Notes on the Bill of Rights j5

8/12/2019 Notes on the Bill of Rights j5

1/26

ARTICLE III

(BILL OF RIGHTS)

- Social Justice Society, et al. v. Atienza, Jr., GR No. 156052,

February 1, 200!- Essentially, the oil companies are fighting fortheir right to property. They allege that they stand to lose billions

of pesos if forced [to] relocate. Ho"e#er, ba$e% o& 'e erar*y

o+ *o&$''u'o&ay -ro'e*'e% r'$, 'e r' 'o +e e&/oy$

-re*e%e&*e o#er 'e r' 'o -ro-er'y.The reason is obvious: life

is irreplaceable, property is not. When the state or [local

government unit] L!"s e#ercise of police po$er clashes $ith a

fe$ individuals" right to property, the former should prevail,%.

- Caro$ Su-er%ru Cor-. #$. S,e' a., GR No. 1663, 4u&e

23, 200 (E-a&%e% Se&or C'7e&$ A*' o+ 200)8 When

conditions so demand, as determined by the legislature, property

rights must bo$ to the primacy of police po$er because property

rights, though sheltered by due process clause, must yield to the

general $elfare.

- 9ra$ue #$. :AL, I&*., 565 SCRA 68 &n the absence of

governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the

constitution cannot be invo'ed. The (ill of )ights is not meant to

be invo'ed against acts of private individuals.

- :ro*e%ura ue :ro*e$$- (anco Espa*ol-+ilipino vs. alanca

Sera&o #$ NLRC, 2 SCRA 5- ue process clause of the

constitution is a limitation on government po$ers. I' %oe$ &o'

a--y 'o 'e eer*$e o+ -r#a'e -o"er, such as the termination of

employment under the Labor ode.

- Ca#e7 #$. Ro;uo, 1 SCRA 5- The license to carry firearm

is neither a property nor a property right. /either does it create a

vested right. 0 permit to carry a firearm outside of one"s residence

maybe revo'ed at anytime.

-


2/26

see's dismissal for the act or omission charged against the

employee, other$ise, the notice does not comply $ith the rules.

-


3/26

- ?SA #$. :urua&a&, Se-'e;ber , 20028 The position of

ongressman is not a reasonable classification in criminal la$

enforcement. The functions and duties of the office are not

substantial distinctions $hich lift him from the class of prisonersinterrupted in their freedom and restricted in liberty of movement.

La$ful arrest and confinement are germane to the purposes of the

la$ and apply to all those belonging to the same class.

- Far@a$ #$. Ee*u'#e Se*re'ary, ;3 1)0 9C7, ecember 3C,

5CC7, 1ubstantive distinctions e#ist bet$een elective officials and

appointive officials. The former occupy their office by virtue of the

mandate of the people $hile the latter hold their office by virtue of

their designation by an appointing authority.

- u&'o #$. CO


4/26

of the right to life and liberty under 0rt. &&&, 1ec. 3 of the 38A

constitution and the right to security of person 2as freedom from

threat and guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity4 under

0rt. &&&, 1ec. 5.

- :ROBABLE CA?SE- )ead: 1tone Gill vs. io'no= Lim vs.

+eli#= Webb vs. de Leon= )oan vs. onales= apa vs. Dago=

0niag vs. HDELE.

- e Ro$aro #$. :eo-e, a%e7 #$.

:eo-e, 5! SCRA 611)8 &t is the 1tate $hich has the burden of

proving, by clear and positive testimony, that the necessary

consent $as obtained and that it $as freely and voluntarily

given.

?. stop I fris' 2limited protective search4=Terry Sear* (Terry

#$, Oo, 136!D


5/26

A. hec' points 2limited to visual search= vs. Esca*o, ) /o.

3589?-9A, Banuary 5A, 5CCC4=

8. E#igent and emergency circumstances 2:: #$. e Gra*a, 577

1)0 3?4, $here a $arrantless search $as allo$ed $here

there $as a prevailing general chaos and disorder because of an

ongoing coup=

3C.onduct of F0rea Target Jone% and F1aturation rives% in the

e#ercise of military po$ers of the resident 2Gua&7o& #$.

