Reviewer - Bill of Rights (For Consti II Class Reviewer)
Reviewer - Bill of Rights (For Consti II Class Reviewer)
City of Manila
SECTION 1, ARTICLE III (2009)]
“Life, liberty and property”
VALIDITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER REGARDING MINE
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due LEASES/AGREEMENTS:
process of law, nor shall any person without due process of law nor The SC upheld the validity of Administrative Orders which
shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. converted existing mine leases and other mining agreements into
production-sharing agreements within one year from effectivity.
The subject sought to be governed by the AOs are germane to the
BILL OF RIGHTS:
object and purpose of E.O. 279 and that mining leases or
It is a guarantee that there are certain areas of a person’s life,
agreements granted by the State are subject to alterations through
liberty and property which governmental power may not touch. All
a reasonable exercise of police power of the State. [Miners
the powers of the government are limited by the Bill of rights.
Association of the Philippines v. Factoran (1995)]
INHERENT POWERS OF THE STATE:
ILLUSTRATIONS ON THE EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER
The inherent power of the state are (1) police power, (2)
power of eminent domain and (3) power of taxation. These
General Welfare v. Property rights. – RA 9257, the Expanded
power belong to the very essence of government and without them,
Senior Citizens Act of 2003, is a legitimate exercise of police
no government can exist. A constitution can only define and delimit
power. Administrative Order No. 177 issued by the Department of
them and allocate their exercise among various government
Health, providing that the 20% discount privilege of senior
agencies. A constitution does not grant them.
citizens shall not be limited to the purchase of unbranded generic
medicine but shall extend to both prescription and non-
POLICE POWER:
prescription medicine, whether branded or generic, is valid.
It is the inherent and plenary power of the state which enables
[Carlos Superdrug Corporation v. DSWC et al. (2007)]
it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and
welfare of society. [Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators
National Security v. Property Rights. – Police power and national
Association, Inc. v. Mayor of Manila (1967)]
security: SC upheld the constitutionality of RA 1180 (An Act to
Regulate the Retail Business) which sought to nationalize the
Scope and Limitations: retail trade business by prohibiting aliens in general from
o Covers public health, public moral, public safety and
engaging directly or indirectly in the retail trade.
public welfare.
“The disputed law was enacted to remedy a real actual threat and
o In order to promote the general welfare, the state
danger to national economy posed by alien dominance and
may interfere with personal liberty with property
control of the retail business; the enactment clearly falls within
and with business and occupation. Persons may be
the scope of the police power of the State, thru which and by
subjected to all kinds of restraints and burdens, in
which it protects its own personality and insures its security and
order to secure the general comfort health and
future.”
prosperity of the state and to this fundamental aim
[Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
of our Government, the rights of the individual are
subordinated. [Ortigas and Co., Limited Partnership
Police power, public safety: The Court identified police power as
v. Feati Bank and Trust Co. (1979)]
a dynamic agency, suitably vague and far from precisely defined,
rooted in the conception that men in organizing the state and
Police Power cannot be bargained away through treaty or imposing upon its government limitations to safeguard
contract. [Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)] constitutional rights did not intend to enable an individual citizen
or a group of citizens to obstruct unreasonably the enactment of
Police power prevails over contracts. [PNB v. Office of the such salutary measures calculated to communal peace, safety,
President (1996)] good order, and welfare. According to the Court, a heavy burden
lies in the hands of the petitioner who questions the state’s
Taxation may be used as an implement of police power [Lutz police power if it was clearly intended to promote public safety.
