INNOVATIVE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

Malitbog, Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro

CRIMINOLOGY DEPARTMENT

HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION

ATTY. PRINCESS JANINE R. SY

I. OBJECTIVES
1. To discuss the bill of rights under the 1987 Constitution.
2. To explain and expound Section 1 and 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.

II. TIME FRAME

Week 3: January 29 – February 2, 2024

III. DISCUSSION

A. Bill of Rights under the 1987 Constitution

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to
be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Section 3.
(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed
by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of
grievances.

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without
discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the
exercise of civil or political rights.

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be
provided by law.

Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be
recognized. 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.

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to
form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.

Atty. Princess Janine R. Sy Page 1 of 9

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

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.

Section 12.
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to
be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the
presence of counsel.
(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.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as
compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their
families.

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be
released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required.

Section 14.
(1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial, and public
trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that
he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.

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.

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.

Section 18.
(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

Section 19.
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall the 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.

Atty. Princess Janine R. Sy Page 2 of 9

 (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any
prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under
subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

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.

Section 22. No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

Bill of Rights
Set of prescriptions setting forth the fundamental civil and political rights of the
individual, and imposing limitations on the powers of government as a means of securing the
enjoyment of those rights.

The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the State. Its
concern is not the relation between private individuals. What it does is to declare some forbidden
zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561,
January 18, 1991)
The Bill of Rights cannot be invoked against private individuals. In the absence of
governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. The
equal protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.
(Yrasegui v. PAL, G.R. No. 168081, October 17, 2008

SECTION 1.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.

Meaning of Life
The right to life is not merely a right to the preservation of life but also to the security of
the limbs and organs of the human body against any unlawful harm. This constitutional
guarantee includes the right of an individual to pursue a lawful calling or occupation; to express,
write or even paint his ideas for as long as he does not unlawfully transgress the rights of others;
to exercise his freedom of choice, whether this is in the area of politics, religion, marriage,
philosophy and employment, or even in the planning of his family; and in general, to do and
perform any lawful act or activity which, in his judgment, will make his life worth living.
(Suarez, 2016)

Meaning of Liberty
It is not only the right of a citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his
person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free
in the engagement of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways. (Allegeyer vs.
Louisianna, 165 U.S. 578, January 6, 1897)

Meaning of Property
It refers to things which are susceptible of appropriation and which are already possessed
and found in the possession of man. (Suarez, 2016)

Atty. Princess Janine R. Sy Page 3 of 9

Due process means:
1. There shall be a law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislature;
2. It shall be reasonable in its operation;
3. It shall be enforced according to the regular methods of procedure prescribed; and
4. It shall be applicable alike to all citizens of the State or to all of a class. (People v.
Cayat, G.R. No. L-45987, May 5, 1939)

Kinds of due process

1. Procedural Due Process; and

2. Substantive Due Process

Procedural due process

Is the aspect of due process which serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-
judicial agencies of the government. It refers to the method and manner by which a law is
enforced

The fundamental elements of procedural due process

1. Notice (to be meaningful, must be as to time and place);
2. Opportunity to be heard; and
3. Court/tribunal must have jurisdiction.

Substantive due process

It requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to
his life, liberty, or property. If a law is invoked to take away one’s life, liberty or property, the
more specific concern of substantive due process is not to find out whether said law is being
enforced in accordance with procedural formalities but whether the said law is a proper exercise
of legislative power.

EQUAL PROTECTION
All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights conferred
and responsibilities imposed. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. It does not forbid
discrimination as to persons and things that are different. What it forbids are distinctions based
on impermissible criteria unrelated to a proper legislative purpose, or class or discriminatory
legislation, which discriminates against some and favors others when both are similarly situated.

REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION

The classification must (S-G-Ex-A)

1. Rest on substantial distinctions;
2. Be germane to the purpose of the law;
3. Not be limited to existing conditions only; and
4. Apply equally to all members of the same class. (People v. Cayat, GR. No. L-45987,
May 5, 1939)

People vs. Cayat Case Digest

DOCTRINE: Protection of laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classification.
The classification to be reasonable, (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane

Atty. Princess Janine R. Sy Page 4 of 9

 to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; (4) must apply
equally to all members of the same class.