>a,3A3 1)0 ?574=

33.)outine 0irport 1ecurity rocedure 2:: #$. Su7u, Hctober

57, 5CC7= vs. Bohnson, ) /o. 37AAA3, ecember 3A,

5CCC4.

ARRANTLESS ARREST

HOT :?RS?IT8 Re=u$'e$

3. The pursuit of the offender by the arresting officer must be

continuous from the time of the commission of the offense

to the time of the arrest.

5. There must be no supervening event $hich brea's the

continuity of the chase.

-La%a%Be'ra&, e' a. #$. Go&7ae$>ea$*o, 4u&e 1, 2008&n


6/26

a&% $e7ure$ *a&&o' be e'e&%e% 'o a*'$ *o;;''e% by -r#a'e

&%#%ua$ so as to bring it $ithin the ambit of alleged unla$ful

intrusion by the government. )ight applies only against the

government and agencies tas'ed $ith the enforcement of the la$.

- Hnly a 6udge may validly issue a $arrant- EKET: (y

administrative authorities 2&= (H4 only for the purpose of

carrying out a final finding of violation of la$.

- 4a*$o& #$.


7/26

- I& 'e ;a''er o+ -e''o& +or abea$ *or-u$ o+ Ca-'. G. Ae/a&o,

e' a. #$. Cabuay, G.R. No. 16032, Auu$' 25, 20058 The letters

alleged to have been read by the &10+ authorities $ere not

confidential letters bet$een the detainees and their la$yers. The

petitioner $ho received the letters from detainees Trillanes and

Daestrecampo $as merely acting as the detainees" personal courier

and not as their counsel $hen he received the letters for mailing.

&n the present case, since the letters $ere not confidential

communication bet$een the detainees and their la$yers, the

officials of the &10+ etention enter could read the letters. &f

the letters are mar'ed confidential communication bet$een the

detainees and their la$yers, the detention officials should not read

the letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in the

presence of the detainees. Ta' a a" $ re=ure% be+ore a&

ee*u'#e o++*er *ou% &'ru%e o& a *'7e&$ -r#a*y r'$ $ auara&'ee 'a' $ a#aabe o&y 'o 'e -ub* a' are bu' &o' 'o

-er$o&$ "o are %e'a&e% or ;-r$o&e%. The right to privacy of

those detained is sub6ect to 1ection ; of )0 ;7A, as $ell as to the

limitations inherent in la$ful detention or imprisonment. By 'e

#ery +a*' o+ 'er %e'e&'o&, -re8'ra %e'a&ee$ a&% *o*'e%

-r$o&er$ a#e a %;&$e% e-e*'a'o& o+ -r#a*y r'$.

- Roa$ #$. u7uarree, 4u&e 12, 2008To prevent liability from

attaching on account of his letter, he invo'es his rights to free

speech and privacy of communication. The invocation of these

rights $ill not, ho$ever, free him from liability. 0s already stated,

his letter contained defamatory statements that impaired public

confidence in the integrity of the 6udiciary. The ma'ing of

contemptuous statements directed against the ourt is not an

e#ercise of free speech= rather, it is an abuse of such right.

!n$arranted attac's on the dignity of the courts cannot be

disguised as free speech, for the e#ercise of said right cannot be

used to impair the independence and efficiency of courts or public

respect 'ere+orand confidence therein. +ree e#pression must notbe used as a vehicle to satisfy one"s irrational obsession to demean,

ridicule, degrade and even destroy this ourt and its magistrates.

- R' 'o :r#a*y Re Iy Arroyo$ r' 'o -r#a*y ( 'e r'

'o be e' ao&e) Rea% :: #$.


