I. SPEEDY DISPOSATION OF CASES

I.  SPEEDY DISPOSATION OF CASES

 

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

 

Speedy Trial vs. Speedy Disposition of Cases

 

Speedy trial	Speedy disposition of cases
Refers to trial phase only	Refers to disposition of cases (All phases)
Criminal cases only	Judicial, quasi-judicial or admin. Proceedings

 

 

·         Periods for decision for courts  (Sec. 15, Art. VIII)

·         SC: 24 months from submission

·         All lower collegiate courts: 12 months unless reduced by SC

·         All other lower courts: 3 months

 

Periods for decision for Constitutional Commissions (Sec 7, Art. IX-A)

60 days  from date of submission for decision or resolution

 

Factors considered in determining whether the right is violated

 

1.     Length of delay

2.     Reason of delay

3.     Assertion of the right or failure to assert it

4.     Prejudice caused by delay

 

Remedy in case there has been unreasonable delay in resolution of a case:

Dismissal through mandamus

 

 

 

J.  RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

 

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

Based on:

1.     Humanitarian reasons – it is intended to prevent the State, with all its coercive powers, from extracting from the suspect testimony that may convict him;

 

2.     Practical  reasons – a person subjected to such compulsion is likely to perjure himself for his own protection

 

Applicable to:

 

·         Criminal prosecutions, government proceedings, including civil actions and administrative or legislative  investigations

 

Transactional Immunity Statute – testimony of any person or whose possession of documents or other evidence necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation  conducted is immune from criminal prosecution for an offense to which such compelled testimony relates.

 

Use  and Fruit Immunity Statute – prohibits the use of the witness' compelled testimony and its fruit in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution for an offense to which such compelled testimony relates.

 

May be Claimed by:

 

1.     Accused – at all times; there is a reasonable assumption that the purpose of his interrogation will be to incriminate him

2.     Witness – only when an incriminating question is asked, since the witness has no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the question to be put to him

 

-       He cannot invoke right to self-incrimination when:

a)     The question is relevant and otherwise allowed even if the answer may tend to incriminate him or subject him to civil liability

b)     the question relates to past criminality for which the witness can no longer be prosecuted

c)     he has been previously granted immunity under a validly enacted statute

 

·         Only natural persons can invoke this right.  Judicial persons are subject to the visitorial powers of the state in order to determine compliance with the conditions of the charter granted to them.

 

Scope:

 

(1)   Testimonial Compulsion

 

·         In Villaflor v. Summers, since the “kernel  of the privilege” was the prohibition of “testimonial compulsion”, the Court was willing to compel a pregnant woman accused of adultery to submit to the indignity of being tested for pregnancy.  Being purely a mechanical act, it is not a violation of her constitutional right against self-incrimination.

 

(2)   Production of Documents, Papers and Chattels. Exception: when books of accounts are to be examined in the exercise of police power and power of taxation.

 

·         What is prohibited is the use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from the witness or to otherwise elicit evidence which would not exist were it not for the actions compelled from the witness.

 

·         The right does not prohibit                                           the examination of the body of the accused or the use of findings with respect to his body as physical evidence.  Hence, the fingerprinting of an accused would not violate the right against self-incrimination.  However, obtaining a sample of the handwriting of the accused would violate this right if he is charged for falsification.

 

·         The accused cannot be compelled to produce a private document in his possession which might tend to incriminate him.  However, a third person in custody of the document may be compelled to produce it.

 

Right May be Waived:

 

-       Either:

a)     Directly, or

b)     By failure to invoke it PROVIDED the waiver is certain and unequivocal and intelligently and willingly made.

Section 18 (1), Art. III. No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.

 

J.  RIGHT AGAINST INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

 

Section 18 (2), Art. III. No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

 

Involuntary Servitude – the condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or not.

 

Involuntary Servitude Includes

 

(1)   Slavery –civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life, fortune and liberty of another;

 

(2)   Peonage – a condition of enforced servitude by which the servitor is restrained of his liberty and compelled to labor in liquidation of some debt or obligation, real or pretended, against his will

 

General Rule

No involuntary service in any form shall exist.

 

Exceptions

 

1.      Punishment for a crime for which the party shall have been duly convicted (Sec. 18, Art. III)

 

2.      Personal military or civil service in the interest of national defense (Sec.  4, Art. II)

 

3.      Naval enlistment – remain in service until the end of voyage so that the crew would not desert the ship, making it difficult for the owners to recruit new hands to continue the voyage (Robertson vs Baldwin)

 

4.      Posse comitatus – in pursuit of persons who might have violated the law, the authorities might command all male inhabitants of a certain age to assist them (US vs Pompeya)

 

5.      Return to work order in industries affected with public interest (Kapisanan ng Manggagawa sa Kahoy vs Gotamco)

 

6.      Patria Potestas – unemancipated minors are obliged to obey their parents so long as they are under parental power and to observe respect and reverence to them always (Art. 311, Civil Code)

 

US vs Pompeya	An Act  providing for the method by which the people of the town may be called upon to render assistance for the protection of the public and the preservation of peace and good order is constitutional. It was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the state and does not violate the constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude.
Pollock vs Williams	No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from compulsory service, and no state can make the quitting of work any component of a crime, or make criminal sanctions available for holding unwilling persons to labor.

 

 

 

K.  CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENT

 

Section 19, Art. III.

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.

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.

              

             When is a penalty “cruel, degrading and inhuman”?

 

(1)   A penalty is cruel and inhuman if it involves torture or lingering suffering. Ex. Being drawn and quartered.