v. Araneta (1955); Tiu v. Videogram Regulatory Board (1987); [Agustin v. Edu, (1979)]
1
intervals between travels. [White Light Corporation, et al v. City of Private bus firms, taxicab fleets, roadside restaurants, and other
Manila (2009)] private businesses using public streets and highways do not
diminish in the least bit the public character of expropriations for
roads and streets. The lease of store spaces in underpasses of
Limitations when police power is delegated: streets built on expropriated land does not make the taking for a
(1) Express grant by law [e.g. Secs. 16, 391, 447, 458 and private purpose. Airports and piers catering exclusively to private
468, R.A. 7160, for LGUs] airlines and shipping companies are still for public use. The
(2) Limited within its territorial jurisdiction [for local government expropriation of private land for slum clearance and urban
units] development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is
(3) Must not be contrary to law. later sold to private homeowners, commercial firms,
entertainment and service companies, and other private
concerns. [Heirs of Ardona vs. Reyes (1983)]
REQUISITES:
For the state’s power of eminent domain to apply, the ⟴ State Immunity from Suit (1989)
property must be (1) private property (2) there is a genuine No. 13: A property owner filed an action directly in court against
necessity and must be proven, (3) there is a public use ; (4) the the Republic of the Philippines seeking payment for a parcel of
property owner has been paid for just compensation and the taking land which the national government utilized for a road widening
is under a due process. (Manapat vs CA, 2007) project.
(1) Can the government invoke the doctrine of non-suitability of
PRIVATE PROPERTY the state?
Private property already devoted to public use cannot be (2) In connection with the preceding question, can the property
expropriated by a delegate of legislature acting under a general owner garnish public funds to satisfy his claim for payment?
grant of authority. [City of Manila v. Chinese Explain your answers.
Community (1919)] ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(1) No, the government cannot invoke the doctrine of state of
Generally, all private property capable of ownership may be immunity from suit. As held in Ministerio vs. Court of First
expropriated, except money and chooses in action. Instance of Cebu, 40 SCRA 464, when the government
[Republic v. PLDT (1969)] expropriates property for public use without paying just
compensation, it cannot invoke its immunity from the suit.
A chose in action is a proprietary right in personam, such as debts Otherwise, the right guaranteed in Section 9, Article III of the
owned by another person, a share in a joint-stock company, or a 1987 Constitution that private property shall not be taken for
claim for damages in tort; it is the right to bring an action to public use without just compensation will be rendered
recover a debt, money or thing [Black’s nugatory.
Law Dictionary] (2) No, the owner cannot garnish public funds to satisfy his claim
for payment, Section 7 of Act No. 3083 prohibits execution
TAKING upon any judgment against the government. As held in
The exercise of the power of eminent does not always Republic vs. Palacio, 23 SCRA 899, even if the government may
result in the taking or appropriation of title to the expropriated be sued, it does not follow that its properties may be seized
property; it may only result in the imposition of a burden upon the under execution.
owner of the condemned property, without loss of title or possession.
[National Power Corporation v. Gutierrez (1991)]
That only a few benefits from the expropriation does not diminish Presidential Decrees merely serve as guide/factors for the courts
its public-use character, inasmuch as pubic use now includes the in determining just compensation [EPZA vs. Dulay, 148 SCRA 305]
broader notion of indirect public benefit or advantage [Filstream
International vs. CA (1998)]
PAGE 2
Findings of court appointed commissioners regarding the Nonetheless, the Municipality of Santa, through its Mayor, filed a
determination of just compensation are not binding to courts complaint for eminent domain. Christina opposed this on the
[Republic v. Santos (1986); Republic (MECS) v. IAC (1990)] following grounds:
1 the Municipality of Santa has no power to expropriate;
The court may substitute its own estimate of the value of the 2 Resolution No. 1 has been voided since the Sangguniang
property only for valid reasons: (a) the commissioners have Panlalawigan disapproved it for being arbitrary; and
applied illegal principles to the evidence submitted to them; (b) 3 the Municipality of Santa has other and better lots for that
they have disregarded a clear preponderance of evidence; or (c) purpose. Resolve the case with reasons. (5%)
where the amount allowed is either grossly inadequate or
excessive. [National Power Corporation v. De la Cruz (2007)]
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a) Under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, the power of eminent domain
is explicitly granted to the municipality, but must be exercised
WHEN DETERMINED
through an ordinance rather than through a resolution.