8/26

(asis &t is e#pressly recognied in 1ection 7234 of the (ill of

)ights:Hther facets of the right to privacy are protected in

various provisions of the (ill of )ights, vi: 1ections3= 5= ?=

A= and 3. Jones of privacy are li'e$ise recognied and

protected in our la$s. The ivil ode provides that [e]very

person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and

peace of mind of his neighbors and other persons and

punishes as actionable torts several acts by a person of

meddling and prying into the privacy of another. &t also holds

a public officer or employee or any private individual liable

for damages for any violation of the rights and liberties of

another person, and recognies the privacy of letters and other

private communications. The )evised enal ode ma'es a

crime the violation of secrets by an officer, the revelation of

trade and industrial secrets, and trespass to d$elling. &nvasionof privacy is an offense in special la$s li'e the 0nti-

Wiretapping La$, the 1ecrecy of (an' eposit 0ct and the

&ntellectual roperty ode.The )ules of ourt on privileged

communication li'e$ise recognie the privacy of certain

information. 2Hple vs. Torres, Buly 57, 388A.

- &n the matter of petition for habeas corpus of amilo 1abio,

Hctober 3, 5CC?8 I& e#aua'& a *a; +or #oa'o& o+ 'e

r' 'o -r#a*y, acourt must determine $hether a person has

e#hibited a reasonable e#pectation of privacy and, if so, $hether

that e#pectation has been violated by unreasonable government

intrusion.

- S4S #$. a&erou$ ru$ Boar% a&% :EA, GR No. 15!0,

No#e;ber , 200!8 1upreme ourt %e*are% a$ u&*o&$''u'o&a

'e -ro#$o&$ o+ RA 3165 re=ur& ;a&%a'ory %ru 'e$'& o+

*a&%%a'e$ +or -ub* o++*e a&% -er$o&$ a**u$e% o+ *r;e$.

Go$ever, the 1upreme ourt upheld the constitutionality of the

said )0 insofar as random drug testing for secondary and tertiaryschool students, as $ell as for officials and employees of public

and private offices is concerned. The need for drug testing to at

least minimie illegal drug use is substantial enough to override the

individual"s privacy interest under the premises.


9/26

- Rea% Ayer :ro%u*'o&$ #$. Ca-uo&8 The right of privacy or

the right to be let alone is &o' a& ab$ou'e r' "ere 'e -er$o&

$ a -ub* +ureand the &+or;a'o& $ou' 'o be e*'e% +ro;

; or 'o be -ub$e% abou' ; *o&$''u'e ;a''er$ o+ a -ub*

*ara*'er.

- uue'a #$. CA, 25 SCRA 6338 Te o&y e*e-'o& 'o 'e

-rob'o& & 'e *o&$''u'o& $ + 'ere $ a Ja"+u or%er

+ro; a *our' or "e& -ub* $a+e'y or or%er re=ure$

o'er"$e, a$ -re$*rbe% by a"K.

- Rea'e 'o e;a$ a&% o'er "ay$ o+ *o;;u&*a'o&.

- RA 200 (A&'8re'a--& A*')80 violation of the 0nti Wire

Tapping La$ 2).0. ;5CC4 $hich prohibits not only theunauthoried taping of private conversations, but also: 2a4 the

possession of such tapes $ith the 'no$ledge of their nature as

illegal $iretaps= 2b4 the replaying of the tapes to any person= and

2c4 to communicate the contents thereof either verbally or in

$riting, such as the provision of transcripts. The potential 6ail

term, if convicted, ranges from si# months to si# years.

- Ar'$. 230, 231, 232 a&% 233 o+ 'e Re#$e% :e&a Co%e

- RA No. 32 (Hu;a& Se*ur'y A*')8 The provisions of )0

;5CC to the contrary not$ithstanding, a police or la$

enforcement official and members of his team may, upon a

$ritten order of the ourt of 0ppeals, listen to intercept, and

record, $ith the use of any mode, form, 'ind or type of

electronic or other surveillance e


10/26

2.). /o. L-?97??, /ovember 8, 38A7,

359 1)0 997, 9?84

A. (y $ay of a summary. The applicantsfor a permit to hold an assembly shouldinform the licensing authority of the date, the

public place $here and the time whenit $ill

ta'e place. &f it $ere a private place, only

the consent of the o$ner or the one entitledto its legal possession is re


11/26

$riting, the office of the city or municipal

mayor shall cause the same to immediately

be posted at a conspicuous place in the cityor municipal building.

