CAPÍTULO XI DEL REINGRESO
XXII. LUGARES DONDE PUEDEN ACUDIR LAS VÍCTIMAS DE DELITOS CONTRA LA LIBERTAD
Kalikasan
A. WRIT OF AMPARO
Sec. 1, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo. The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
A.1 BASIS
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, xxx. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. [Art. VIII, Sec. 5]
A.2 PETITION FOR WRIT
Form
The petition shall be signed and verified. [Sec. 5]
Contents
The petition shall allege the following:
(1) The personal circumstances of the petitioner
(2) The name and personal circumstances of the respondent responsible for the threat, act or omission, or, if the name is unknown or uncertain, the respondent may be described by an assumed appellation
(3) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation is committed with
the attendant circumstances detailed in supporting affidavits
(4) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names, personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of the investigation, together with any report
(5) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission
(6) The relief prayed for.
The petition may include a general prayer for other just and equitable reliefs. [Sec. 5] Where to file
The petition may be filed on any day and at any time [Sec. 3]
Filing Enforceability Returnable
RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred
Anywhere in the
Philippines Before the issuing court or judge
Sandiganbayan or any of its justices
Anywhere in the Philippines
(1) Before the issuing court or any justice thereof; or (2) Any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission
was committed or any of its elements occurred Court of Appeals or any of
its justices
SC or any of its justices Anywhere in the Philippines
(1) Before the issuing court or any justice thereof; (2) Before the Sandiganbayan or CA or any of their
justices; or
(3) Any RTC of the place where the threat, act or omission was committed or any of its elements occurred
Docket fees: None [Sec. 4] Return
Within 72 hours after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified written return together with supporting affidavits which shall, among other things, contain his defenses. A general denial is not allowed. [Sec. 9]
Hearing
Summary or court may call for a preliminary conference; given same priority as petition for habeas corpus. [Sec. 13]
Proof required: Substantial evidence
Defense:
(1) Private individual – ordinary diligence (2) Public official – extraordinary diligence,
no presumption of regularity of duties. [Sec. 17]
The Manalo brothers were abducted, detained, and tortured repeatedly by the military. After their escape, they filed a petition for the privilege of the Writ of Amparo. The Supreme Court granted the petition and held that there was a continuing violation of the Manalos’ right to security. As regards the relief granted, the Court held that the production order under the Amparo rule is different from a search warrant and may be likened to the production of documents or things under Rule27.1, ROC. [Secretary of National Defense vs. Manalo (2008)]
B. WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
(See Previous Discussion)The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy. There must be a nexus between right to privacy and right to life, liberty and security. Right To Informational Privacy v. Legitimate State Interest
The determination of whether the privilege of the writ of habeas data, being an extraordinary remedy, may be granted in this case entails a delicate balancing of the alleged intrusion upon the private life of Gamboa and the relevant state interest involved. [Gamboa v. P/Supt. Marlou C. Chan, et al., (2012)]
C. WRIT OF KALIKASAN
Remedy against violation or threat of violation of constitutional right to a balanced and healthful ecology by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces Who may file: Natural or juridical persons, NGO or public interest groups in behalf of persons whose right is violated.
Who has jurisdiction: Supreme Court or Court of Appeals.
Docket fees: None When is writ issued?
Within three (3) days from the date of filing of the petition, if the petition is sufficient in form and substance
Return of Respondent
Within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days after service of the writ, the respondent shall file a verified return which shall contain all defenses; all defenses not raised are deemed waived.
Hearing
Preliminary conference; same priority as other writs (no more than 60 days).
Reliefs: Permanent cease and desist order, other reliefs.
XIX. Self-Incrimination
Clause
A. SCOPE AND COVERAGE
Art. III, Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
Only applies to compulsory testimonial, and does not apply to material objects. [Villaflor v. Summers (1920)]
This right maybe invoked (by the said directors and officers of Philcomsat Holdings Corporation) only when the incriminating question is being asked, since they have no way of knowing in advance the nature or effect of the questions to be asked of them." The consolation is that when this power is abused, such issue may be presented before the courts. [Sabio vs. Gordon (2006)]
It refers therefore to the use of the mental process and the communicative faculties, and not to a merely physical activity.
If the act is physical or mechanical, the accused can be compelled to allow or perform the act, and the result can be used in evidence against him.
Examples:
(1) Handwriting in connection with a prosecution for falsification is not allowed, [Beltran v. Samson, 53 Phil 570; Bermudez vs. Castillo (1937)]
(2) Re-enactment of the crime by the accused is not allowed
(3) The accused can be required to allow a sample of a substance taken from his body [U.S. vs. Tan The (1912)], or be ordered to expel the morphine from his mouth [U.S. v. Ong Sio Hong (1917)] (4) Accused may be made to take off her
garments and shoes and be photographed [People v. Otadura, 96 Phil 244, 1950]; compelled to show her body for physical investigation to see if she is
pregnant by an adulterous relation [Villaflor v. Summers (1920)]
(5) Order to give a footprint sample to see if it matches the ones found in the scene of the crime is allowed [People v. Salas and People v. Sara]
Foreign Laws
The privilege which exists as to private papers, cannot be maintained in relation to “records required by law to be kept in order that there may be suitable information of transactions which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation and the enforcement of restrictions validly established. [Shapiro v. US (1948)]
In recent cases, the US Supreme Court has struck down certain registration requirements that presented real and appreciable risk of self-incrimination. These involved statutes directed at inherently suspect groups in areas permeated by criminal statutes, a circumstance which laid the subjects open to real risk of self-incrimination. [Bernas]
The great majority of persons who file income tax returns do not incriminate themselves by disclosing their occupation. [US v. Sullivan (1927)]
B. APPLICATION
General Rule: The privilege is available in any proceedings, even outside the court, for they may eventually lead to a criminal prosecution. Expanded Application:
(1) Administrative proceedings with penal aspect i.e. medical board investigation. [Pascual v. Board of Medical Examiners(1969)], forfeiture proceeding [Cabal v. Kapunan Jr. (1962)]
(2) Fact-Finding investigation by an ad hoc body [Galman v. Pamaran (1985)]
Effect of Denial of Privilege
Exclusionary Rule (under Sec. 17, Art. III in relation to Sec. 12): When the privilege against self-incrimination is violated outside of court (e.g. police), then the testimony, as already noted, is not admissible.
Ousted of Jurisdiction: When the privilege is violated by the Court itself, that is, by the judge, the court is ousted of its jurisdiction, all its proceedings, and even judgment are null and void. [Chavez v. CA (1968)]
C. IMMUNITY STATUTES
Transactional Immunity Art. XIII, Sec. 18The Commission on Human Rights shall have the following powers and functions: xxx (8) Grant immunity from prosecution to any
person whose testimony or whose possession of documents or other evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its authority; Use and Fruit of Immunity
“Use immunity” prohibits use of a witness’ compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness.
“Transactional immunity” grants immunity to witness from prosecution for an offense to which his compelled testimony relates. [Galman v. Pamaran (1985)]