6-Due Process - Lecture notes 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Due Process...

Description

SUBS SUBST TANT ANTIVE IVE R RIGH IGH IGHTS TS UNDER TH THE E DU DUE E PRO PROCESS CESS CLAU CLAUSE SE

WHA WHAT T ACTS CANN CANNOT OT BE C CRIM RIM RIMINAL INAL INALIZED IZED

1.

What is cruel and unusual, according to the SC, is not dependent on the gravity of the punishment, but more on the nature of the penalty. If by nature, the penalty is acceptable even if grave, there is no constitutional violation. E.g. Death Penalty is acceptable if done by electric chair or lethal injection. But if it is done through musketry or dismembering the body parts of the convict, then that is considered cruel, degrading and inhuman, the practice being not acceptable to social norms.

MERE BELIEFS AND ASPIRATIONS Art III, Sec. 18 (1) “No person shall be detained by reason of his political beliefs or aspirations”.

4. INDEFINITE IMPRISONMENTS

Peo People ple vs. D Dacu acu acuyc yc ycuy uy Note that the protection is on political beliefs and aspirations. This is included in the freedom of thought, for so long as the belief or aspiration does not result into overt acts which would violate existing laws. This is one of the basis for the repeal of RA 1700, or the Anti-Subversion Law, because the proponents of the repeal argued that this law penalizes political beliefs and aspiration.

2.

NON-PAYMENT OF DEBTS AND CIVIL OBLIGATIONS Art. III, Sec Sec.. 20 “No person shall be imprisoned for nonpayment of debts”.

The Magna Carta for public school teachers penal provisions provide the fine of P100-P1,000 or imprisonment in the discretion of the court. According to the SC, such provision is questionable because it allows the judge to fix the penalty of imprisonment without certain limits. Whereas the law allows the delegation of powers to a certain body or agency, the delegation must be limited by sufficient standards. If the law allows the judge to impose penalty of imprisonment based on his own discretion, that makes the law unlimited or without standards, making it constitutionally repugnant to the so-called indefinite imprisonment.

This also includes non-payment of poll taxes. PRO PROTECTION TECTION AGA AGAINST INST DOUB DOUBLE LE JEOP JEOPARD ARD ARDY Y In the cases of Lozano and Nitapan , there is a question on the constitutionality of BP 22, which penalizes two acts: a) issuance of the check which, if presented for payment within 90 days from date, the check is not funded within such period of 90 days. Therefore, the check cannot be encashed because of a closed account or the fund is insufficient; b) At the time of the issuance of the check, the person already knew that he has insufficient fund or that his account is closed even if the check is deposited or encashed outside the 90 day period, in which case, he will still be liable for the same offense. When the law took effect, there was a question whether or not this violates the provision that no person shall be imprisoned for non-payment of debt. According to the SC in Lozano , what is penalized in BP 22 is not the non-payment of the obligation, but the issuance of worthless check being circulated in the business community. The check under the Negotiable Instruments law have become a very important business document. Checks are issued and circulated just like legal tenders. That is why the purpose of the law is to put a stop to the practice of circulating worthless checks in the hope that the public may not loose trust in the practice of isuuing or paying through checks.

3.

ACTS WHEN DONE WERE INNOCENT (EX POST FACTO LAWS) already discussed in the preceeding sections.

PUNISH PUNISHMENTS MENTS THA THAT T CAN CANNO NO NOT T BE IMP IMPOS OS OSED ED 1.

INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

One cannot be compelled to serve somebody without or against the latter’s consent. The constitution, however, provides some exceptions: a) one penalized by reason of a commission of an offense b) citizens may, under certain circumstances be required to render military or civil service to defend the state.

2.

EXCESSIVE FINES

To be excessive, the fine must be grossly disproportionate to the crime committed as to shock the moral sense of all reasonable men as to what is right and proper. In the case of Dela Cruz vs. People, there was a need to control the prices, thus validating the imposed fine which, in ordinary circumstances, could be considered as excessive.

3.