1E. ?. Action to be taken on the

application. M

2a4 &t shall be the duty of the mayor orany official acting in his behalf to issue or

grant a permit unless there is clear and

convincing evidence that the public

assembly $ill create a clear and present

danger to public order, public safety, publicconvenience, public morals or public

health.

2b4 The mayor or any official acting in

his behalf shall act on the application

$ithin t$o 254 $or'ing days from the date

the application $as filed, failing $hich, thepermit shall be deemed granted. 1hould for

any reason the mayor or any official acting

in his behalf refuse to accept the application

for a permit, said application shall beposted by the applicant on the premises of

the office of the mayor and shall be deemedto have been filed.

2c4 &f the mayor is of the vie$ that there

is imminent and grave danger of a

substantive evil $arranting the denial ormodification of the permit, he shall

immediately inform the applicant $ho must

be heard on the matter.

2d4 The action on the permit shall be in$riting and served on the applica[nt] $ithin

t$enty-four hours.

2e4 &f the mayor or any official acting in

his behalf denies the application ormodifies the terms thereof in his permit, the

applicant may contest the decision in an

appropriate court of la$.

2f4 &n case suit is brought before theDetropolitan Trial ourt, the Dunicipal

Trial ourt, the Dunicipal ircuit Trial

ourt, the )egional Trial ourt, or the&ntermediate 0ppellate ourt, its decisions

may be appealed to the appropriate court

$ithin forty-eight 2;A4 hours after receipt ofthe same. /o appeal bond and record on


12/26

appeal shall be re. anganiban has repeatedly vo$ed to

uphold the liberty of our people and to nurture their prosperity. Ge

said that Fin cases involving liberty, the scales of 6ustice should

$eigh heavily against the government and in favor of the poor, the

oppressed, the marginalied, the dispossessed and the $ea'.

&ndeed, la$s and actions that restrict fundamental rights come to

the courts $ith a heavy presumption against their validity. These

la$s and actions are sub6ected to heightened scrutiny.%

- +or this reason, the so-called calibrated preemptive response policy

has no place in our legal firmament and must be struc' do$n as a

dar'ness that shrouds freedom. &t merely confuses our people and

is used by some police agents to 6ustify abuses. Hn the other hand,

B.:. No. !!0 *a&&o' be *o&%e;&e% a$ u&*o&$''u'o&aD ' %oe$

&o' *ur'a or u&%uy re$'r*' +ree%o;$D ' ;erey reua'e$ 'e

u$e o+ -ub* -a*e$ a$ 'o 'e ';e, -a*e a&% ;a&&er o+

a$$e;be$. Far +ro; be& &$%ou$, J;a;u; 'oera&*eK $

+or 'e be&e+' o+ ray$'$, &o' 'e o#er&;e&'. Te %eea'o&

'o 'e ;ayor$ o+ 'e -o"er 'o $$ue ray J-er;'$K $ #a%

be*au$e ' $ $ub/e*' 'o 'e *o&$''u'o&ay8$ou&% J*ear a&%

-re$e&' %a&erK $'a&%ar%.

