Basic Human Rights Orientation (Philippine Setting)

Human Rights

 Rights that are inherent to all human changes

 Acknowledges that every individual is entitled to enjoy his or her human rights without
distinction to its gender, age, language, color, religion, political view, and opinion
 Sum of the individual and collective rights that has been recognized by the state, the national
legislation, and in the international human right norms

Human Rights Characteristics

1) Universal: it means that every person regardless of their race, gender, or religion would be treated
equally without discrimination
2) Inalienable: no person can have their human rights be taken away from them
3) Indivisible, interrelated, and interdependent: All human beings regardless of their differences
should and always be given importance to, respected equally, and respect for their dignity and worth

I. Right to due process

The essence of due process is the opportunity to be heard or an opportunity to explain the one’s side
or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of
The due process clause protects all persons, natural as well as artificial. The shelter of protection
under the due process and equal protection clause is given to all the persons, both the aliens and the
citizens

There are two aspects of the due process:

(1) Substantive due process: serves as a restriction on the government’s law and rule-making powers.
It requires the intrinsic validity of the law in interfering with the rights of the person to his life,liberty,
or property

(2) Procedural due process: the regular methods of procedure to be observed before one’s life,
liberty of property can be taken away from him

In a judicial proceeding, it entails the following:

1) There is an impartial court or tribunal clothed with the judicial power to hear and determine the
matters before it

2) Jurisdiction is properly acquired over the person of the defendant and over property which is the
subject matter of the proceeding

3) The defendant should be given an opportunity to be heard, and

4) The judgement was rendered upon lawful hearing and based on the evidence adduced
II. Right against illegal searches and seizures

The fundamental protection given by the search and seizure clause is that between person and
police should stand the protective authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to
issue search warrants or warrants of arrest

This is a personal right which could be invoked only be the person whose right was violated. This
right could also be waived expressly or impliedly but the waiver should be done by the person whose
right was invaded, not by one who is not duly authorized to effect such waiver

Search Warrants

For a valid search warrant to issue, the following should be present

(1) Existence of the probable cause

√ probable cause means such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances, as will warrant a
cautious man in the belief that his actions, and the means taken in prosecuting it, are legally
just and proper
√ probable cause for the issuance of search warrants, was defined as such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are
in the place sought to be searched.

(2) Determination of the probable cause was done personally by the judge

it is required that the judge personally examine the complainant and the witnesses in the form of
searching questions and answers.

the said examination must be under oath, in writing, and the complainant and witnesses must be
examined on the facts personally known to them

(3) Personal examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness he could
produce

the personal examination must not be merely routinary or pro forma, but must be probing and
exhaustive. The purpose of this rule is to satisfy the examining judge as to the existence of the
probable cause

(4) Personal knowledge of the complainant or his witness of the facts

hearsay must not be allowed. It must not be based on mere information or belief. Hearsay consists of
those facts which a person derives not from his own perception but from the perception of others

(5) Particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized

a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended
Types of the warrants

(1) "scatter-shot warrants"

Scatter-shot warrants are those which are issued for more than one specific offense. But, a technical
description is not required to be given.

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description
therein is as a specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow and by which the warrant officer
may be guided in making the search and seizure

(2) "searches for fishing expedition"

Searches for fishing expedition are prohibited. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority
empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all
kinds of evidence of articles relating to a crime

Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, the following personal properties are subject to search and
seizure:

(a) subject of the offense;

(b) stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or

(c) used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense

(3 "fruit of the poisonous tree"

In Del Rosario vs. People (G.R. No. 142295, May 31, 2001), seizure was limited to those items
particularly described in a valid search warrant. Searching officers are without discretion regarding
what articles they shall seize. Evidence seized on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and
seizure is tainted and excluded for being the proverbial "fruit of the poisonous tree".

Warrantless searches & seizures

1. Searches of moving vehicles

Searches and seizures of vessels and aircraft for violations of customs laws have been the traditional
exception to the constitutional requirement because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the
locality or jurisdiction in which the search must be sought before the warrant could be secured
(Hizon vs. CA, G.R. No. 119619, December 13, 1996).

2. Body checks in airports

Sec. 9 of RA No. 6235 stated that holders and his hand-carried luggage (s) are subject to search for,
and seizure of, prohibited materials or substance. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be
allowed to board the aircraft which shall constitute a part of the contract between the passenger and
the air carrier

3. Stop and frisks

When there is a genuine reason to "stop-and-frisk" in light of the police officer's experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant a belief that the person detained has weapons concealed
(Malacat vs. CA, G.R. No. 123595, December 1, 1997).

4. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building
regulations (Valeroso vs. CA, G.R. No. 164815, September 3, 2009).

5. Consented warrantless searches

When the right itself has been voluntarily waived, then a valid search can be conducted. (People vs.
Malasugui, G.R. No. 44335, July 30, 1936).

