Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
(Due Process/Equal
Protection)
Definition of due process no exact definition (left to the best judgment
of the judiciary based on the peculiarities and circumstances of each case.
a) Darmouth vs. Woodward
b) DP a guarantee against any form of abuse/arbitrariness
c) Standards of due process in case of termination of employment
CASES:
WenPhil v. NLRC; - Employee was dismissed for grave misconduct and
insubordination, a just ground for termination, but employee failed to
extend the right to an investigation. (employer was ordered to
indemnify P1,000.00 to employee.
Ruben Seranno v. NLRC; - The employer also violated the notice
requirement but the same was not considered a violation of Due
Process. The dismissal is INEFFECTUAL and employer must pay the
backwages.
Agabon v. NLRC SC said: The better rule is to abandon the Serano
doctrine and to follow WenPhil, BUT sanctions must BE STIFFER than
those imposed in WenPhil.
Procedural requirement to terminate employees.
1) Written notice
2) Hearing or conference
3) Written notice of termination (King of Kings
Transport v. Mamac; Aliling v. Feliciano
TERMS: (1)Person, Life, Liberty, due process of law,
equal protection of the laws
Two (2) Elements:
1) Substantive due process; and
2) Procedural due process.
A. Procedural due process in Judicial Proceedings
CODE: I J O J
1) Impartial court/tribunal
2) Jurisdiction
3) Opportunity to be heard
4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing
(Privacy of Communication
and Correspondence)
1. In re Wenceslao Laureta Regarding his letter to the
1st division of SC containing disparaging remarks
concerning the performance of their judicial
functions. The said 1st division referred the matter to
the court en banc. Dean Laureta invoked that his
letter is private in character, hence, covered by the
privacy of communication clause. HELD No. It
became a part of judicial record and has become a
matter of concern for the entire court.
2. Use of telephone extensions is not prohibited as a
tap.
3. Court can authorized wire tapping, if warranted, on
account of war, treason, espionage, piracy rebellion,
etc.
4. The prosecution presented a video tape recording
showing heated exchange between the accused and
the victim. The accused objected because it was
taken without his consent. It is violation of PCC?
HELD: The objection is not correct. The exchange of
heated words between the accused and the victim
that took place at the lobby of the hotel was not
private.
5. Hello Garci tape
6. Vigilio Garcilianos TRO for playing the tape.
Dismissed. It is moot and academic
Sec.4
(Freedom of Religion)
DEFINITION
A. In a broad sense, religion includes any form of belief
in regard to the relation of human beings to some
supernatural powers, or as defined in Aglipay vs.
Ruiz (64 Phil. 201), it is a profession of faith to an
active power that binds and elevates man to his
creator.
B. In specific or restricted sense It is a system of
belief, or worship, or philosophy not necessarily in
the existence of God, or power of a more superior
being, but in a philosophy or way of life detached
from any reverence or obedience to God.
THREE (3) PRINCIPAL PARTS
a) First Part: Non-establishment clause (First
Sentence, Section 5, Article III)
b) Second Part: Free exercise clause (Second
Sentence, Section 5, Article III)
c) Third Part: Non-religious test clause (Third
Sentence, Section 5, Article III)
Two (2) aspects of religious freedom
a) Freedom to believe; and
b) Freedom to act on ones beliefs.
OLD CASES
Engel vs. Vitale
A student was expelled because he refused to recite the
prayer Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence
upon thee and beg the blessings upon us, etc. HELD:
Expulsion is not valid. Reason: It is not part of the business
of government to compose official prayer for any group of
individuals. Religious freedom even guarantees the right of
a person not to believe in God.
Gerona vs. Secretary of Education
The flag salute Law required compulsory participation by
public school students. HELD: The flag is devoid of any
religious significance. Saluting the flag therefore does not
involve any religious ceremony.
Ebralinag vs. The Division Superintendent of Schools of
Cebu
Reversed the ruling of Gerona. HELD: (1) Forcing a
religious group, through the iron hand of the law, to
participate in a ceremony that violates their religious beliefs,
will hardly be conducive to love of country or respect for duly
constituted authorities. (2) What petitioners seek is only an
exception from the flag ceremony, not exclusion from the
public schools were they may study the Constitution, the
democratic way of life and form of government, and learn
not only the acts, sciences, Philippine history and culture but
also receive training for a vocation or profession and be
taught the virtues of patriotism, respect for human rights,
appreciation for national heroes, the rights and duties of
citizenship and moral and spiritual values.