- IB: #. A'e&7a , GR No. 1521, February 2, 20108 0tiena

gravely abused his discretion $hen he did not immediately inform


13/26

the &( $hich should have been heard first on the matter of his

perceived imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil that

may $arrant the changing of the venue under ( AAC, the Public

Assembly Act.&t found that 0tiena failed to indicate ho$ he had

arrived at modifying the terms of the permit against the standard of

a clear and present danger test $hich is an indispensable condition

to such modification. F/othing in the issued permit adverts to an

imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil, $hich Nblan'"

denial or modification $ould, $hen granted imprimatur as the

appellate court $ould have it, render illusory any 6udicial scrutiny

thereto,%

- So*a ea'er S'a'o&$ #$. COa% Go#er&;e&' I&'er+ere&*e

3. lear I resent anger

5. (alancing of &nterests

7. angerous Tendency )ule

- Co&'e&' ba$e% a&% *o&'e&' &eu'ra reua'o&$8)egulations of speech may either be content-based 2the

sub6ect of the speech or utterance is sought to be regulated4

and content-neutral 2it regulates only the conduct associated

$ith speech, such as the time, place and manner4. To pass

constitutional muster, any content-based regulation must

$o" 'a' 'e o#er&;e&' a$ a *o;-e& or o#er%&

&'ere$' & 'e $ub/e*' reua'o&. 0 content neutral

restriction, on the other hand, need only sho$ an important

government interest, as long as it leaves open alternative

channels of communication.

- Ca#e7 #$. Se*re'ary Go&7ae$, GR No. 16!!, February

15, 200!- The acts of the 1ecretary of Bustice and the /T in

$arning television stations against playing the Farci tapes%

under pain of revocation of their licenses, $ere content-based


14/26

restrictions and should be sub6ected to the Fclear and present

and danger test%.

- Ne"$ou&%$ Broa%*a$'& Ne'"or, I&*., e' a. #$. y, e'

a., GR No. 1020GR No. 1311, A-r 2, 2003- The

immediate implication of the application of the Fstrict

scrutiny% test is that the burden falls upon respondents as

agents of the government to prove that their actions do not

infringe upon petitioners" constitutional rights. 0s content

regulation cannot be done in the absence of compelling

reason to infringe the right to free e#pression.

- ABS8CBN #$. CO


15/26

even if it be true, if no good intention and 6ustifiable motive

for ma'ing it is sho$n, e#cept in the follo$ing:

3. private communication made by any

person to another in the performance of any

legal, moral or social duty=

5. a fair and true report, made in good faith,

$ithout remar's, of any 6udicial, legislative

or other official proceeding $hich are not

confidential in nature including any

statement made therein or act performed by

public officer.

- 0 privileged communication may either be absolutelyprivileged 2those $hich are not actionable or even if author

acted in bad faith, e.g. speech by member of ongress therein

or any committee thereof4 or


16/26

religious organiation. +or the purpose of defraying cost of

registration.

- I$a;* a"a Cou&* o+ 'e :--&e$ #$. Ee*u'#e

Se*re'ary, 05 SCRA 3- lassifying a food product as

halal is a religious function because the standards are dra$n

from the Our"an and &slamic beliefs. (y giving the Hffice of

the Duslim 0ffairs e#clusive po$er to classify food products

as halal, E. H. /o. ;? encroached on the religious freedom of

Duslim organiation to interpret $hat food products are fit

for Duslim consumption. The 1tate has in effect forced

Duslim to accept its o$n interpretation of the Our"an and

1unnah on halal food.

- Taru* #$. B$o- %ea Cru7, e' a., GR No. 1!01, as


17/26

information on on-going negotiations before a final contract is

consummated. The information, ho$ever, must constitute

definite propositions by the government and should not cover

recognied e#ceptions li'ed privileged information, military

and diplomatic secrets and similar matters affecting national

security and public order.

0 Lea7- #$. CSCD >a;o&'e #$. Be;o&'eD BARA #$.

1 CO


18/26

ta#ation, unli'e )0 A8; $hich provides, as the relevant standard

for initial compensation, the mar'et value of the property as stated

in the ta# declaration or the current relevant onal value of the (&),

$hichever is higher, and the value of the improvements and@or

structures using the replacement cost method.

- ATO #$. To&oy, 551 SCRA 208 the right of the previous o$ners

$ho $ere able to prove the commitment of the government to

allo$ them to repurchase their land.