General: At the time of the filing of the case
(Municipality ofParanaque v. V.M. Realty Corp., G.R. No. 127820,
July 20, 1998)
Exception: If the value of the property increased because of the
b) The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur was without the
use to which the expropriator has put it, the value is that of the
authority to disapprove Resolution No. 1 as the municipality
time of the taking. [NAPOCOR v. CA (1996)]
clearly has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain and
its Sangguniang Bayan the capacity to promulgate said resolution.
Legal interest: 6%, time when payment is due to actual payment
The only ground upon which a provincial board may declare any
municipal resolution, ordinance or order invalid is when such
resolution, ordinance or order is beyond the powers conferred
⟴ Eminent Domain; Legal Interest (1993) upon the council or president making the same. Such is not the
No, 5: In expropriation proceedings: 1) What legal interest should situation in this case. (Moday v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107916,
be used in the computation of interest on just compensation? February 20, 1997)
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: c) The question of whether there is genuine necessity for the
As held in National Power Corporation vs. Angas. 208 SCRA 542, in
expropriation of Christina's lot or whether the municipality has
accordance with Article 2209 of the Civil Code, the legal interest
other and better lots for the purpose is a matter that will have to be
should be SIX per cent (6%) a year. Central Bank Circular No. 416,
resolved by the Court upon presentation of evidence by the parties
which increased the legal interest to twelve percent (12%) a year
to the case.
is not applicable to the expropriation of property and is limited to
loans, since its issuance is based on Presidential Decree No, 116,
which amended the Usury Law.
⟴ Eminent Domain; Public Use (1987)
No. XVI: In January 1984, Pasay City filed expropriation
proceedings against several landowners for the construction of an
aqueduct for flood control in a barangay. Clearly, only the
⟴ Eminent Domain; Non-observance of the policy of residents of that barangay would be benefited by the project. As
"all or none" (2000)
compensation, the city offered to pay only the amount declared by
No VIII. Madlangbayan is the owner of a 500 square meter lot
the owners in their tax declarations, which amount was lower
which was the birthplace of the founder of a religious sect who
than the assessed value as determined by the assessor. The
admittedly played an important role in Philippine history and
landowners oppose the expropriation on the grounds that:
culture. The National Historical Commission (NHC) passed a
(a) the same is not for public use; and
resolution declaring it a national landmark and on its
(b) assuming it is for public use, the compensation must be based
recommendation the lot was subjected to expropriation
on the evidence presented in court and not, as provided in
proceedings. This was opposed by Madlangbayan on the following
presidential decrees prescribing payment of the value stated in
grounds: a) that the lot is not a vast tract; b) that those to be
the owner's tax declarations or the value determined by the
benefited by the expropriation would only be the members of the
assessor, whichever is lower. If you were judge, how would you
religious sect of its founder, and c) that the NHC has not initiated
rule on the issue? Why?
the expropriation of birthplaces of other more deserving
historical personalities. Resolve the opposition raised by ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Madlangbayan. (a) The contention that the taking of private property for the
purpose of constructing an aqueduct for flood control is not for
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: public use" is untenable- The idea that "PUBLIC USE" means
The arguments of Madlangbayan are not meritorious. According to
exclusively use by the public has been discarded. As long as the
Manosca v. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 412 (1996), the power of
purpose of the taking is public, the exercise of power of eminent
eminent domain is not confined to expropriation of vast tracts of
domain is justifiable. Whatever may be beneficially employed for
the land. The expropriation of the lot to preserve it as the
the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. (Heirs
birthplace of the founder of the religious sect because of his role in
of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, 123 SCR A 220 (1983))
Philippine history and culture is for a public purpose, because
(b) But the contention that the Presidential Decrees providing that
public use is no longer restricted to the traditional concept. The
in determining just compensation the value stated by the owner in
fact that the expropriation will benefit the members of the
his tax declaration or that determined by the assessor, whichever is
religious sect is merely incidental. The fact that other birthplaces
lower, in unconstitutional is correct. In EPZA v. Dulay. G.R. No.