U.S. CASES
West Virginia Board of Education vs. Barnette
Those who refused to participate in a flag ceremony, to recite an
oath of allegiance and to salute the American flag while it was
being raised, were subject to expulsion until readmitted upon
compliance. Jehovahs witnesses protested. HELD: U.S.
Supreme Court rejected the same Compulsory unification of
opinion achieves only the unity of the graveyard.
PHILIPPINE CASES
Jehovahs request to hold a meeting in the plaza near the Roman
Catholic Church. They were allowed to use only the northwestern
part of the plaza. The Jehovahs claim that it is a violation of the
freedom of speech, assembly and religious worship. HELD: The
said refusal is valid. Reasons: The authorities deemed it better
and wise in the name of public order to deny the permit especially
so because the Johovahs witnesses advocated tenets which are
derogatory to those of the Catholic Church.
DISSEMINATION OF ONES BELIEFS
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila
Sale or peddling by a religious organization of religious literature and other
materials from house to house conducted not for the purpose of profit.
Imposition of license or permit fees on such sale or peddling is an impairment
of the free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship.
Tolentino vs. Secretary of Finance
Imposition of a tax on the sale of religious materials.This is not prohibited.
Marsh vs. Alabama
a woman who distributed religious literature in the premises of a privately-
owned town despite prohibitions of the town authorities. HELD: complaint of
trespassing against said woman was not upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court,.
Reasons: (1) Ownership does not always mean absolute dominion. The more
an owner for his advantage opens up his property for use by the public in
general; the more his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and
constitutional rights of those who use it. (2) The public has an identical
interest in the functioning of the community in such manner that the channel
of communication remains free.
Alejandro Estrada vs. Soledad S. Escritor
Soledad S. Escritor, court interpreter, lived with a man, not her husband, and
out of her live-in arrangement with said man, they had a child. She was
charged with disgraceful and immoral conduct. She claims that her conjugal
arrangement has the approval of her congregation, claiming that she
executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness after living together for ten
years. She pleaded for exemption. HELD: (1) Said conjugal arrangement
cannot be penalized; (2) The benevolent neutrality theory believes that with
respect to these governmental actions, accommodation of religion may be
allowed, not to promote the governments favored form of religion, but to
allow individuals and groups to exercise their religion without hindrance; (3)
Invocation of the Free Exercise Clause is an appeal to higher sovereignty.
Dominador Taruc, et. al., vs. Bishop Perfirio Dela Cruz
Petitioners, members of Philippine Independent Church, clamored for the
transfer of B to another parish. Bishop Cruz denied the said request and
declared their expulsion/excommunication from their church. Petitioners filed
complaint for damages with injunction against Bishop Cruz. HELD: The
courts cannot exercise control over church authorities in the performance of
discretionary and official functions
OLD CASES:
In Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro (39 Phil. 660 [1919])
A law which created reservations for MangyanTribes was challenged as
a deprivation of liberty but the law was justified by general welfare and
public interest.
In Villavicencio vs. Lukban (39 Phil. 778, 780, 787)
The Supreme Court granted a writ of habeas corpus and ordered the
return to Manila of prostitutes who were shipped to Davao on the
ground that it can only assist in retaining a government of laws, and
not of men.
In Caunca vs. Salazar (82 Phil. 851)
The Supreme Court sustained petitioners liberty of abode and ruled
that her detention was not constitutional. The claim of the employment
agency that it has advanced some amounts of money to a prospective
employee was rejected. The court nevertheless sustained that said
agency has absolutely no power to curtail the freedom of the maid even
if she has not yet paid the amount advanced.
In Salonga vs. Hermoso (17 SCRA 121, April 25, 1980)
A petition for mandamus was filed to compel the
issuance of a permit to travel abroad. Before the case
could be heard, however, the permit was issued and the
case became moot and academic. The pertinent portion
of Chief Justice Enrique Fernandos statement is as
follows: x x x in view of the likelihood that in the future,
this Court may be faced again with a situation like the
present which takes up its time and energy needlessly, it
is desirable that respondent Travel Processing Center
should exercise the utmost care to avoid the impression
that certain citizens desirous of exercising their
constitutional right to travel could be subjected to
inconvenience or annoyance.
Sec.6
(Right to Information)
1. It shall be recognized
2. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as
well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
3. People Refers to citizens of the Philippines, but aliens
have the right to have access to the records of cases
where they are involved.
4. Remedy of a person denied the right to information, or
the right to access to official records:
a) Petition for mandamus
b) Civil action for damages
Sec.8
(Right to Association)
The right to organize include the right to form unions or associations
but it does not include the right to strike and to engage in similar
actions.