- A$a$ E;er& rao& Cor-. #$. OTC, 552 SCRA 538 The

1tate, through e#propriation proceedings may ta'e private property

even if, admittedly, it $ill transfer this property again to another

private party as long as there is public purpose to the ta'ing.

- To&$o& #$. NHA, 55! SCRA 56- Where the initial ta'ing of a

property sub6ect to e#propriation $as by virtue of a la$ $hich $as

subse


19/26

private persons against their $ill, to facilitate the payment of 6ust

compensation.

- Local government units possessed the delegated po$er of eminent

domain, $ub/e*' 'o /u%*a re#e" 2ity of Danila vs. hinese

ommunity4.

- 0ny property o$ned by a municipal corporation in its -r#a'e

*a-a*'y (-a'r;o&a), & a&y e-ro-ra'o& -ro*ee%&, ;u$'

be -a% /u$' *o;-e&$a'o&. &f the property o$ned is public or

other$ise held in trust then no compensation need be paid 2ity of

(aguio vs. /0W0104.

- To set 6ust compensation is a 6udicial prerogative 2EJ0 vs.

ulay4.

- The ourt said that the total prohibition against the collection by

respondents of par'ing fees from persons $ho use the mall par'ing

facilities has no basis in the National Building ode or its

implementing rules and regulations. I' a%%e% 'a' 'e S'a'e a$o

*a&&o' ;-o$e 'e $a;e -rob'o& by e&eray o&

-o*e -o"er, $&*e $a% -rob'o& a;ou&'$ 'o a 'a& o+

re$-o&%e&'$ -ro-er'y "'ou' -ay;e&' o+ /u$' *o;-e&$a'o&.

2GR No. 1056, O++*e o+ 'e So*'or Ge&era #. Ayaa La&%I&*or-ora'e%, Se-'e;ber 1!, 20034

- C;$r. o+ IR #$. Ce&'ra Lu7o& ru Cor-., GR No. 1!512,

4u&e 26, 2006, C;$r. o+ IR #$. B*oa&%a ru Cor-., GR No.

1!0!, 4uy 21, 2006 The ta# credit given to commercial

establishments for the discount en6oyed by senior citiens pursuant

to )0 ;75 is a form of 6ust compensation for private property

ta'en by the 1tate for public use, since the privilege en6oyed bysenior citiens does not come directly from the 1tate, but from

private establishments concerned.

- ublic use does not mean use by the public. 0s long as the purpose

of the ta'ing is public, then po$er of eminent domain comes into

play. &t is inconse


20/26

program sites, slum improvement and resettlement sites $hich have

not yet been ac


21/26

respondent"s capacity to represent himself, and no duty rests on

such body to furnish the person being investigated $ith counsel.

Se*'o& 1- (ail

- Where the accused $as originally charged $ith a capital offense

but later convicted of non-capital and $hich he appeals, ba

*a&&o' be ra&'e% a$ a ;a''er r' (Obo$a #$. CA, 266 SCRA

2!1).

- The constitutional right to ba $ a#aabe o&y & *r;&a

-ro*ee%&$. The right is &o' a#aabe & e'ra%'o&

-ro*ee%&$that are not criminal in nature. &n the absence of any

provision in the constitution, the la$ or the treaty, adopting the

practice of not granting bail, as a general rule, $ould be a stepto$ards deterring fugitives from coming to the hilippines to hide

from or evade their prosecutors.

- /ot$ithstanding the rule that bail is not a matter of right in

e#tradition cases, bail may be applied for and granted as an

e#ception, only upon a clear and convincing sho$ing: 34 that, once

granted bail, the applicant $ill not be a flight ris' or a danger to

the community= and 54 that there e#ist special, humanitarian and

compelling reasons 2ov"t. of !10 vs. urganan, 1eptember 5;,

5CC54.

- Go#er&;e&' o+ Ho&o& S-e*a A%;&$'ra'or Reo& #$.

