2. Judicial and Administrative Due Process

Strong Evidence Means Evident Proof or Presumption is Great

Evident proof means clear, strong evidence which leads a well-guarded dispassionate judgment to the conclusion that the offense has been committed as charged, and that the accused is the guilty agent.

Presumption is great when the circumstances testified to are such that the inference of guilt naturally to be drawn therefrom is strong, clear, and convincing to an unbiased judgment and excludes all reasonable probability of any other conclusion. (People v. Judge Cabral, G.R. No. 131909, Feb. 18, 1999)

Since the grant of bail is discretionary and can only be determined by judicial findings, such discretion can only be exercised after evidence is submitted to the court, the petitioner has the right of cross examination and to introduce his own evidence in rebuttal. (Santos v. Judge How, A.M. No. RTJ-05- 1946, Jan. 26, 2007)

Bail is a matter of right when the offense charged is punishable by any penalty lower than reclusion perpetua (Art. III, Sec 13, 1987 Constitution). Bail becomes a matter of discretion if the offense charged is punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment. Consequently, bail will be denied if the evidence of guilt presented by the prosecution is strong (Art. III, Sec. 13, 1987 Constitution). In this case, X is charged with violating Sec. 5 Art. II of RA 9165, which is punishable by life imprisonment. Hence, X’s bail becomes a matter of judicial discretion if the evidence of his guilt is not strong.

When bail is discretionary, the trial court must conduct bail hearings to determine whether the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong. During the bail hearings, the prosecution has the burden of proof. The court’s grant or denial of the bail application must contain a summary of the prosecution’s evidence which should be the basis of the judge in its conclusion in determining the weight of the evidence of the accused's guilt. The jurisprudential standard on providing a summary of the prosecution’s evidence entails that the summary of the evidence presented during the prior hearing is formally recognized as having been presented and, most importantly, considered. A summary is necessarily a reasonable recital of any evidence presented by the prosecution. An incomplete enumeration or selective inclusion of pieces of evidence cannot be considered a summary (People v. Tanes y Belmonte, G.R. No. 240596, April 3, 2019)

No Hearing in Provisional Price-fixing

Such a relaxed procedure is especially true in administrative bodies, such as the ERB which in matters of rate or price fixing is considered as exercising a quasi-legislative, not quasi-judicial function. As such administrative agency, it is not bound by the strict or technical rules of evidence governing court proceedings. Relaxed procedures adopted could not have resulted in the denial of due process. (Maceda v. ERB, G.R. No. 96266, Jul. 18, 1991)

Pilotage is considered a property right. Thus, the exercise of one's profession falls within the constitutional guarantee against wrongful deprivation of, or interference with, property rights without due process. However, it is important to note that a regulation of professions does not per se entail a wrongful deprivation. It is only when a vested right is taken away without due process of law that it falls under the aegis of Article III, Sec. 1. (Corona v. UHPAP, G.R. No. 111953)

Due Process in Judicial Proceedings

Requisites of due process in civil proceedings [Banco Español v. Palanca, G.R. No. L-11390 (1918)]:

• There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the matter before it
• Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over property which is the subject of proceeding.

Service of summons is not only required to give the court jurisdiction over the person of the defendant but also to afford the latter the opportunity to be heard on the claim made against him. Thus, compliance with the rules regarding the service of summons is as much an issue of due process as of jurisdiction [Sarmiento v. Raon, G.R. No. 131482 (2002)].

• The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard; and
• Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
• No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based. No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor [Section 14, Article VIII, 1987 Constitution].

The right to appeal is not a natural right nor part of due process [Alba v. Nitorreda, G.R. No. 120223 (1996)].

Deportation Proceedings

Section 37 of the Immigration Law, empowering the Commissioner of Immigration to issue warrants for the arrest of overstaying aliens is constitutional. The arrest is a step preliminary to the deportation of the aliens who had violated the condition of their stay in this country. The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does not extend to deportation proceedings. There need be no "truncated" recourse to both judicial and administrative warrants in a single deportation proceeding. (Harvey v. Miriam Defensor Santiago, G.R. No. 82544, June 28, 1988)