communication of ideas to enhance intelligent
B. Freedom of association, assembly and form political decision-making in society.
unions (Dolly) It is available insofar as it is exercised in the
discussion of public matters (Besides, it’s
Chavez vs. PEA-Amari Coastal Bay Development difficult to externally control private thoughts).
Corp. 384 SCRA 152 It is important to
ISSUE: WON private corp. (Amari) can lawfully acquire safeguard such freedom because sovereignty,
submerged and reclaimed submerged lands in Manila which supposedly resides in the people, would
bay?
be all for naught if the people would be denied
HELD: their right to
Submerged lands, like waters (sea or bay) above participate in public matters.
them are inalienable. This is also true to FORESHORE
lands. Any sale of submerged or forshore lands is void
The freedom of expression is not limited to ideas which is
being contrary to the constitution. acceptable to the majority, or to the powers-that-be, for this
--Here, the bulk of lands subject of the ammended joint freedom is meant to invite fomenting and
venture agreement (JVA) are STILL SUBMERGED
discussing of different ideas in the public arena.
lands, therefore unalienable.
--According to the JVA, PEA conveyed to Amari the Modes of expression : 1) Verbal& Written Language 2)
submerged lands even before their actual reclamation. Symbols
Illegal- There is an immediate transfer to the joint Elements:
venture.
1) Freedom from prior restraint/censorship
Amari’s right to own the submerged land is
• Prohibits the unlawful curtailment of the of the flow of
IMMEDIATELY effective upon approval of the
ideas
ammended JVA, not merely an option to be exercised
• Prohibits censor from applying it own subjective standards
in the future if reclamation is actually realized.
in determining what’s good or not
• There need no be a total suppression; even the restriction
Section 4 No law shall be passed abridging the of circulation is an unconstitutional restraint
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
2) Freedom from subsequent punishment
press, or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition • This freedom is included and as important like the first,
for it would be absurd that one can be allowed to express
the Government for redress of grievances.
yet be held liable for such expression;
Section 8.
The right of the people, including those however, it is subject to certain limitations as discussed
below.
employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for Limitations of Freedom of Expression
purposes not 1. Subject to POLICE POWER and can be regulated to
contrary to law shall not be abridged. protect public interest
Section 18.
2. Does not include ideas offensive to public order or
(1) No person shall be detained solely by decency, or reputation of persons
reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
To be able to know whether or not an expression is
Freedom of expression consists of cognate protected or not, certain tests have been developed by the
rights to insure free and effective courts:
1. CLEAR & PRESENT DANGER TEST-liberty over both public officers and public figures (ex. Joyce Jimenez or
authority Tom Welling). However, such criticism must always be in
respectful language.
• If the words or utterances used are of such a nature as to
create a clear and present danger that they will bring about
substantive evils that the state has the
Art & Obscenity
right to prevent, such utterance is not protected.
• Obscenity is not constitutionally protected, but the
• Thus, it is a question of proximity and degree since problem is, what the hell obscenity means. There have been
“Clear” means that there must be a causal connection various tests enunciated in the cases in
between danger and the utterance while “Present”
freedom of the press of this compilation.
refers to time in relation to “Danger” that is extremely
ASSEMBLY & PETITION FOR REDRESS
serious and highly imminent.
• The right to lawful assembly is important because there
• This gives way to State’s right to self-preservation
are certain issues better resolved after exchanging views in
• Differs from Dangerous Tendency with regards to a meeting for that purpose. Such public
proximity
meeting is effective in airing ideas or concerns affecting the
2. DANGEROUS TENDENCY TEST-authority over liberty public.
• Also known as Clear and Probable Danger • This right is not subject to prior restraint (ex. the need for
a permit) unless the meeting takes place in a public area (ex.
• If the words or utterances create a dangerous tendency that
Rizal Park).
the state has a right to protect, such utterance is punishable.
It is sufficient if the natural Tests for a lawful assembly:
tendency and probable effect of the utterance is to bring 1. Lawful purpose
about the substantive evil that the legislative body seeks to
2. The group/association holding the meeting is not illegal
prevent.
(ex.ElShaddai)
3. BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST-liberty or authority
An untoward incident (ex. riot) in a lawful assembly does
• When a specific act or conduct is regulated in the interest not make the assembly unlawful, only unruly. However, the
of public order but such regulation results in an indirect, law-enforcers can intervene in such
conditional and partial abridgment of
incidents in name of public safety.
expression, it is the court’s duty to determine which of the
two conflicting interest it should protect. It resolves the
issue in light of the peculiar Cases
circumstances of the case. It has an inherent weakness in
that it allows the courts freedom to choose which interest to Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553
protect.