4u%e Oaa, 4r., A-r 13, 200M otential e#traditee may be

granted bail on the basis of Fclear and convincing evidence% that

the person is not a flight ris' and $ill abide $ith all the orders and

processes of the e#tradition court.

Se*'o& 1- )ights of accused

3. resumption of innocence- as against presumption of la$.

5. The right to be heard

- The vagueness doctrine merely re


22/26

- 0 person sub6ect of an e'ra%'o& re=ue$' +ro; a&o'er

$o#ere& S'a'e $ bere+' o+ 'e r' 'o &o'*e a&% ear&

%ur& 'e e#aua'o& $'ae o+ 'e e'ra%'o& -ro*e$$ . 0n

e#tradition proceeding is sui generis. &t is not criminal

proceeding $hich $ill call into operations all the rights of an

accused as guaranteed by the (ill of )ights. Te e'ra%'ee$

r' 'o &o'*e a&% ear& $ -re$e&' o&y "e& 'e

-e''o& +or e'ra%'o& $ +e% & *our'- it is only then $hen

he has the opportunity to meet the evidence against him

21ecretary of Bustice vs. Lantion, 7;7 1)0 7, 5CCC4.

7. )ight to public trial

- 0 public trial is not synonymous $ith publicied trial= it onlyimplies that the court doors must be open to those $ho $ish

to come, sit in the available seats, conduct themselves $ith

decorum and observe trial 21ec of Bustice vs. Estrada, Bune

58, 5CC34.

;. )ight to face to face confrontation

- The absence of cross-e#amination by the defense due to the

supervening death of plaintiff@$itness does not necessarily

render the deceased"s testimony inadmissible. Where no fault

can be attributed to plaintiff@$itness, it $ould be a harsh

measure to stri'e out all that has been obtained in the direct

e#amination 2 vs. /arca, 59 1)0 ?8?4.

Se*'o& 16- 1peedy disposition

- Where the case for violation of the 0nti-raft La$ $as

pending for preliminary investigation $ith the Hffice of the

Tanodbayan for 7 years and it is indicated that the case is ofsimple nature and $as prosecuted for political reasons, it is

held that there $as violation of the accused"s right to speedy

disposition of case. )ight to speedy disposition e#tends to

preliminary investigations. 2Tatad vs. 1andiganbayan, 398

1)0 C4.

Se*'o& 1- 0gainst 1elf-incrimination

- The right against self-incrimination is a#aabe &

a%;&$'ra'#e ear&$$hen the nature of the penalty is

penal in nature 2li'e forfeiture of property or dismissal from

employment4 and the hearing parta'es the nature of criminal

proceeding 2abal vs. Qapunan, ? 1)0 3C984.


23/26

- 0pplicable to a proceeding that could possibly result in the

o$$ o+ 'e -r#ee 'o -ra*'*e ;e%*a -ro+e$$o&2ascual

vs. (oard of Dedical E#aminers, 4.

- S'a&%ar% Car'ere% Ba& #$. Se&a'e Co;;''ee o&

Ba&$, 51 SCRA 568 The right against self incrimination

is e#tended in an administrative investigations that parta'e of

the nature of or are analogous to criminal proceedings. The

privilege has consistently been held to e#tend to all

proceedings sanctioned by la$= and all cases in $hich

punishment is sought to be visited upon a $itness, $hether a

party of not.

- The right against self-incrimination is %e+ea'e% by 'e -ub*

&a'ure o+ %o*u;e&'$ sought to be accessed 20lmonte vs.>as


24/26

appellant insisted that hair samples $ere forcibly ta'en from

him and submitted to the /ational (ureau of &nvestigation for

forensic e#amination, the hair samples may be admitted in

evidence against him, for $hat is proscribed is the use of

testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in

nature ac


25/26

- The impeachment proceedings against petitioner Estrada $as

not concluded as a series of events prompted the 1enate to

declare the impeachment functus officio- thus, he $as neither

ac


26/26

Notes on the Bill of Rights j5

Documents

Transcript of Notes on the Bill of Rights j5