6. Incident to lawful arrests

A person caught in flagrante delicto can be lawfully searched as an incident to a lawful arrest,
provided that the same is contemporaneous to the arrest and within the permissible area of search
(Sec. 13, Rule 126, Rules of Court).

7. Visual search at checkpoints

8. "Aerial target zonings" or "Saturation drives" conducted in the exercise of military powers of the
President (Guanzon vs. De Villa, G.R. No. 80508, January 30, 1990)

9. Exigent circumstances doctrine

This doctrine enunciates the rule that under such urgency and exigency of the moment, search
warrant should lawfully be dispensed with (People vs. De Gracia, G.R. Nos. 102009-10, July 6, 1994).

10. Plain view doctrine

This doctrine states that the objects within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position
to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.

The plain view doctrine is usually applied where the police officer is not searching for evidence
against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes upon an incriminating object

RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

The landmark case of Miranda vs. Arizona (384, US 436, 1996) defined custodial investigation as any
questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or
otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way.

Republic Act No. 7438

Republic Act No. 7438, the Philippine law governing human rights under custodial investigation,
include in the concept of custodial investigation, the practice of issuing an invitation to a person who
is investigated in connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to
the liability of the inviting officer, for any violation of law (Sec. 2, RA 7438).

RIGHTS OF SUSPECTS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION

1. Right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to counsel;

This right carries the obligation on the part of the investigator to explain, and contemplates effective
communication which results in the subject understanding what is conveyed

2. Right to be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says can and will be
used against him;

3. Right to remain silent;

4. Right to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice;

The phrase "preferably of his own choice" does not mean that the choice of a lawyer is exclusive as
to preclude other equally competent and independent attorneys from handling the defense (People
vs. Barasina, G.R. No. 109993, January 21, 1994).

5. Right to be provided with counsel, if the person cannot afford the services of one;

6. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vitiate the free will
shall be used against him;

7. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado or other forms of detention are prohibited;

8. Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible as evidence;

Miranda Doctrine

1. The person in custody must be informed at the outset in clear and unequivocal terms that he has a
right to remain silent;

2. After being so informed, he must be told that anything he says can and will be used against him in
court;

3. The right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during interrogation;

4. If he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him;

5. Even if he consents to answer questions without the assistance of counsel, the moment he asks for
a lawyer at any point in the investigation, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present;

6. If the foregoing are not demonstrated, no evidence obtained can be used against the person in
custody

RIGHT AGAINST UNLAWFUL ARRESTS

Arrests can be defined as the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to
answer for the commission of an offense.

Under Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, arrest can be effected into two modes:

(1) Arrest by virtue of a valid warrant; and

(2) Arrest without a warrant under exceptional circumstances as may be provided by statute.

Issuance of a warrant of arrest; Effecting an arrest

Under Sec. 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution, no 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 persons to be seized.

Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is defined as "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" (Ocampo vs. Abando, G.R. No. 176830, February 11,
2014).

Execution of a warrant of arrest

1. Upon filing of the Information by the prosecutor

Here, the judge merely evaluates personally the report and supporting documents and other
evidence adduced during the preliminary investigation and submitted to him by the prosecutor, and
if he finds probable cause on the basis thereof, he issues the warrant for the arrest of the accused.

2. Upon application of a peace officer

On the contrary, in this case, the judge must personally examine the applicant and witnesses he may
produce, to find out whether there exists probable cause. He must subject the complainant and the
witnesses to searching questions.

As a general rule, no peace officer or person has the power or authority to arrest anyone without a
warrant except in those case expressly authorized by law. Lawful warrantless arrests can occur in the
following instances:

In flagrante delicto arrests"

Covers the provision under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, stating that a warrantless arrest can be
had when, in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense

In People vs. Evaristo, G.R. No. 93828, December 11, 1992), it was held that an offense is committed
in the presence or within the view of the person making the arrest when sees the offense, although
at a distance, or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof;
or the offense is continuing, or has been consummated, at the time the arrest is made

For this happen, the case of Ambre vs People (G.R. No. 191532, August 15, 2012) enumerated two
requisites:

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 an a crime; and
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.

Buy-bust operations is a form of entrapment which has been repeatedly accepted to be a valid
means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs Law. The violator is caught in flagrante delicto
and the police officers conducting the operation are not only authorized but duty-bound to
apprehend the violator and to search him for anything that may have been part of or used in the
commission of the crime (People vs Sales, G.R. No. 208169, October 8, 2014).

"Doctrine of Hot Pursuit" and

Follows the provision under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court stating that a warrantless arrest can be
had when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.

For this to happen, jurisprudence states the following requisites:

1. An offense has just been committed the time interval between the actual commission of the crime
and the arrival of the arresting officer must be brief (In Re Petition for Habeas Corpus of Umil vs.
Ramos, G.R. No. 81567, October 3, 1991);

2. Probable cause based on personal knowledge - mere intelligence information that the suspect
committed the crime will not suffice (People vs. Doria, G.R. No. 125299, January 22, 1999);

"Evasion of service of sentence".