CRUEL, DEGARDING AND INHUMAN PUNISHMENTS

“No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense” 2 Situa Situations tions Contem Contemplated plated plated: 1. Same offense 2. Same act 2 Ge General neral Eleme Elemen n ts A. The first jeopardy must have attached B. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense A. It is required under the first jeopardy to be attached or considered to have attached but there must be (Requirements) 1. a court of competent jurisdiction 2. an information or complaint filed sufficient to convict the accused 3. an arraignment and plea 4. the accused has been acquitted, convicted or otherwise the case is dismissed without his express consent. From the terms of the double jeopardy rule, the mere filing of two information for the same offense will not afford the accused protection from double jeopardy, because there is as yet no jeopardy which has attached. It is required that the first jeopardy must have attached.

Court of Competent Jurisdiction It must be determined which court has jurisdiction over the offense. The MTC now has jurisdiction over criminal cases punishable up to six years of imprisonment. Example: a case of murder against an accused filed, tried and decided before the MTC, and later, another case for the same murder is filed against him before the RTC, the accused cannot claim his right against double jeopardy. The first jeopardy has not attached because the MTC has no jurisdiction over murder cases. Compalint or Information Sufficient to Sustain a Conviction The rules on the sufficiency of information or complaint embodied in the Rules of Court must be observed. Example: when one is charged for rape but the private offended party did not institute the complaint, that will not be sufficient to convict the accused, because rape is a private offense and it can be instituted only by the private offended party.

The Accused Must Have Been Arrainged and Must Have Entered His Plea If the accused has not been arraigned and has not entered his plea, the case will be dismissed, and that is without prejudice to refiling. It is different if there is already an arraignment and plea, that will not constitute as first jeopardy if eventually the first case is dismissed without the expressed consent of the accused.

The Accused is Acquitted or Convicted, or the Case is Dismissed Without His Expressed Consent

Express consent under the case of People vs. Vergara : It is required that it is either viva voce or in writing which is considered to be positive, direct and unequivocal, that the accused wants the case to be dismissed. That should be the tenor of the express consent. There are only two instances in that case where, even with the express consent of the accused or upon motion of the accused, it is considered as an acquittal: 1. the accused invokes the right to a speedy trial 2. the accused moves to dismiss the case based on a demurer to the evidence

quitted; the same case of murder committed on Feb. 1 is refiled 2.

an attempt to commit the same

3.

Frustration of the offense charged  Ex. An earlier case for consummated homicide is filed. It turned out after the case was dismissed, without the consent of the accused, or the accused was acquitted or convicted, that the victim did not die after all, so an attempted or frustrated homicide case is filed. That will be covered under the rule on double jeopardy.

4.

The second offense necessarily includes the first offense  Some of the elements of the second offense constitute all the elements of the first offense.  Ex. First offense is homicide; the second offense is murder. Some of the elements of murder constitute all of the elements of homicide.

5.

The second is necessarily included in the first offense  (It is the reverse of the preceding number)  Ex. First offense is less serious physical injuries; the second offense is for slight physical injuries, still covering the same act. All of the elements of slight physical injuries constitute some of the elements of less serious physical injuries. So the second is necessarily included in the first offense.

6.

The accused pleads guilty to a lesser offense, if it is valid.  It is allowed under our rules in criminal procedure that the accused will enter into a plea bargaining. For a plea bargaining to be valid, the offended party, as well as the prosecutor, must both agree to the plea bargaining. The plea bargaining involves the plea of guilt of the accused to a lesser offense.  Ex. Charged for serious physical injuries. If the complainant and the fiscal agrees that you plea guilty to a lesser offense of slight physical injuries, the case for serious physical injuries will be dismissed, you will become guilty for slight physical injuries, thus, convicted. The private complainant cannot refile the case for serious physical injuries.

7.