FACTS:
Criticism of Official Conduct retired Justice Reyes in behalf of the Anti-Bases
• People have the right to criticize or commend the conduct Coalition, sought to permit a rally permit from
of elected officials since the public servant’s acts are Luneta Park to front gate of the US Embassy in
legitimate subjects of public discussion. As Manila. Mayor Bagatsing denied the petition. He
long as the comments are made in good faith and with issued City Ordinance No. 7295 to prohibit rallying
justifiable ends (ex. better public service), such comments 500 meter radius around the Embassy.
are protected. This rule is applicable to
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Mayor violated the petitioners'
constitutional right.
effectuations of these rights, provided the waiver is made
RULING: voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, however, he
indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that
Yes, the mayor's ordinance which prohibit the
he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there
petitioners to rally violates their constitutional
can be no questioning. Likewise, if the individual is alone
right to free speech and peaceable assembly. It and indicates in any manner that he does not wish to be
is settled law that as to public places, especially interrogated, the police may not question him. The mere
so as to parks and streets, there is freedom of fact that he may have answered some questions or
access. Nor is their use dependent on who is the volunteered some statements on his own does not deprive
applicant for the permit, whether an individual or him of the right to refrain from answering any further
a group. inquiries until he has consulted with an attorney and
thereafter consents to be questioned.
°Applies only from the moment the investigating officer
begins to ask questions for the purpose of eliciting
C. Rules on custodial investigation (Dolly) admissions, confessions or any information from the
accused.
See Section 12, Art III People vs. Lugod, G.R. No. 136253, February 21, 2001,
the accused should have been entitled to Miranda rights,
because even assuming that he was not yet under
Rights of an Accused under Custodial Investigation: interrogation at the time he was brought to the police
°Exist only in custodial interrogation station, his confession was elicited by a police officer who
°Available when the investigation is no longer a general promised to help him if he told the truth. Furthermore, when
inquiry into an unsolved crime but has begun to focus on a he allegedly pointed out the body of the victim, the
particular suspect, the suspect has been taken into police atmosphere was highly intimidating and not conducive to a
custody, the police carry out a process of interrogation that spontaneous response as the whole police force and nearly
tend to elicit incriminating statements. 100 townspeople escorted him there. Not having the benefit
of counsel and not having been informed of his rights, the
Custodial Investigation—Any questioning initiated by law confession is inadmissible.
enforcement officers after a person has been taken into
custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in People vs. Baloloy, G.R. No. 140740, April 12,
any significant way. 2002, it was held that this guarantee does not apply to
It shall include the practice of issuing “invitation” spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by
to a person who is investigated in connection with an the authorities but given in an ordinary manner whereby the
offense he is suspected to have committed, without suspect orally admitted having committed the offense.
prejudice to the liability of the “inviting” officer for any Neither can it apply to admissions or confessions made by a
violation of the law. (RA 7438) suspect before he was placed under custodial investigation.
In this case, the narration before the Barangay Captain
Miranda rights—(Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436) x x x prior to custodial investigation was admissible in evidence,
The prosecution may not use statements, whether but not the admissions made before Judge Dicon, inasmuch
exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from custodial as the questioning by the judge was done after the suspect
interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use had been arrested and such questioning already constituted
of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege custodial investigation.
against self-incriminations. By custodial interrogation, it
means questioning initiated by law enforcement officers Rights guaranteed:
after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise 1. Right to remain silent;
deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. As 2. Right to have a competent and independent counsel
for the procedural safeguards to be employed, unless other preferably of his own choice at all stages of the
fully effective means are devised to informed accused- investigation;
persons of their right of silence and to assure a continuous Independent and competent counsel—willing to
opportunity to safeguard the constitutional rights of the accused
exercise it, the following measures are required. 3. Right to be informed of such rights;
Prior to any questioning, the person must be Rationale:
warned that he has the right to remain silent, that any a. to make him aware of it;
statement he does make may be used as evidence against b. to overcome the inherent pressure o the interrogating
him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, atmosphere; and
either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive
c. to show the individual that his interrogators are
prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to Extrajudicial Confessions—are presumed voluntary, and,
invoke it. in the absence of conclusive evidence showing the
4. Right to be provided with counsel, if the person cannot declarant’s consent in executing the same has been vitiated,
afford one; such confession will be sustained.
°These rights cannot be waives except in writing and in To be admissible, it must be:
the presence of counsel; it is not required in a police-line 1. Voluntary;
up as the latter is not part of a custodial inquest. 2. Made with the assistance of competent and independent
5. No torture, force, etc. which vitiate free will shall be counsel;
used; 3. Express; and
6. Secret detention places are prohibited; and 4. In writing.
7. Confession/admissions obtained in violation of rights are
inadmissible in evidence. Investigations not considered custodial interrogation
1. Those conducted by an audit examiner
Ways of identifying the suspects During Custodial 2. Those conducted by the Court Administrator
Investigation: 3. Those conducted by the employer
1. Show-ups (out-of-court identification)—where the
suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for For the reason that these people are not law enforcement
identification; officers. However, in the case of People vs. Salonga, G.R.
People vs. Escordial, G.R. Nos. 138934-35, January 16, No. 131131, June 21, 2001, after an audit, the accused was
2002, the accused, having become the focus of attention summoned to appear before the Assistant Accountant of
by the police after he had been pointed to by a certain MetroBank and, in the course of the interview, accused
Ramie as the possible perpetrator of the crime, it was held admitted having issued the subject cashier’s checks without
that when the out-of-court identification was conducted by any legitimate transaction, the written confession was held
the police, the accused was already under custodial admissible in evidence inasmuch as the interview did not
investigation. constitute custodial investigation.
2. Mug shots—where photographs are shown to the witness
to identify the suspect; and In Ladiana vs. People, the counter-affidavit submitted by
3. Police Line ups—where a witness identifies the suspect the respondent during preliminary investigation is
from a group of persons lined up for the purpose. It is not admissible because preliminary investigation is not part of
considered a part of any custodial inquest because it is custodial investigation. The interrogation by the police, if
conducted before that stage of investigation is reached any would already have been ended at the time of the filing
(People vs. Bravo). The process has not yet shifted from the of the criminal case in court or in the public prosecutor’s
investigatory to the accusatory stage, and it is usually the office.
witness or the complainant who is interrogated and who Spontaneous statements—those elicited through
gives a statement in the course of the line-up (People vs. questioning by law enforcement officers, but given in an
Amestuzo). ordinary manner where the appellant verbally admits to
having committed the offense, are admissible. (People vs.
Factors in Resolving the Admissibility of and Relying on Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004)
Out-of-Court Identification of Suspects: TOTALITY OF
CIRCUMSTANCES TEST WAIVER— It must be in writing and made in the presence
1. The witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the counsel. The burden of proving that there was a valid
of the crime; waiver rests on the prosecution. The presumption of
2. The witness’ degree of attention at that time; official duty has been regularly performed cannot prevail
3. The accuracy of any prior description given by the over the presumption of innocence.
witness;
4. The level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the What may be waived?
identification; 1. Right to remain silent
5. The length of time between the crime and the 2. Right to counsel
identification; and
6. The suggestiveness of the identification procedure. Exclusionary Rule— (§17.Right against self-
incrimination)
Two (2) kinds of Involuntary or Coerced Confessions: Confession or admission obtained in violation of Sections
1. Those which are the product of 3rd degree methods such 12 and 17 of Article III shall be inadmissible in evidence.
as torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, which are Fruit of the poisonous tree—once the primary source is
dealt with in paragraph 2 of Section 12; shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
2. Those which are given without the benefit of Miranda derivative evidence derived from it is inadmissible.
warnings.
Evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used imprisonment, the court, on application, may admit the
to gain other evidence because the originally obtained accused to bail.
evidence taints all evidence subsequently 2. The court, in its discretion, may allow the accused to
obtained. continue on provisional liberty after the same bail bond
during the period to appeal subject to the consent of the
People vs. Duero, 104 SCRA 379 bondsman.