FACTS:

Respondent Cayat, native of Baguio, Benguet and a member of the non-Christian tribe was found
guilty of violating sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 1639 for possessing an intoxicating liquor (one
bottle of gin) which is not a native wine.

Section 2 of the said act prohibits any native of the Philippines who is a member of the non-
Christian tribe to buy, receive and possess any intoxicating liquor other than their so-called native
wines. Consequently, Section 3 thereof provides for its punishment.

Cayat challenges the constitutionality of Act No. 1639 on the grounds that it is discriminatory and
denies the equal protection of the laws, violative of the due process and it is an improper exercise
of police power.

ISSUES:

Whether the Act No. 1639 violates the equal protection clause?

RULING:

No, the Act No. 1639 is not violative of the equal protection clause.

Equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on reasonable classifications.
The classification to be reasonable, (1) must rest on substantial distinctions; (2) must be germane
to the purposes of the law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only; (4) must apply
equally to all members of the same class.

Act No. 1639 satisfies these requirements. On the first requisite, the classification rests on real
and substantial distinctions. The non-Christian tribes refer not to the religious belief, but in a way
to the geographical and more directly to the natives of the Philippines of a low grade of
civilization. Second, Act No. 1639 was designed to insure peace and order among the non-
Christian tribes. The experience of the past and the lower court observed that the use of highly
intoxicating liquors by the non-Christian tribes often resulted in lawlessness and crimes, which
hamper the efforts of the Government to raise their standard of life and civilization. Third, the
said act is intended to apply for all times as long as the conditions exist. Legislature understood
that civilization of a people is a slow process and that hand in hand with it must go measures of
protection and security. Fourth, the act applies equally to all members of same class.

SECTION 2.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Search Warrant vs Warrant of Arrest

In Search warrant, the judge must personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce on facts personally known to them.

Atty. Princess Janine R. Sy Page 5 of 9

 In Warrant of Arrest, it is not necessary that the judge should personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses; the judge would simply personally review the initial
determination of the prosecutor to see if it is supported by substantial evidence.

REQUISITES FOR A VALID WARRANT

1. It must be issued upon determination of probable cause;
2. The probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant
or any other person;
3. In the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and
4. The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons
and things to be seized. (HPS Software and Communication Corporation and Yap v.
PLDT, G.R. Nos. 170217 and 170694, December 10, 2012)

NOTE: General warrant is not allowed. It must be issued pursuant to a specific offense.
(Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550, June 19, 1967

Stonehill vs. Diokno Case Digest

FACTS: Stonehill et al, herein petitioners, and the corporations they form were alleged to have
committed acts in “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
(Code) and Revised Penal Code.” Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants
against petitioners personally, and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace
officers to search the persons of petitioners and premises of their offices, warehouses and/or
residences to search for personal properties “books of accounts, financial records, vouchers,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other
documents showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and
profit and loss statements and Bobbins(cigarette wrappers)” as the subject of the offense for
violations of Central Bank Act, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and Revised
Penal Code. The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants
in question may be split into (2) major groups, namely:

(1) those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and
(2) those found seized in the residences of petitioners herein.

Petitioners averred that the warrant is null and void for being violative of the constitution and the
Rules of court by:

(1) not describing with particularity the documents, books and things to be seized;
(2) money not mentioned in the warrants were seized;
(3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence for deportation cases filed against the
petitioner;
(4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner; and
(5) the documents paper and cash money were not delivered to the issuing courts for disposal
in accordance with law.
The prosecution counters that the search warrants are valid and issued in accordance with law;
The defects of said warrants were cured by petitioners consent; and in any event, the effects are
admissible regardless of the irregularity.

The Court granted the petition and issued the writ of preliminary injunction. However, by a
resolution, the writ was partially lifted dissolving insofar as paper and things seized from the
offices of the corporations.