Dissenting opinion
a) Justice Isagani Cruz The fact that they belong to the civil service has not
deprived them of their freedom of expression,
b) Justice Hugo Gutierrez who said - Employees have freedom speak when
they are demeaned by low salaries and inattention to their needs,
Gesite vs. Court of Appeals 800 teachers assembled in front of the
Department of Education Culture and Sports (DECS) and they defied the
order of Secretary Isidro Cario to return to work within 24 hours. HELD:
They have the right to assemble peacefully but it does not include the right
to strike.
Mere membership in the communist party and nothing more merely
implies advocacy of interest. It becomes a criminal offense only if it is
coupled with advocacy of action (i.e. rebellion or act conducive thereto.
A lawyer cannot be compelled to associate, but it is compulsory for him to
pay his dues to IBP.
Sec.9
(Prohibition Against
Impairment of Obligation of
Contracts)
A law impairs a contract when it enlarges, abridges, or in any manner
change the intentions of the parties and this is true even if the change
is done indirectly.
Parties have no vested right in particular remedies or modes of
procedure They are made in the exercise of the police power of the
State.
Considerations prevail over contracts
Demands of police power arising from social justice, general welfare,
public health, safety, amelioration of labor conditions. Reason: Salus
Populi Est Suprema Lex,
1. Republic Act No. 6657,
2. Presidential Decree No. 27,
Automatic conversion from agricultural share to agricultural leasehold
was made applicable to sugarland tenants.
Franchises
Compulsory arbitration in certain cases
Batangas CATV Inc. vs.The Court of Appeals
Whatever authority the LGUs had before, the same had
been withdrawn when President Marcos issued P.D. No.
1512 terminating all franchises, permits or
certificates for the operation of CATV system
previously granted by local governments. Now
only persons/associations/partnerships/corporations or
cooperatives granted a Provisional Authority or
Certificate of Authority by the NTC may install, operate
and maintain a cable television system or render cable
television service within a service area.
Sec.11
(Right to Bail)
Rule, as simplified All persons shall before
conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law
except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong.
Rationale An accused is presumed innocent until his
guilt is proven beyond reasonable doubt by final
judgment. The right to bail gives the accused not only an
opportunity to obtain provisional liberty but also the
chance to prepare for trial while continuing his usual
work or employment.
Basic principles of the right to bail
1. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended.
2. Excessive bail shall not be required.
3. Factors to consider
a) Ability to post bail;
b) Nature of the offense;
c) Penalty imposed by law;
d) Character and reputation of the accused;
e) Health of the accused;
f) Strength of the evidence;
g) Probability of appearing for trial;
h) Prior forfeiture of bonds;
i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive when he was
arrested; and
j) The fact that the accused was under bond in other cases.
Responsibility of Sureties Sureties become in law the
jailers of their principal. Hence, it is responsible to keep the
accused under its surveillance, to see to it that the accused
does not live our country so he will not be beyond the reach
of court orders and processes.
Conditions of the Bail
A. Before conviction The accused shall answer the
complaint or information in the court in which it is filed
or to which it may be transferred for trial.
B. After conviction The accused will surrender himself in
execution of the judgment that the appellate court may
render.
C. In case of new trial The accused will appear in court
to which it may be remanded and submit himself to the
orders and processes thereof.
Is posting bail a matter of right? From the moment he is
placed under arrest, detention or restraint by officers of the
law, he can claim his right to bail and he retains this right
unless and until he is charged with a capital offense and the
evidence of his guilt is strong.
When is bail available? Available in criminal proceedings
and not in administrative proceedings such as a deportation
proceeding. This is discretionary on the part of the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
When accused is convicted by the trial court, the grant of
bail is the discretion of the court
Posting of a bail bond When this is posted, the accused is
estopped from questioning the validity of his arrest.
When is bail a matter of right? When is it a matter of discretion?
.
EXPLANATION OF EACH
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
1. The prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused.
2. The prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not in the
weakness of the defense.
3. Right to be presumed innocent must be offset by guilt beyond reasonable
doubt.
4. Any doubt as to the guilt of the accused must be resolved in his favor of
the accused.
(Habeas Corpus)
Habeas Corpus 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.
Writ of Habeas Corpus writ or order directed to the
person detaining another and commanding him to
produce the body of the prisoner at a certain time and
place, with the day and the cause of his detention, to
do, submit to, and receive whatsoever the court or
judge awarding the writ shall consider in that behalf.
