HUMAN RIGHTS EDUCATION

NORTHEASTERN COLLEGE
College of Criminology
1 Semester, S.Y 2025-2026
st

Atty. Leizha Kerrly B. Garcia

MODULE 2

BILL OF RIGHTS
Sections 1-3

Bill of Rights is the 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 is designed to preserve the ideals of liberty, equality, and
security “against assaults of opportunism, the expediency of the passing hour,
the erosion of encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have
no patience with general principles” (PBM Employees Organization vs. Ph
Blooming Mills, 51 SCRA 189).

Nonetheless, “the Bill of Rights itself does not purport to be an absolute

guaranty of individual rights and liberties. Even liberty itself, the greatest of
all rights is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s will. It is subject
to the far more overriding demands and requirements of the greater number
(Genuino vs. De Lima, G.R No. 197930)

Applicability of Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights does not govern relationships between individuals; it cannot
be invoked against the acts of private individuals (People vs. Marti). Bill of
Rights concern itself with the relation between a private individual and
another individual. It governs the relationship between the individual and the
State (People vs. Dacanay, G.R No. 216064).

While the Bill of Rights under Article III of the 1987 Constitution generally
cannot be invoked against the acts of private individuals, the same may be
applicable if such individuals act under the color of a state-related function
(Dela Cruz vs. People)

Page 1 of 11
Rights Protected by the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights was intended to preserve and guarantee the life, liberty,
and property of persons against unwarranted intrusions of the State. In the
absence of government interference, the liberties guaranteed by the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State or its agents.

Life includes the right of an individual to his body its completeness, free from
dismemberment, and extends to the use of God-given faculties which make
life enjoyable.

Liberty includes “the right to exist and the right to be free from arbitrary
personal restraint or servitude … It includes the right of the citizen to be free
to use his faculties in all lawful ways …” (Rubi vs. Provincial Board of Mindoro,
39 Phil 660)

Property is anything that can come under the right of ownership and be the
subject of contract. It represents more than the things a person owns; it
includes the right to secure, use and dispose of them (Torraco vs. Thompson,
263 U.S 197)

SECTION 1

“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or security without due

process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of
the laws”

Due Process

“A law which hears before it condemns” (Flores-Concepcion vs. Castaneda, A.M

No. RTJ-15-2438)

While due process has no exact definition, the standard in determining

whether a person was accorded due process is whether the restriction on the
person’s life, liberty, or property is consistent with fairness, reason, and
justice, and free from caprice and arbitrariness.

Scope of Due Process

The due process guaranty serves as a protection against arbitrary regulation

or seizure.

Page 2 of 11
Aspects of Due Process
1. Procedural
2. Substantive

Procedural Due Process refers to the procedures that the government must
follow before it deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. It concerns itself
with government action adhering to the established process when it makes an
intrusion into the private sphere. Examples range from the form of notice
given to the level of formality of a hearing (White Light Corporation vs. City of
Manila, G.R No. 122846)

In essence, procedural due process entails that a party is afforded a

reasonable opportunity to be heard in support of his case and what is
prohibited is the absolute absence of the opportunity to be heard. When the
party invoking his right to due process was in fact given several opportunities
to be heard and to air his side, but it was by his own fault or choice that he
squandered these chances, then his cry for due process must fail (In Re: The
Writ of Habeas Corpus for Michael Labrador Abellana vs. Paredes, G.R No.
232006)

Substantive Due Process

Substantive due process completes the protection envisioned by the due

process clause. It inquires whether the government has sufficient
justification for depriving a person of life, liberty or property (White Light
Corporation vs. City of Manila, G.R No. 122846)

Requisites of Substantive Due Process

a. Lawful Subject – the interests of the public generally, as distinguished

from those of a particular class, require the interference of the State

b. Lawful Means – the means employed are reasonably necessary for the
attainment of the object sought to be accomplished and not unduly
arbitrary or oppressive upon individuals

Equal Protection of the Laws

“All persons or things similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to

rights conferred and responsibilities imposed”

Page 3 of 11
The equal protection of the laws guards “against undue favor and individual
or class privilege as well as hostile discrimination or the oppression of
inequality”

Equal protection, however, was not intended to prohibit the legislature from
enacting statutes that either tend to create specific classes of persons or
objects, or tend to affect only these specific classes of persons or objects.
Equal protection “does not demand absolute equality among residents; it
merely requires that all persons shall be treated alike, under like
circumstances and conditions both as to the privileges conferred and
liabilities enforced” (Zomer Dev’t Company vs. CA, G.R No. 194461)

Equality of operation of statutes does not mean indiscriminate operation on

persons merely as such, but on persons according to the circumstances
surrounding them. It guarantees equality, not identity of rights. The
Constitution does not require that things which are different in fact be treated
in law as though they were the same. The equal protection clause does not
forbid discrimination as to things that are different.