Atty. Princess Janine R. Sy Page 6 of 9

 ISSUE: WON the search warrant issued is valid.

HELD: NO the search warrant is invalid. The SC ruled in favor of petitioners. The constitution
protects the people’s right against unreasonable search and seizure. It provides; (1) that no
warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth
in said provision; and (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. In the
case at bar, none of these are met.

The warrant was issued from mere allegation that petitioners committed a “violation of Central
Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code.” In
other words, no specific offense had been alleged in said applications. The averments thereof with
respect to the offense committed were abstract. As a consequence, it was impossible for the
judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same
presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has
performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our
criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not allege any specific
acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be a legal heresy, of the highest order, to convict
anybody of a “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
(Code) and Revised Penal Code,” — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without
reference to any determinate provision of said laws or codes. The warrants authorized the search
for and seizure of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners regardless of
whether the transactions were legal or illegal. Thus, openly contravening the explicit command of
the Bill of Rights — that the things to be seized be particularly described — as well as tending to
defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants.

General warrants

Warrants of broad and general characterization or sweeping descriptions which will

authorize police officers to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all
kinds of evidence or articles relating to an offense.

Particularity of description for a search warrant is complied with when:

1. The description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; or

2. The description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer
may be guided in making the search and seizure; or
3. The things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for
which the warrant is being issued.

Properties subject to seizure

1. Property subject of the offense;
2. Stolen or embezzled property and other proceeds or fruits of the offense; or
3. Property used or intended to be used as means for the commission of an offense.

Probable cause

Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search warrant, is such reasons
supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to believe that his action
and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and proper. It requires facts and
circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in connection with that offense are in the place to be

Atty. Princess Janine R. Sy Page 7 of 9

searched. (HPS Software and Communications Corp. and Yap v. PLDT, G.R. Nos. 170217 and
170694, December 10, 2012)

WARRANTLESS SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Instances of a valid warrantless search

1. Visual search is made of moving vehicles at checkpoints;
2. Search is an incident to a valid arrest;

NOTE: An officer making an arrest may take from the person:

a. Any money or property found upon his person which was used in the
commission of the offense
b. Was the fruit thereof
c. Which might furnish the prisoner with the means of committing violence or
escaping
d. Which might be used as evidence in the trial of the case

3. Search of passengers made in airports;

4. When things seized are within plain view of a searching party (Plain View Doctrine);
5. Stop and frisk (precedes an arrest);
6. When there is a valid express waiver made voluntarily and intelligently;

NOTE: Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but shown by clear and
convincing evidence. Consent must also be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise
illegal search; that is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given, and
uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. [Caballes v CA, 373 SCRA 221 (2002)]
(2015 Bar) In this case, petitioner was merely "ordered" to take out the contents of his
pocket. (Alcaraz v. People, G.R. No. 199042, November 17, 2014)

7. Customs search; and

8. Exigent and emergency circumstances. (People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716, July 6,
1994)

Plain View Doctrine

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the "plain view" of an officer,
who has a right to be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be
presented as evidence.

It applies when the following requisites concur:

1. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification
for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area;
2. The discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
3. It is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be
evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.

It is clear that an object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to
sight. The difficulty arises when the object is inside a closed container. Where the object
seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore
cannot be seized without a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents,
whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to

Atty. Princess Janine R. Sy Page 8 of 9

 an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized. (People v. Doria, G.R.
No. 125299, January 22, 1999)

Checkpoints
Searches conducted in checkpoints are lawful, provided the checkpoint complies with the
following requisites:
1. The establishment of checkpoint must be pronounced;
2. It must be stationary, not roaming; and
3. The search must be limited to visual search and must not be an intrusive search.

IV. Comprehensive check – up

1. What is Bill of Rights?
2. Give at least three(3) crimes punishable under the Revised Penal Code punishing
violation of the right to liberty.
3. Can pieces of evidence obtained by virtue of a general warrant be use as evidence
in a criminal proceeding?

Checked by:

Mrs. Melody Comia- Dimapilis

Department Head

Atty. Princess Janine R. Sy Page 9 of 9