SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS

WHAT ACTS CANNOT BE

CRIMINALIZED
Mere beliefs and aspirations
Section 18. 1. No person shall be
detained solely by reason of his political
beliefs and aspirations… (Art III)
WHAT ACTS CANNOT BE
CRIMINALIZED

Debts and Civil Obligations

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for
debt or non-payment of a poll tax. (Art III)
Rule: The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the
act of making and issuing a worthless check or a check that is
dishonored upon its presentation for payment. It is not the
non-payment of an obligation which the law punishes. The
law is not intended or designed to coerce a debtor to pay his
debt. The thrust of the law is to prohibit, under pain of penal
sanctions, the making of worthless checks and putting them
in circulation. Because of its deleterious effects on the public
interest, the practice is proscribed by the law. The law
punishes the act not as an offense against property, but an
offense against public order. G.R. No. L-63419 December 18,
1986 FLORENTINA A. LOZANO, vs. MARTINEZ
Rule In Philippine jurisdiction, Section 20, Article 3
of the 1987 Philippine Constitution expressly
provides that no person shall be imprisoned for
debt. Debt, as used in the Constitution, refers to
civil debt or one not arising from a criminal
offense. It means any liability to pay arising out of
a contract, express or implied.. G.R. No. 154037
April 30, 2003 IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION
FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENJAMIN VERGARA
vs. HON. FRANCISCO C. GEDORIO
Credit Cards

Section 9. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts shall constitute access device
fraud and are hereby declared to be unlawful xxx
(j) obtaining money or anything of value through the use of an access device,
with intent to defraud or with intent to gain and fleeing thereafter;
Section 14. Presumption and prima facie evidence of intent to defraud.xxx A
cardholder who abandons or surreptitiously leaves the place of employment,
business or residence stated in his application or credit card, without informing
the credit card company of the place where he could actually be found, if at the
time of such abandonment or surreptitious leaving, the outstanding and
unpaid balance is past due for at least ninety (90) days and is more than Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00), shall be prima facie presumed to have used his
credit card with intent to defraud. Republic Act No. 8484 February 11, 1998 -
Access Devices Regulation Act of 1998
WHAT ACTS CANNOT BE
CRIMINALIZED

ACTS WHICH WHEN DONE WERE INNOCENT

(ex post facto laws)

Section 22. No ex post facto law …. shall be enacted.

(Art III)
An ex post facto law, according to “Kay Villegas Kami (Oct. 22, 1970, 35 SCRA
429”, is one which:
(1) makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punishes such an act;
(2) aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed;
(3) changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed;
(4) alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes conviction upon less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of the
offense;
(5) assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in effect imposes penalty
or deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful, and
(6) deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which he
has become entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal,
or a proclamation of amnesty.
Rule: The Information in this case indicates that the crime of murder was
committed by the appellant on August 20, 1989 which was before the effectivity
of Republic Act No. 7659 on December 31, 1993 amending Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code on murder, raising the penalty to reclusion perpetua to
death. Prior to its amendment the penalty for the crime of murder under Article
248 of the Revised Penal Code was reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death.
In light of the greater penalty that attaches under the amendment, the previous
penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to death will have to be
imposed in order not to run afoul of the constitutional prohibition against ex
post facto laws. Under Section 22 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no ex
post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. An ex post facto law, among
others, is one that changes the penalty and inflicts a greater punishment than
what the law annexed to the crime when committed - the situation that would
obtain if the amendment under Republic Act No. 7659 would be applied. G.R.
No. 172871 September 16, 2008 People vs. Casta
Rule:. An ex post facto law is one which, among others,
aggravates a crime or makes it greater than it was when
committed or changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when committed. Penal laws cannot be given retroactive
effect, except when they are favorable to the accused. A
law can never be considered ex post facto as long as it
operates prospectively since its strictures would cover only
offenses committed after and not before its enactment
G.R. No. 176169 November 14, 2008 ROSARIO NASI-
VILLAR, vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
Rule: Although courts must not remain indifferent to public
sentiments, in this case the general condemnation of a hazing-
related death, they are still bound to observe a fundamental
principle in our criminal justice system – "[N]o act constitutes a
crime… unless it is made so by law." Nullum crimen, nulla poena
sine lege. Even if an act is viewed by a large section of the
populace as immoral or injurious, it cannot be considered a
crime, absent any law prohibiting its commission. As interpreters
of the law, judges are called upon to set aside emotion, to resist
being swayed by strong public sentiments, and to rule strictly
based on the elements of the offense and the facts allowed in
evidence. G.R. No. 151258 February 1, 2012 ARTEMIO VILLAREAL
vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES
WHAT ACTS CANNOT BE
CRIMINALIZED