Similar or same act circumstance  This situation contemplates an act punishable by a statute as well as an ordinance.  People vs. Relova. Theft of electricity is both punishable under the Penal Code for Theft, as well as by an ordinance in that municipality of Batangas for theft of electricity. he was charged under the city ordinance. It was dismissed based on the ground of prescription. Another case, this time, was filed against him for theft under the penal code. He invoked double jeopardy. SC said the contention is valid. Under the constitution, no person shall be twice put in jeopardy in 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.

Peo People ple vs. V Vergar ergar ergara a After the information was filed, the accused asked that the case be reinvestigated. During the reinvestigation, the fiscal found out that the case should not have been filed. Thus, upon the resumption of the proceedings, the fiscal moved for the dismissal of the case, without the participation of the accused. The judge granted the motion by the fiscal. Thereafter, the Secretary of Justice ordered the fiscal to refile the case. It was refiled. This time the accused invoked the right against double jeopardy. The prosecutor argued that they could not invoke double jeopardy because it was dismissed on a motion for reinvestigation asked by the accused. SC said that the motion for reinvestigation is not a motion to dismiss asked by the accused. When the accused filed a motion for reinvestigation, what they were asking merely was for the fiscal to reevaluate the case. Although impliedly, they would ask that it be dismissed if there is no case.

Galve Galvezz vs vs.. CA Initially, three information were filed. One for homicide and two for frustrated homicide. Before Mayor Galvez and the other accused were arraigned, the fiscal moved to dismiss the cases against them and refiled informations for murder and frustrated murder. Mayor galvez questioned the refiling on several issues, one of which was it violated the double jeopardy rule. SC said the first jeopardy has not attached yet becaused they were not yet arraigned. The information was not sufficient because there was a mistake in the charging of the correct crime. Why was the case appealed despite acquittal? It is a new theory by the people at the department of justice as well as the solicitor general that it would not violate double jeopardy because there was a denial of due process on the part of the state.

Stat State e vs. Moro Gorion vs. vs. RTC RTC In these cases, the charges against the accused were all dismissed without their expressed consent. Common in these cases was the fact that these were dismissed in violation of due process on the part of the state. In the case of State vs. Moro, the eleven charges against Imelda Marcos were dismissed by the judge without notice and hearing, and without giving the prosecution the opportunity to question the dismissal, because according to the judge, he has read in the news that there are particular laws which are already enacted which make the acts of Imelda justified. SC said that the revocation of the order of dismissal by the SC will not amount to violation of the double jeopardy rule because there was a violation on the due process right of the state. In the case of Gorion, during the initial trial, the fiscal and the witnesses appeared but the accused did not appear. The fiscal, not wanting to take advantage of the absence of the accused, asked the prosecution to agree to reset it on Oct. 4. The following day, the case was called again. Obviously, the fiscal did not have any witnesses because he told them to come back on Oct. 4. The judge issued an order for the dismissal of the case. SC said that it was an erroneous order because the case should have not been called that day but on Oct. 4. It being an erroneous order, it did not ousted the court of jurisdiction to dismiss the case. Therefore, the case should not be dismissed, it should be reinstated without violation against double jeopardy.

B.

The second element is that the accused must be placed in jeopardy of being punished for the same offense.

Situations contemplated: 1.

literally, the same offense  Ex. Murder committed on Feb. 1; case dismissed without his consent, or the accused convicted or ac-



Note: The act must be punished by an ordinance and a statute. If punished by two statutes or two ordinances, it will not be covered.

EXCEPTIONS: 1.

Supervening fact/event - If the graver offense develop due to a supervening event/fact.

Melo vs. People The accused was charged for frustrated homicide. When the accused was arraigned on Dec. 29, 8:00 A.M., he pleaded not guilty. At 10:00 A.M. on the same day, the victim died. On Jan.4, a charged for consummated homicide was filed against the same accused. The accused contended that the consummated homicide charged could not be filed for it violates his rights against double jeopardy. SC said that this is a supervening event. When the accused was arraigned , the victim had not yet died. Therefore is as yet no consummated homicide to talk about. Since there was this supervening fact which developed after the arraignment of the accused, it will not amount to the validation of the double jeopardy....