith respect to the procedural aspect of
private respondents dismissal, he was given ample opportunity to
present his side and to defend himself against the charges against
him. He had every opportunity to be heard. x x x The fact that
respondent Diamante was not able to confront Pineda did not
mean that he was deprived of his right to due process. x x x

9. Romualdez vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 143618-

41, May 30, 2002, 385 SCRA 436 deals with Criminal due
process.
The Supreme Court postulated:

x x x Criminal due process requires that the accused must be

proceeded against under the orderly processes of law. In all
criminal cases, the judge should follow the step-by-step procedure
required by the Rules. The reason for this is to assure that the
state makes no mistake in taking the life or liberty except that of
the guilty. x x x

566

566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Due Process

10. Gerken vs. Quintos, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1441, July

31, 2002, 386 SCRA 520, discusses right to Bail and
Preliminary Investigation. The Supreme Court decreed:

x x x Respondent Judge, possibly through ignorance,

disregarded the procedure for preliminary investigation as
provided in Rule 112, Section 3 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure and thereby deprived complainants of their right to due
process. x x x

The Supreme Court further mentioned:

x x x The right to preliminary investigation is a substantive

right, a denial of which constitutes a deprivation of the accuseds
right to due process, and such denial is aggravated where the
accused is detained without bail for his provisional liberty. It is
important that those charged with the duty of conducting
preliminary investigations do so scrupulously in accordance with
the procedure provided in the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure. x x x

11. Government of the United States of America vs.

Purganan, G.R. No. 148571, October 14, 2002, 389 SCRA
623, explains among others, the meaning of due process.
The Supreme Court articulated:

x x x The detention of a potential extraditee prior to the

conclusion of the extradition proceedings does not amount to a
violation of his right to due processwhile the essence of due
process is the opportunity to be heard, it does not always call for a
prior opportunity to be heardcontrary to his intention, his
detention prior to the conclusion of the extradition proceedings
does not amount to a violation of his right to due process. We
iterate the familiar doctrine that the essence of due process is the
opportunity to be heard but, at the same time, point out that the
doctrine does not call for a prior opportunity to be heard. Where
the circumstancessuch as those present in an extradition case
call for it, a subsequent opportunity to be heard is enough. In the
present case, respondent will be given full opportunity to be heard
subsequently, when the extradition court hears the Petition for
Extradition. Hence, there is no violation of his right to due
process and fundamental fairness. x x x

567

VOL. 627, AUGUST 10, 2010 567

Due Process

12. Mariveles Shipping Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, G.R.

No. 144134, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 573, speaks
among others of due process. The Supreme Court
expounded:

x x x The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be

heard, or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an
opportunity to explain ones side or an opportunity to seek a
reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of. The
requirement of the due process in labor cases before a Labor
Arbiter is satisfied when the parties are given the opportunity to
submit their position papers to which they are supposed to attach
all the supporting documents or documentary evidence that would
prove their respective claims, in the event the Labor Arbiter
determines that no formal hearing would be conducted or that
such hearing was not necessary. Not all cases require a trial type
hearing. In any event, as found by the NLRC, petitioner was
given ample opportunity to present its side in several hearings
conducted before the Labor Arbiter and in the position papers and
other supporting documents that it had submitted, We find that
such opportunity more than satisfies the requirement of due
process in labor cases. x x x

13. Allied Banking Corporation vs. Court of Appeals,

G.R. No. 144412, November 18, 2003, 416 SCRA 65,
discusses among others, due process in labor cases.
Said the Supreme Court:

x x x The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be

heard. On the requirement of hearing, this court has held that the
essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard. An
actual hearing is not necessary. The exchange of several letters,
in which Galanidas wife, a lawyer with the City Prosecutors
Office, assisted him, gave Galanida an opportunity to respond to
the charges against him. x x x

14. Republic vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 152454,

November 18, 2003, 416 SCRA 133, speaks of the two
aspects of due process. The Supreme Court expounded:

x x x Due process of law has two aspects: substantive and

procedural due process. In order that a particular act may not be
im-

568

568 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Due Process

pugned as violative of due process clause, there must be

compliance with both substantive and the procedural
requirements thereof.

In the present context, substantive due process refers to

the intrinsic validity of a law that interfere with the right
of a person to his property. On the other hand, procedural
due process means compliance with the procedure or steps,
even periods, prescribed by the statute in conformity with
the standards of fair play and without arbitrariness on the
part of those who are called upon to administer it.
Insofar as substantive due process is concerned, there is
no showing that R.A. 1379 is unfair, unreasonable, or
unjust. In other words, respondent Marcoses are not being
deprived of their property through forfeiture for arbitrary
reasons on or flimsy grounds. x x x
A careful study of the Provision of R.A. 1379 readily
discloses that the forfeiture proceedings in the
Sandiganbayan did not violate the substantive rights of
 respondent Marcoses. These processes are civil in nature,
not criminal as contended by the Marcoses.
The Supreme Court continued:

x x x Due process, a constitutional precept, does not therefore

always and in all situations require a trial type proceeding. The
essence of due process is found in the reasonable opportunity to be
heard and submit ones evidence in support of his defense. What
the law prohibits is not merely the absence of a provisions notice
but the absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard.
This opportunity was made completely available to respondents
who participated in all stages of the litigation. x x x
o0o

Copyright 2017 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.