BILL OF ATTAINDER

Section 22. No … bill of attainder shall be

enacted. (Art III)
A bill of attainder as a legislative act which inflicts punishment on
individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial
trial.

Elements:
- a specification of certain individuals or a group of individuals,
- the imposition of a punishment, penal or otherwise, and
- the lack of judicial trial. (This last element, the total lack of court
intervention in the finding of guilt and the determination of the
actual penalty to be imposed, is the most essential )
Its essence is the substitution of a legislative for a judicial
determination of guilt.

Rule: The constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to

implement the principle of separation of powers by confining
legislatures to rule-making and thereby forestalling legislative
usurpation of the judicial function. History in perspective, bills of
attainder were employed to suppress unpopular causes and
political minorities, and it is against this evil that the constitutional
prohibition is directed. The singling out of a definite class, the
imposition of a burden on it, and a legislative intent, suffice to
stigmatize a statute as a bill of attainder. G.R. Nos. L-32613-14
December 27, 1972 PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, vs. HON.
SIMEON FERRER
WHAT PUNISHMENTS CANNOT
BE IMPOSED

Involuntary servitude

Section 18. 2 No involuntary servitude in any

form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted. (Art III)
Rule: It must be stressed that while one purpose of the return-to-work order is to
protect the workers who might otherwise be locked out by the employer for
threatening or waging the strike, the more important reason is to prevent
impairment of the national interest in case the operations of the company are
disrupted by a refusal of the strikers to return to work as directed.
It is also important to emphasize that the return-to-work order not so much confers
a right as it imposes a duty; and while as a right it may be waived, it must be
discharged as a duty even against the worker's will. Returning to work in this
situation is not a matter of option or voluntariness but of obligation. The worker
must return to his job together with his co-workers so the operations of the
company can be resumed and it can continue serving the public and promoting its
interest. That is the real reason such return can be compelled. So imperative is the
order in fact that it is not even considered violative of the right against involuntary
servitude. The worker can of course give up his work, thus severing his ties with the
company, if he does not want to obey the order; but the order must be obeyed if he
wants to retain his work even if his inclination is to strike. G.R. No. 75271-73 June
27, 1988 SARMIENTO vs. TUICO
WHAT PUNISHMENTS CANNOT
BE IMPOSED
Excessive Fines
Section 19. 1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, ….(Art III)
Art. 5. Duty of the court in connection with acts which should be repressed but
which are not covered by the law, and in cases of excessive penalties. —
Whenever a court has knowledge of any act which it may deem proper to repress
and which is not punishable by law, it shall render the proper decision, and shall
report to the Chief Executive, through the Department of Justice, the reasons
which induce the court to believe that said act should be made the subject of
legislation.
In the same way, the court shall submit to the Chief Executive, through the
Department of Justice, such statement as may be deemed proper, without
suspending the execution of the sentence, when a strict enforcement of the
provisions of this Code would result in the imposition of a clearly excessive
penalty, taking into consideration the degree of malice and the injury caused by
the offense. (RPC)
WHAT PUNISHMENTS CANNOT
BE IMPOSED
Cruel Degrading and Inhuman Punishments
Section 19. 1. Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall
death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for
it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua. (Art III)
Section 12. 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. (Art III)
Rule: The Constitution directs that 'Excessive fines shall not
be imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.' The
prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments is generally
aimed at the form or character of the punishment rather
than its severity in respect of duration or amount, and apply
to punishments which never existed …, or which public
sentiment has regarded as cruel or obsolete (15 Am. Jur., p.
172), for instance there (sic) inflicted at the whipping post, or
in the pillory, burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel,
disemboweling, and the like (15 Am. Jur. Supra, Note 35
L.R.A. p. 561). Fine and imprisonment would not thus be
within the prohibition. People vs. De la Cruz, 92 Phil., 906.
Is death penalty cruel and degrading?