Valid Classification

Persons or things ostensibly similarly situated may, nonetheless, be treated

differently if there is a basis for valid classification.

Requisites
a. Substantial distinctions
b. Germane to the Purpose of the law
c. Not Limited to existing conditions only
d. Must apply equally to all members of the same class

SECTION 2

“The rights 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 be a judge, after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
particularly describing the place to be searched, or the persons or
things to be seized”

Page 4 of 11
Nature

The sacred right against an arrest, search or seizure without a valid warrant
is not only ancient. It is also zealously safeguarded. The Constitution
guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Any evidence
obtained in violation of said right shall thus be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding. Indeed, while the power to search and seize may at times
be necessary to the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law
implemented without contravening the constitutional rights of the citizens;
for the enforcement of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify
indifference to the basic principles of government (People vs. Pastrana, G.R
No. 196045)

Requisites of a Valid Warrant

The requirements of a valid search warrant are laid down in Article III, Section
2 of the 1987 Constitution and in Rule 126, Section 4 of the Rules of Court,
viz:

1. Probable Cause is present

2. Such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge
3. The judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the
complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce
4. The applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known
to them
5. The warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the
things to be seized

Probable Cause

Probable cause means such facts and circumstances antecedent to the

issuance of a warrant that are in themselves sufficient to induce a cautious
man to rely upon them. Specifically, probable cause must be defined in
relation to the action which it justifies.

Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest would mean such
facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to
be arrested.

Probable cause for a search would mean such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an

Page 5 of 11
offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with
the offense are in the place sought to be searched.

Evidence needed to establish probable cause

Probable cause is concerned with probability, not absolute or even moral

certainty. The prosecution need not present at this stage proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The standards of judgment are those of a reasonably
prudent man, not the exacting calibrations of a judge after a full-blown trial
(Microsoft vs. Maxicorp, G.R No. 140946)

Kinds of Probable Cause

Executive Determination of Probable Cause concerns itself with whether there

is enough evidence to support an Information being filed.

Judicial Determination of Probable Cause, on the other hand, determines

whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.

Determination of Probable Cause

- For purposes of issuing a warrant – only the judge
- For purposes of filing an information – Prosecution (executive function)

It is sufficient that the judge “personally determine” the existence of probable

cause. It is not necessary that he should personally examine the complainant
and his witnesses (Soliven vs. Makasiar, 167 SCRA 393).

There is no need to examine both the applicant and the witness/es if

either one of them is sufficient to establish probable cause. The
primordial consideration here is that the judge is convinced that there is
probable cause to disturb the particular individual’s privacy (People vs.
Gabiosa, G.R No. 248395)

The judge must examine in writing and under oath or affirmation the
complainants and the witnesses he or she may produce. Although there is no
hard-and-fast rule as to how a judge may conduct his examination, it is
axiomatic that the said examination must be probing and exhaustive and not
merely routinary, general, peripheral or perfunctory.

Particularity of Description
It is elemental that in order to be valid, a search warrant must particularly
describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The
constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of description of the

Page 6 of 11
things to be seized is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers serving the
warrant to: 1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent
them from seizing the wrong items; and 2) leave said peace officers with no
discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable
searches and seizures. It is not, however, required that the things to be seized
must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt
on the part of the searching authorities (People vs. Pastrana, G.R No. 196045)

It was pointed out that one of the tests to determine the particularity in the
description of objects to be seized under a search warrant is when the things
described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for
which the warrant is being issued. In addition, under the Rules of Court, the
following personal property may be the subject of a search warrant: 1) the
subject of the offense; 2) fruits of the offense; or 3) those used or
intended to be used as the means of committing an offense (People vs.
Pastrana, G.R No. 196045)