DIFFERENT SITUATIONS
a) There is restraint but the same is
voluntary. Habeas corpus is not available.
(Double Jeopardy)
REQUISITES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY In order that
an accused may not be subjected to another trial and
punishment for the same offense, the following
requisites must be complied with, to wit:
1. There must be a valid complaint or information;
2. Said complaint or information must be filed in a court
of competent jurisdiction;
1) The accused has pleaded guilty to the charge; and
2) The accused has been acquitted or the case
dismissed or terminated without his express
consent. (People vs. Vergara, 41 SCAD 13, 221
SCRA 560; People vs. Navallo, 234 SCRA 175)
EXAMPLES:
a) A was prosecuted for estafa. Same was dismissed by RTC for
lack of jurisdiction. Thereafter, a charge for the same offense
was commenced in the RTC. Accused moved to quash
invoking double jeopardy: HELD: No double jeopardy
because the accused had not been in danger of conviction in
the original persecution.
b) Information was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by a court
which actually competent to hear it. HELD: The dismissal
will inure to the benefit of the accused.
c) If the dismissal of a case against the accused, even if with his
express consent, is based on (a) Insufficiency of evidence; (b)
or denial of his right to speedy trial. HELD: The dismissal is
considered an acquittal. Hence, the dismissal cannot be
appealed by the prosecution and will bar another prosecution
of the accused for the same offense. This is true even if the
dismissal is erroneous
DOCTRINE OF SUPERVENING EVENT May an accused be
prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent development
changes the character of the first indictment under which he may
have already been charged or convicted? Yes, under the doctrine
of supervening event. BASIS: Rule 117, Sec. 7, Rules of Court
MEANING AND EXAMPLE OF SAID DOCTRINE It is a rule in
criminal procedure which holds where a new fact supervenes that
would change the character and nature of the first offense to a
graver one for which the defendant had already been convicted,
then the accused may still be prosecuted for the new offense
without placing him in double jeopardy. (Melo v. People, supra)
EXAMPLE: A hit B with his fist after their heated altercation. As
a result, B fell which caused his head to hit a cemented
pavement. B filed a complaint against A for physical injuries. The
prosecutor was about to file a case for physical injuries against A,
but he was informed by the family of B that the latter died as a
result of the same physical injuries suffered by B. The said death
of B change the character of the offense for which A may be
prosecuted for homicide.
ANOTHER PRINCIPLE When one offense is inseparable from another and proceeds
from the same act, they cannot be the subject of separate prosecutions.
EXAMPLE: (1) X is indicted for smoking opium. He cannot be charged with
possession of opium.; (2) X has stolen several things from B on the same date and
time. X can be charged only with the crime of theft.
HYPOTHETICAL CASE. Note my hypothetical question in pages 409-410 of my
reviewer.
Prof . A invited Ms. X, his student to a dinner. After the dinner, Prof drives his car to a
motel. While inside the motel, he started to kiss Ms. A and started to undress her.
Ms. X convinced Prof. A to take a bath first before she gives in to his demand for sexual
intercourse. While taking his shower, Ms. A went outside the motel, took a taxi and
went home.
Later, she filed an administrative case for disbarment against Prof. A and she also filed
attempted rape against Prof. A. The disbarment proceedings did not prosper but the
office of the City Prosecutor filed a case of attempted rape against Prof. A
Can Prof. A invoke double jeopardy? No. The case being a criminal case and the other
being an administrative case.
SAME FACTS EXCEPT THAT PROF. A WAS ABLE TO CONSUMMATE RAPE
The City Prosecutor filed the case but the complaint filed in Court was
dismissed. Later, the Office of the City Prosecutor filed a case, this time upon
the complaint of the offended party. Is the filing of a new case a valid
ground for Prof. A to invoke double jeopardy? The first element for double
jeopardy to apply is not present. The first information's is not valid in form and
in substance. Hence, Prof. A cannot invoke double jeopardy.
BAR Question 1984
Upon arraignment A pleaded guilty to the charge of serious physical injuries.
10 days later, the victim died. Hence, the Fiscal moved for amendment of
information so as to charge the accused with the crime of homicide.
Accused objected on the ground of being convicted of the crime of serious
physical injuries and that another presentation for homicide for the same act
under an amended infarction. constitute double jeopardy. RESOLVE.
Answer: No double jeopardy and motion of the accused should be denied.
His plea was only with respect to the charge of physical injuries, but not with
the crime of homicide
SEC. 22