Rule: Punishments are cruel when they involve torture or a lingering

death, but the punishment of death is not cruel, within the meaning of
that word as used in the constitution. It implies there something
inhuman and barbarous, something more than the mere
extinguishment of life.
. . . there are quite a number of people who honestly believe that the
supreme penalty is either morally wrong or unwise or ineffective.
However, as long as that penalty remains in the statute books, and as
long as our criminal law provides for its imposition in certain cases, it is
the duty of judicial officers to respect and apply the law regardless of
their private opinions. G.R. No. 117472 February 7, 1997 People of the
Philippines vs. Leo P. Echegaray
WHAT PUNISHMENTS CANNOT BE IMPOSED

Indefinite Imprisonment

Rule: It is not for the courts to fix the term of imprisonment where no
points of reference have been provided by the legislature. What valid
delegation presupposes and sanctions is an exercise of discretion to fix
the length of service of a term of imprisonment which must be
encompassed within specific or designated limits provided by law, the
absence of which designated limits well constitute such exercise as an
undue delegation, if not-an outright intrusion into or assumption, of
legislative power. G.R. No. L-45127 May 5, 1989 PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, represented by the Provincial Fiscal of Leyte, vs. HON.
JUDGE AUXENCIO C. DACUYCUY
• But note Rule on Special Civil Actions for contempt of
Court;

Section 8 Imprisonment until order obeyed. — When the

contempt consists in the refusal or omission to do an act
which is yet in the power of the respondent to perform, he
may be imprisoned by order of the court concerned until
he performs it. (Rule 71)
• Rule on Special Civil Actions for contempt of Court;

• If the term of imprisonment in this case is indefinite

and might last through the natural life of the
petitioner, yet by the terms of the sentence the way is
left open for him to avoid serving any part of it by
complying with the orders of the court, and in to
manner put an end to his incarceration
• As quaintly expressed, the imprisoned man "carries
the keys to his prison in his own pocket
PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE
JEOPARDY

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.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY – Types

• For the same act:

“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.”
Case: The police discovered that electric wiring, devices and contraptions had been installed,
without the necessary authority from the city government, and "architecturally concealed
inside the walls of the building" owned by the private respondent. These electric devices and
contraptions were, in the allegation of the petitioner "designed purposely to lower or decrease
the readings of electric current consumption in the electric meter of the said electric [ice and
cold storage] plant.
The Assistant City Fiscal filed before the City Court of Batangas City an information against
Opulencia for violation of Ordinance No. 1, (Illegal electrical connection). This was dismissed
by the Court on the ground of prescription. Subsequently, the Acting City Fiscal filed before
the Court of First Instance of Batangas, another information against Opulencia, this time for
theft of electric power under Article 308 in relation to Article 309, paragraph (1), of the
Revised Penal Code.
Rule: The second sentence applies, even if the offenses charged are not the same, owing to
the fact that one constitutes a violation of an ordinance and the other a violation of a statute.
If the two charges are based on one and the same act conviction or acquittal under either the
law or the ordinance shall bar a prosecution under the other. The law here seeks to prevent
harrassment of an accused person by multiple prosecutions for offenses which though
different from one another are nonetheless each constituted by a common set or overlapping
sets of technical elements. G.R. No. L-45129 March 6, 1987 PEOPLE vs RELOVA
DOUBLE JEOPARDY – Types