Conduct of the Search

No search of a house, room, or any of the premises shall be made except in

the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in
the absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age
and discretion, residing in the same locality. Failure to comply with this
requirement invalidates the search (People vs. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743)

WARRANTLESS ARRESTS AND SEARCHES

Warrantless Arrests (Rule 113, Sec. 5, Revised Rules of Criminal

Procedure)
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense (in
flagrante delicto arrest)

2. When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
the person to be arrested has committed it (hot pursuit)

3. When a person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a

penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is
temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another

Page 7 of 11
IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO ARREST [Rule 113, Sec. 5(a)]

Elements:
1. The person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he
has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
a crime;

2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting
officer (Veridiano vs. People, G.R No. 200370)

Note: Under the Rules of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued
if the information or charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine
only.

HOT PURSUIT [Rule 113, Sec. 5(b)]

Elements:
1. An offense has just been committed

2. The arresting officer has probable cause to believe based on personal

knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it (People vs. Rangaig, G.R No. 240477)

Note: Twin Requirements = Personal Knowledge + Immediacy

The requirement that an offense has just been committed means that there
must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense was
committed and the time of the arrest. If there was an appreciable lapse of time
between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must
be secured (People vs. Del Rosario)

Note: An informant’s tip is not sufficient as probable cause for

warrantless arrests

Warrantless Searches (People vs. Sapla, G.R No. 244045)

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest

2. Seizure of evidence in plain view
3. Search of moving vehicle
4. Consented warrantless search
5. Customs search
6. Stop and Frisk
7. Exigent and Emergency circumstances

Page 8 of 11
 A. Warrantless Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest

A lawful arrest must precede the search

Purpose: To protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the

person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to
prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. It is therefore
a reasonable exercise of the State’s Police Power to protect:

a. Law enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on them by a

person they have lawfully arrested

b. Evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee

Note: Such warrantless search obviously cannot be made in a place

other than the place of arrest (Vaporoso vs. People, G.R No. 238659)

Note: In lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the right of the
apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not only on the
person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area within the
latter’s reach.

B. Seizure of Evidence in Plain View

Requisites:
1. The law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has prior
justification for an intrusion or is in position from which he can view
a particular area

2. The discovery of evidence in plain view is inadvertent

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

Note: The plain view doctrine cannot apply if the officers are actually
searching for evidence against the accused

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 an
observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized (People
vs. Doria)

Page 9 of 11
C. Search of a Moving Vehicle

Warrantless search and seizure of moving vehicles are allowed in

recognition of the impracticability of securing a warrant under said
circumstances as the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality
or jurisdiction in which the warrant may be sought. Peace officers in
such cases, however, are limited to routine checks where the
examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection.

On the other hand, an extensive search of a vehicle is permissible but

only when the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e, upon a belief,
reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer,
that an automobile or other vehicle contains an item, article, or object
which by law is subject to seizure and destruction (People vs. Sapla, G.R
No. 244045)

Checkpoint

Limited to:

1. Where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle
which is parked on the public fair grounds

2. Where the officer simply looks into a vehicle

3. Where the officer flashes a light therein without opening the car’s
doors

4. Where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search

5. Where the inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search or

visual inspection

6. Where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area

D. Consented Warrantless Search

Requisites:

1. Rights exist

2. The person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the

existence of such right

3. Said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right

Page 10 of 11
Note: Mere passive conformity or silence to the warrantless search is
only an implied acquiescence, which amounts to no consent at all
(Veridiano vs. People, G.R No. 200370)

E. Customs/Airport Search

Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by
exposure of their persons or property to the public in manner reflecting
a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is
prepared to recognized as reasonable.

Valid Custom Search

1. The person conducting the search was exercising police authority

under customs law

2. The search was for the enforcement of customs law

3. The place searched is not a dwelling place or house

F. Stop And Frisk

To be valid, the totality of suspicious circumstances, as personally

observed by the arresting officer, must lead to a genuine reason to
suspect that a person is committing an illicit act (Manibog vs. People,
G.R No. 211214)

Limited to:

1. Allowed only on the basis of the police officer’s reasonable suspicion,

in light of his experience, that criminal activity may be afoot and that
the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently
dangerous

2. The search must only be a carefully limited search of the other

clothing

3. Conducted for the purpose of discovering weapons which might be

used to assault him or other persons in the area

Page 11 of 11