 

(2)   A penalty is degrading if it exposes a person to public humiliation.  Ex.  Being tarred and feathered, then paraded throughout town.

 

Standards Used

(1)   The punishment must not be so severe as to be degrading to the dignity of human beings.

 

(2)   It must not be applied arbitrarily.

 

(3)   It must not be unacceptable to contemporary society

 

(4)   It must not be excessive, i.e. it must serve a penal purpose more effectively than a less severe punishment would.

              

             Excessive Fine

 

·         A fine is excessive, when under any circumstance, it is disproportionate to the offense.

 

Note:  Fr. Bernas says that the accused cannot be convicted of the crime to which the punishment is attached if the court finds that the punishment is cruel, degrading or inhuman. 

 

Reason:  Without a valid penalty, the law is not a penal law.

 

 

 

L.  NON IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

 

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

§  For humanitarian reasons… an added guaranty of the liberty of persons against their incarceration for the enforcement of purely private debts because of their misfortune of being poor

 

Debt – any civil obligation arising from a contract, expressed or implied, resulting in any liability to pay in money.

 

Scope of guaranty against imprisonment for non-payment of debt

 

·         If an accused fails to pay the fine imposed upon him, this may result in his subsidiary imprisonment because his liability is ex delicto and not ex contractu.

 

 

A FRAUDULENT debt may result in the imprisonment of the debtor if:

 

1.     The fraudulent debt constitutes a crime such as estafa; and

2.     The accused has been duly convicted.

 

POLL TAX

 

General Rule: Non-payment of taxes is punishable with imprisonment.

Exception: Failure to pay a poll tax

 

Poll tax – a  specific sum levied upon every person belonging to a certain class without regard to his property or occupation.

 

·         A tax is not a debt since it is an obligation arising from law.  Hence, its non-payment maybe validly punished with imprisonment.

 

 

M.  DOUBLE JEOPARDY

 

Section 21, Art. III. 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 – when a person was charged with an offense and the case was terminated by acquittal or conviction or in any other manner without his consent, he cannot again be charged with the same or identical offense.

 

Requisites of Double Jeopardy

 

1.     valid complaint or information

2.     filed before a competent court

3.     to which defendant has pleaded, and

4.     defendant was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated without his express consent.

 

Two (2) Kinds of Double Jeopardy

 

(1)   When a person is put twice in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense (1^st sentence of Section 21)

 

(2)   When a law and an ordinance punish the same act (2^nd sentence of Sec. 21)

 

Same Offense

 

Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy: 

 

(1)   First jeopardy must have attached prior to the second.

(2)   The first jeopardy must have terminated.

(3)   The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first.

 

When does jeopardy ATTACH:  (1^st requisite)

 

(a)   A person is charged

 

(b)   Under a complaint or information sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction

 

(c)    Before a court of competent jurisdiction

 

(d)   After the person is arraigned

 

(e)   Such person enters a valid plea.

 

When does jeopardy NOT attach:

(a)   If information does not charge any offense

 

(b)   If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence of complete self-defense, and the court thereafter acquits him without entering a new plea of not guilty for accused.

 

(c)    If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the MTC.

 

(d)   If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed.

 

When does first jeopardy TERMINATE:  (2^ND REQUISITE)

 

1) Acquittal

2) Conviction

3) Dismissal W/O the EXPRESS consent of the accused

4) Dismissal on the merits.

 

Examples of termination of jeopardy:

(a)   Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial.  This amounts to an acquittal.

 

(b)   Dismissal based on a demurrer to evidence.  This is a dismissal on the merits.

 

(c)    Dismissal on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for reinvestigation filed by the accused.

 

(d)   Discharge of an accused to be a state witness.  This amounts to an acquittal.

 

When can the PROSECUTION  appeal from an order of dismissal:

(a)   If dismissal is on motion of the accused.  Exception:  If motion is based on violation of the right to a speedy trial or on a demurrer to evidence.

 

(b)   If dismissal does NOT amount to an acquittal or dismissal on the merits

 

(c)    If the question to be passed upon is purely legal.

 

(d)   If the dismissal violates the right of due process of the prosecution.

 

(e)   If the dismissal was made with grave abuse of discretion.

 

What are considered to be the “SAME OFFENSE”: 

 

(a)   Exact identity between the offenses charged in the first and second cases.

 

(b)   One offense is an attempt to commit or a frustration of the other offense.

 

(c)    One offense is necessarily included or necessary includes the other.

 

·         Note:  where a single act results in the violation of different laws or different provisions of the same law, the prosecution for one will not bar the other so long as none of the exceptions apply.

 

 

Same Act

 

·         Double jeopardy will result if the act punishable under the law and the ordinance are the same.  For there to be double jeopardy, it is not necessary that the offense be the same.

 

              

             Supervening Facts

 

1)      Under the Rules of Court, a conviction for an offense will not bar a prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense charged in the former information where:

 

(a)   The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising from the same act or omission constituting the former charge.

 

(b)   The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were discovered only after the filing of the former information.

 

(c)    The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and the offended party.

 

2)      Under (1)(b), if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution but were not discovered because of the prosecution’s incompetence, it would not be considered a supervening event.

Effect of appeal by the accused

·         If the accused appeals his conviction, he WAIVES his right to plead double jeopardy.  The whole case will be open to review by the appellate court. Such court may even increase the penalties imposed on the accused by the trial court.

 

·         In Almario v. CA, the Court held that the delays were not unreasonable; hence, there was no denial of the right to speedy trial.  Second, the dismissal was with the consent of the accused.  Hence, reinstatement did not violate the right against double jeopardy.