3. If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding 6 years but not more than 20 years, the
accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously granted
shall be cancelled, upon showing by the following or other
D. Right to Bail (Dolly) similar circumstances:
a. That the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or
habitual delinquent, or has committed the crime
See Section 13 aggravated by the circumstance of reiteracion;
b. That the accused is found to have previously
escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
Bail—the security given for the release of a person in has violated the conditions of his bail without valid
custody of the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, justification;
conditioned upon his appearance before any court as may be c. That the accused committed the offense while on
required. probation, parole, or under conditional pardon;
° The right to bail may be invoked by any person once d. That the circumstances of the accused or his case
detention commences even if no formal charges have yet to indicates the probability of flight if released on bail;
be filed; or
° It can availed of by a person who is in custody of law or e. That there is undue risk that during the pendency
otherwise deprived of his liberty; of the appeal, the accused may commit another
° Suspension of the writ of the privilege of habeas corpus crime.
does not suspend the right to bail;
° Even when the accused has previously jumped bail, still Whether bail is a matter of right or discretion—reasonable
he cannot be denied bail before conviction if it is a matter of notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor,
right. The remedy is to increase the amount of bail; or at least he must be asked for his
° Right to bail has not been recognized and is not available recommendation, because in fixing the amount of bail, the
to the military. judge is required to take into account a number of factors.
Standards for fixing amount of bail: When bail shall be denied:
1. Financial ability of the accused; 1) No person, regardless of the stage of the criminal
2. Nature and circumstances of the offense; prosecution, shall be admitted to bail if:
3. Penalty for the offense charged; a. Charged with capital offense, or an offense
4. Character and reputation of the accused; punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
5. Age and health of the accused; imprisonment; and
6. Weight of evidence against the accused; b. Evidence of guilt is strong.
7. Probability of appearance at trial; 2) When the accused is charged with an offense punishable
8. Forfeiture of other bonds by him; by reclusion perpetua or higher, a hearing on the motion for
9. He was a fugitive from justice when arrested; and bail must be conducted by the judge to
10.Pendency of other cases where he is also under bail. determine whether or not the evidence of guilt is strong.
3) Without a hearing, the judge could not possibly
Bail as a matter of right— asses the weight of the evidence against the accused
All persons in custody shall be admitted to bail as a matter before granting the latter’s application for bail.(USA
of right, with sufficient sureties, or be released on vs. Hon. Purganan ;Government of Hongkong vs.
recognizance as prescribed by law: Judge Olalia)
1. Before or after conviction by the MTC; and
2. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life E. Right to criminal due process, presumption of
imprisonment. innocence, speedy, impartial and public trial, and
3. The evidence of guilt is not strong.
to confront witnesses (Dolly)
Bail when discretionary—
1. Upon conviction by the RTC of an offense not
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life See Section 14
Rights of the Accused: Plea of guilt to a capital offense—
1. Criminal due process: 1. There must be searching inquiry into the voluntariness of
a. Opportunity to be heard in court of competent the plea and the full comprehension of the consequences
jurisdiction; thereof;
b. The accused must proceed against under orderly 2. Presentation of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused
processes of law; and the precise degree of his culpability;
c. He must be given notice and opportunity to be heard; 3. The accused must be asked if he desire to present
d. The judgment rendered was within the authority of a evidence on his behalf and allow him to do so if he so
constitutional law. desires.
2. Presumption of innocence—
Every circumstance favoring the innocence of the U.S. v. Pagaduan November 2 G.R. No. L-12616
accused must be taken into account. The proof against (1917)
him must not be permitted to sway judgment and the
presumption that official duty was regularly performed
cannot, by itself, prevail over the constitutional
Enriquez vs. Ombudsman, G.R. No. 174902-06,
presumption of innocence.
3. Right to be heard by himself and counsel February 15, 2008
4. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him
Objectives:
a. To furnish the accused with such a description of the
charge against him as will enable him to make the
defense;
b. To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for
protection against a further prosecution for the same
cause; and
c. 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.
°Description, not designation, of the offense is
controlling.
Void-for-Vagueness Rule—the accused is denied the
right to be informed of the charge against him, and to
due process as well, where the statute itself is couched
in such indefinite language that it is not possible for men
of ordinary intelligence to determine therefrom what
acts or omissions are punished and, hence, shall be
avoided.
Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,
November 19, 2001, every legislative measure is
presumed constitutional. Petitioner failed to discharge
the burden to overcome the presumption of
constitutionality.
5. Right to speedy, impartial and public trial—
Impartial—the judge must not be bias and not
motivated by malice or bad faith. The Judge must not
only be impartial but must also appear to be impartial.
6. Right to meet witness face to face—
Witnesses not submitted for cross-examination are not
admissible as evidence.
However, right to cross-examination may be waived.
7. Right to compulsory process to secure attendance of
witnesses and production of evidence
8. Trial in Absentia:
° After arraignment;
° Due notice; and
° Absence is unjustified.