• For the same offense

“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense.”
Rule:: “The rule against double jeopardy protects the accused
not against the peril of second punishment but against being
tried for the same offense. Without the safeguard this rule
establishes in favor of the accused, his fortune, safety and
peace of mind would be entirely at the mercy of the
complaining witness who might repeat his accusation as often
as it is dismissed by the court and whenever he might see fit,
subject to no other limitation or restriction than his will and
pleasure. The accused would never be free from the cruel and
constant menace of a never ending charge, which the malice
of a complaining witness might hold indefinitely suspended
over his head.” MALLARI vs. PEOPLE 168 SCRA 422
• To raise the defense of double jeopardy (same offense), three (3) requisites must be
present:
1. The first JEOPARDY MUST HAVE BEEN ATTACHED prior to the second; It attaches when
the following requisites are present:
(a) upon a valid indictment, A complaint or information valid within the meaning of
the double jeopardy rule
• if it charges an offense; (People vs. Austria, 94 Phil. 897)
• if it is filed by a person or officer legally authorized to do so. (People vs. Kho,
97 Phil. 825)
(b) before a competent court,
(c) after arraignment,
(d) when a valid plea has been entered, and
(e) when the defendant was convicted or acquitted, or the case was dismissed or
otherwise terminated without the express consent of the accused
• To raise the defense of double jeopardy (same offense), three (3)
requisites must be present:

2.) The first jeopardy must be validly terminated; and

3.) The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that of the
first.
• Instances may the accused invoke the protection of
double jeopardy

1.) when the accused had been previously convicted;

2.) when the accused had been previously acquitted; and
3.) when the case against the accused had been dismissed
or otherwise terminated without his express consent.
Exceptions to the Double Jeopardy Rule
1. The graver offense developed due to supervening facts
arising from the same act or omission constituting the
former charge; (Section 7 [a])
2. The facts constituting the graver charge became known
or were discovered only after a plea was entered in the
former complaint or information; (Section 7 [b]) or
3. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without
the consent of the prosecutor and of the offended party
except as provided in section 1(f) of Rule 116. (Section 7[c])
Rule: All these requisites do not exist in this case. The two (2)
informations with which the accused was charged, do not make out
only one offense, contrary to private respondent's allegations. In other
words, the offense defined in section 7 of Rep. Act No. 3060 punishing
the exhibition of motion pictures not duly passed by the Board of
Censors for Motion Pictures does NOT INCLUDE or is not included in the
offense defined in Article 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code punishing
the exhibition of indecent and immoral motion pictures.
Considering these differences in elements and nature, there is no
Identity of the offenses here involved for which legal jeopardy in one
may be invoked in the other. Evidence required to prove one offense is
not the same evidence required to prove the other. The defense of
double jeopardy cannot prosper. G.R. No. L-36528 September 24, 1987
THE PEOPLE vs. THE CITY COURT OF MANILA
Rule: In this case, the MeTC took cognizance of the Information
for reckless imprudence resulting in parricide while the criminal
case for parricide was still pending before the RTC. In Dioquino v.
Cruz, Jr., we held that once jurisdiction is acquired by the court in
which the Information is filed, it is there retained. Therefore, as
the offense of reckless imprudence resulting in parricide was
included in the charge for intentional parricide pending before
the RTC, the MeTC clearly had no jurisdiction over the criminal
case filed before it, the RTC having retained jurisdiction over the
offense to the exclusion of all other courts. The requisite that the
judgment be rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction is
therefore absent. G.R. No. 182651 August 25, 2010 HEIRS OF
JANE HONRALES vs. JONATHAN HONRALES
Rule: We have held that none of these
requisites applies where the Ombudsman
only conducted a preliminary investigation of
the same criminal offense against the
respondent public officer. The dismissal of a
case during preliminary investigation does
not constitute double jeopardy, preliminary
investigation not being part of the trial.
Flores v. Montemayor, G.R. No. 170146,
June 8, 2011, 651 SCRA 396, 404
THE PRIVILEGE OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS

Section 15. 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. (Art III)
Functions of the Writ

a. The writ of habeas corpus was devised and exists as a

speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from
unlawful restraint, and as the best and only sufficient
defense of personal freedom. Any further rights of the
parties are left untouched by decision on the writ, whose
principal purpose is to set the individual at liberty. G.R. No.
L-14639 March 25, 1919 ZACARIAS VILLAVICENCIO, ET AL.
vs. JUSTO LUKBAN, ET AL
Rule: The writ of habeas corpus extends to all cases of illegal
confinement or detention by which any person is deprived of his
liberty or by which the rightful custody of a person is being
withheld from the one entitled thereto. It is issued when one is
either deprived of liberty or is wrongfully being prevented from
exercising legal custody over another person. Thus, it contemplates
two instances: (1) deprivation of a person’s liberty either through
illegal confinement or through detention and (2) withholding of
the custody of any person from someone entitled to such custody.
G.R. No. 169482 January 29, 2008 IN THE MATTER OF THE
PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS OF EUFEMIA E. RODRIGUEZ, filed
by EDGARDO E. VELUZ, vs. LUISA R. VILLANUEVA and TERESITA R.
PABELLO
Functions of the Writ

b. The function of habeas corpus is to determine the legality

of one’s detention, meaning, if there is sufficient cause for
deprivation or confinement and if there is none to discharge
him at once. For habeas corpus to issue, the restraint of
liberty must be in the nature of illegal and involuntary
deprivation of freedom which must be actual and effective,
not nominal or moral. G.R. No. 182497 June 29, 2010
NURHIDA JUHURI AMPATUAN vs. JUDGE VIRGILIO V.
MACARAIG
Functions of the Writ
c. As a Post Conviction Remedy.
Rule: In view of the foregoing considerations we are of the opinion and
hold: (1) that Article 22 of the Revised Penal Code which makes penal
provisions retroactive so far as they favor the accused, provided he is not
a habitual criminal, does not authorize a court whose sentence has
become final and executory to make a substantial amendment, and any
amendment made in such sentence, though it be to give effect to a penal
provision favorable to the accused, would be null and void for lack of
jurisdiction; and (2) that the only means of giving retroactive effect to a
penal provision favorable to the accused when the trial judge has lost
jurisdiction over the case, is the writ of habeas corpus. ALFREDO O.
LAMEN and REYNALDO A. CORTES for the issuance of the writ of
habeas corpus for WILLY BAGAWE vs. THE HON. DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF
CORRECTIONS,
AFFIRMATIVE RIGHTS
1. Free access to Courts

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-

judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not
be denied to any person by reason of poverty.
AFFIRMATIVE RIGHTS
2. Protection and Enforcement of Constitutional Rights

The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this Section as well as compensation to the
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families. (Art 3, Sec 12, 4.- Rights of persons
under custodial investigation)
Section 5. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers:
Xxx
5. Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of
constitutional rights, (Art VIII)

Section 18. The Commission on Human Rights shall have the

following powers and functions:
3. Provide appropriate legal measures for the protection of human
rights of all persons within the Philippines, as well as Filipinos
residing abroad, and provide for preventive measures and legal aid
services to the under-privileged whose human rights have been
violated or need protection; (Art XIII
AFFIRMATIVE RIGHTS
3. Compensation

The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for
violations of this Section as well as compensation to the
rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and
their families. (Art 3, Sec 12, 4.)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10368

AN ACT PROVIDING FOR REPARATION AND

RECOGNITION OF VICTIMS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS DURING THE MARCOS REGIME,
DOCUMENTATION OF SAID VIOLATIONS,
APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES