Competencia entre distribuidores mayoristas de GLP

- The right against self-incrimination is available in administrative hearings when the nature of the penalty is penal

in nature (like forfeiture of property or dismissal from employment) and the hearing partakes the nature of criminal proceeding (Cabal vs. Kapunan, 6 SCRA 1059).

- Applicable to a proceeding that could possibly result in the loss

of the privilege to practice medical profession (Pascual vs.

Board of Medical Examiners, ).

- Standard Chartered Bank vs. Senate Committee on Banks, 541 SCRA 456- The right against self incrimination is extended

in an administrative investigations that partake of the nature of or are analogous to criminal proceedings. The privilege has consistently been held to extend to all proceedings sanctioned by law; and all cases in which punishment is sought to be visited upon a witness, whether a party of not.

- The right against self-incrimination is defeated by the public

nature of documents sought to be accessed (Almonte vs.

Vasquez).

- In the recent case of PEOPLE vs. YATAR, G.R. No. 150224,

May 19, 2004, the Supreme Court affirmed the admissibility and

probative value of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Citing the first ever Supreme Court decision on the admissibility of DNA evidence, i.e., People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, 9 May 2002, 382 SCRA 192, 209, the Court, in Yatar, held that in assessing the probative value of DNA evidence, courts should consider, inter alia, the following factors: “how the samples were collected, how they were handled, the possibility of contamination of the samples, the procedure followed in analyzing the samples, whether the proper standards and procedures were followed in conducting the tests, and the qualification of the analyst who conducted the tests”.

- In Yatar, in an attempt to exclude the DNA evidence, the appellant contended “that the blood sample taken from him as well as the DNA tests were conducted in violation of his right to remain silent as well as his right against self-incrimination under Secs. 12 and 17 of Art. III of the Constitution”.

- The Court rejected the argument. It held that “the kernel of the right is not against all compulsion, but against testimonial compulsion”, citing Alih v. Castro, G.R. No. 69401, 23 June 1987, 151 SCRA 279. It held that “the right against self- incrimination is simply against the legal process of extracting from the lips of the accused an admission of guilt” and that “it does not apply where the evidence sought to be excluded is not an incrimination but as part of object evidence”.

- Citing People v. Rondero, G.R. No. 125687, 9 December 1999, 320 SCRA 383, the Court held that “although accused-appellant insisted that hair samples were forcibly taken from him and submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation for forensic examination, the hair samples may be admitted in evidence against him, for what is proscribed is the use of testimonial compulsion or any evidence communicative in nature acquired from the accused under duress.”

- Hence, according to the Court, “a person may be compelled to submit to fingerprinting, photographing, paraffin, blood and DNA, as there is no testimonial compulsion involved”. It cited People v. Gallarde, G.R. No. 133025, 27 February 2000, 325 SCRA 835, where immediately after the incident, “the police authorities took pictures of the accused without the presence of counsel”. In that case, the Court ruled that “there was no violation of the right against self-incrimination”. It further stated that “the accused may be compelled to submit to a physical examination to determine his involvement in an offense of which he is accused”.

Section 18 – Involuntary servitude: (Article 272 of the Revised Penal Code)

Exceptions:1. Punishment for a crime; 2.service in defense of the state 3.naval enlistment

4. posse comitatus 5.return to work order 6. patria potestas Section 19- Death penalty

- The death penalty is not a cruel punishment. There was no total abolition of the death penalty. The ConCom had deemed it proper for Congress to determine its reimposition because of compelling reasons involving heinous crimes. (PP v, Echegaray, 267 SCRA 682).

- The civil liability from a crime is not “debt” within the purview of the constitutional provision against imprisonment for non payment of “debt”.

- Vergara vs. Gedorio, 402 SCRA 520- Debt, as used in the Constitution, refers to a civil debt or one not arising from a criminal offense. Clearly, the non payment of rentals is

covered by the constitutional guarantee against imprisonment.

Section 21- Double Jeopardy

- As a rule, a judgment of acquittal cannot be reconsidered because it places the accused under double jeopardy (Re MR in

Lejano vs. People, GR No. 176389, January 18, 2011).

- The impeachment proceedings against petitioner Estrada was not concluded as a series of events prompted the Senate to declare the impeachment functus officio- thus, he was neither acquitted nor was the impeachment proceeding dismissed without his express consent. Neither was there conviction/ It follows then that the claim of double jeopardy must fail. (Estrada vs. Desierto, April 3, 2001).

- Under Sec. 8, Rule 117 of the Rules of Court, a provisional dismissal of a case becomes permanent after the lapse of one year for offenses punishable by imprisonment of not exceeding six years or a lapse of two years for offenses punishable by imprisonment of more than six years.

- For this rule to bar the subsequent filing of a similar case against the accused, the following must be established: 1) the provisional dismissal had express consent of the accused; 2) the provisional dismissal was ordered by the court after notice to the offended party; 3) the 1 yr. or 2-yr. period to revive had lapsed; 4) there is no justification to file a subsequent case beyond the period of one or two years. (PP vs. Lacson, May 28, 2002).

- The order approving the plea of guilty to homicide was not a judgment of conviction. It merely approved the agreement between the parties on the plea to a lesser offense by the accused and the condition attached to it. (PP vs. Romero, 399 SCRA 386)

Section 22- Ex post facto law/bill of attainder

- RA 8249, an act which further defines the jurisdiction of the

jurisdiction whose retroactive application is constitutional (Lacson vs. Exec. Secretary, 301 SCRA 298).

- Nasi-Villar vs. People, 571 SCRA 202- A law can never be

considered ex-post facto law as long as it operates prospectively since its stricture would cover only offenses committed after and not before its enactment.

- The prohibition of ex post facto laws and bill of attainder

applies to court doctrines pursuant to the maxim “legis

interpretatio legis vim obtinet”- the interpretation placed upon the written law by a competent court has the force of law ( PP

vs. Jabinal, 55 SCRA 602).

- The law making the use of an unlicensed firearm a qualifying circumstance in murder cannot apply retroactively. (PP vs. Patoc, 398 SCRA 62).

- Re DNA tests conducted by the prosecution against accused

being unconstitutional on the ground that resort thereto was tantamount to the application of an ex-post facto law- Describing the argument as specious, the Supreme Court held “no ex-post

facto law was involved in the case at bar”. It added that “the

science of DNA typing involved the admissibility, relevance and reliability of the evidence obtained under the Rules of Court”. Whereas, “an ex-post facto law referred primarily to a question of law, DNA profiling requires a factual determination of the probative weight of the evidence presented”. (PP vs. Yatar, May 19, 2004)