Pertains to the arrests to be made against a prisoner who:

(1) has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or
temporarily confined while his case is pending; or

(2) has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another

RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED

1. Right to be presumed innocent

The concept of presumption of innocence is based on the principle of justice. The conviction must be
based on moral certainty, for it is better to acquit a guilty person rather than convict an innocent
man

In the case of People vs Baulite (G.R. No. 137599, October 8, 2011), it was stated that the slightest
possibility of an innocent man being convicted for an offense he has not committed would be far
more dreadful than letting a guilty person go unpunished for a crime he may have perpetrated.

2. Right to be informed of the nature and the cause of the accusation against him

As a general rule, an accused cannot be convicted of an offense unless it is clearly charged in the
Complaint of Information. To convict him of an offense other than that charged in the Complaint of
Information would be a violation of this constitutional right
3. Right to be present and defend in person and by counsel at every stage of the proceeding

As a general rule, the presence of the accused during the criminal action is not required and shall be
based on his sole discretion. However, the presence of the accused is mandatory in the following:

1. During arraignment; (Sec. 1, Rule 116, Rules of Court)

2. Promulgation of sentence except when the conviction is for a light offense, in which case, it may
be pronounced in the presence of his representative; counsel or a

3. When ordered by the court for purposes of identification

4. Right to counsel

The right to counsel is absolute and may be invoked at all times even on appeal. (Telan vs CA, G.R.
No. 95026, October 4, 1991) The right covers the period from custodial investigation, well into the
rendition of the judgment and even on appeal. (People vs. Serzo Jr., G.R. No. 118435, June 20, 1997)

5. Right to testify as witness in his own behalf

Under Sec. 1, Rule 115 of the Rules of Court, if the accused testifies, he may be cross-examined but
only on matters covered by his direct examination. Under Sec. 6, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a
witness, on the other hand, can be cross-examined as to any matter in the direct examination or
connected therewith.

6. Right to be exempt from being compelled to be a witness against himself

7. Right against self-incrimination

The accused is protected under this rule from questions which tend to incriminate him, that is,
which may subject him to criminal liability. This right must be claimed. If not claimed by or in behalf
of the witness, the protection does not come into play. It follows that this right may be waived,
expressly or impliedly, as by a failure to claim it at the appropriate time.

8. Rights of the accused in the matter of testifying or producing evidence

9. Right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him at trial

Confrontation is the act of setting a witness face-to-face with the accused so that the latter may
make any objection he has to the witness, and the witness may identify the accused - which must
take place in the presence of the court having jurisdiction to allow cross-examination

10. Right to have compulsory process

This is the right of the accused to have a subpoena and/or subpoena duces tecum issued in his
behalf in order to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of other evidence.

11. Right to have a speedy, impartial and public trial

This right cannot be waived. Its purpose is to avoid oppression and to prevent delay by imposing on
the courts and on the prosecution an obligation to proceed with reasonable dispatch.

It must be noted that there is no violation of this right where the delay is imputable to the accused.
(Solis vs. Agloro, A.M. No. 276- MJ, June 27, 1975)

12. Right to appeal on all cases allowed by law and in the manner prescribed by law

The right to appeal from a judgment of conviction is fundamentally of statutory origin and may be
exercised only in the manner prescribed by the provisions of law authorizing it.

RIGHT TO BAIL

Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of law, furnished by him or a
bondsman, to guarantee his appearance before any court as required under conditions specified
under the Rules of Court

The right to bail is available to persons detained or under custody of the law either when he has
been arrested or has surrendered himself or herself to the jurisdiction of the court.

When a Matter of Right:

a. Before or after conviction by the MTC;

b. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment; and

c. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment but the evidence of guilt is not strong;

When Discretionary

a. After conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment;

When Shall be Denied

a. Before conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment and the evidence of guilt is strong;

b. After conviction by the RTC of an offense NOT punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life
imprisonment and the presence of bail denying circumstances under Section 5, Rule 114 of the Rules
of Court;

c. After conviction by the RTC of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment;

RIGHT AGAINST EXCESSIVE FINES AND CRUEL AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS

To violate this right, the penalty must be flagrant and plainly oppressive, disproportionate to the
nature of the offense as to shock the senses of the community.
The cruelty against which the Constitution protects the convicted man is cruelty inherent in the
method of punishment, not the necessary suffering involved in any method employed to extinguish
life humanely.

RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

For Double Jeopardy to apply, a previous case must be filed and must contain the following:

(1) A valid Complaint or Information;

(2) This Complaint or Information must be filed before a competent court;

(3) In this court, the accused has pleaded; and

(4) Accused was previously acquitted or convicted or the case dismissed or otherwise terminated
without his express consent

The crimes covered by this right are the following:

1. Same offense or attempt to commit or frustration thereof or for any offense which necessarily
includes or is necessarily included in the offense charged in the original Complaint or Information;

2. When an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall bar
another prosecution for the same act.