have not been expropriated is likewise not a valid basis for
59603, April 29, 1987, it was held that this method prescribed for
opposing the expropriation. As held in J.M. Tuason and Company,
ascertaining just compensation constitutes an impermissible
Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970), the
encroachment on the prerogatives of courts. It tends to render
expropriating authority is not required to adhere to the policy of
courts inutile in a matter which, under the Constitution, is reserved
"all or none".
to them for final determination. For although under the decrees
the courts still have the power to determine just compensation,
their task is reduced to simply determining the lower value of the
property as declared either by the owner or by the assessor. "JUST
⟴ Eminent Domain; Power to Exercise (2005) COMPENSATION" means the value of the property at the time of
(10-2) The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Santa, Ilocos the taking. Its determination requires that all facts as to the
Sur passed Resolution No. 1 authorizing its Mayor to initiate a condition of the property and its surroundings and its
petition for the expropriation of a lot owned by Christina as site improvements and capabilities must be considered, and this can
for its municipal sports center. This was approved by the Mayor. only be done in a judicial proceeding.
However, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur
disapproved the Resolution as there might still be other available
lots in Santa for a sports center.
⟴ Eminent Domain; Socialized Housing (1996)
PAGE 3
No. 4 - The City of Pasig initiated expropriation proceedings on a (Association of Small Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform)
one-hectare lot which is part of a ten-hectare parcel of land as it is a means to regulate private property.
devoted to the growing of vegetables. The purpose of the
expropriation is to use the land as a relocation site for 200 families Retention limits prescribed by the Comprehensive Agrarian
squatting along the Pasig river. a) Can the owner of the property Reform Law is also form of taking under the power of eminent
oppose the expropriation on the ground that only 200 out of the domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation on the
more than 10,000 squatter families in Pasig City will benefit from use of the land, but the surrender of the title to and physical
the expropriation? Explain. b) Can the Department of Agrarian possession of the excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the
Reform require the City of Pasig to first secure authority from said owner in favor of the beneficiary. [Sta. Rosa Realty & Development
Department before converting the use of the land from Corp. v. Court of Appeals (2001)]
agricultural to housing?
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: SPECIFICALLY (LGUs, Sec. 19, Local Government Code)
a) No, the owner of the property cannot oppose the expropriation
(1) Ordinance by a local legislature council is enacted
on the ground that only 200 out of more than 10,000 squatter
authorizing local chief executive to exercise eminent domain,
families in Pasig City will benefit from the expropriation. As held in
(2) For public use, purpose or welfare or for the benefit of
Philippine Columbian Association vs. Pants, 228 SCRA 668, the
the poor and of the landless,
acquisition of private property for socialized housing is for public
(3) Payment of just compensation,
use and the fact that only a few and not everyone will benefit from
(4) Valid and definite offer has been previously made to
the expropriation does not detract from the nature of the public
owner of the property sought to be expropriated but such offer
use.
was not accepted [Municipality of Parañaque vs. VM Realty
(1998)]
b) No, the Department of Agrarian Reform cannot require Pasig
City to first secure authority from it before converting the use of
Who may exercise the power?
the land from agricultural to residential. According to Province of
Those that may exercise such power are the Congress and
Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 173, there is no
by delegation, the President, administrative bodies, local
provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which
government units, and even private enterprises performing public
subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local
services may exercise the power of eminent domain.
government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian
Reform and to require approval from the Department of Agrarian
Congress - political question
Reform will mean that it is not the local government unit but the
Department of Agrarian Reform who will determine whether or
Delegate
not the expropriation is for a public use.
a. Grant of special authority for special purpose- political question
b. Grant of general authority- justiciable question [City of Manila v.
Chinese Community of Manila (1919)]
⟴ Eminent Domain; Writ of Possession (1993) When the power is exercised by the legislature, the question of
No, 5: In expropriation proceedings: Can the judge validly necessity is generally a political question. [Municipality of
withhold issuance of the writ of possession until full payment of Meycauyan, Bulacan v. Intermediate Appellate Court (1988)]
the final value of the expropriated property?
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: The RTC has the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise
of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether there is
No, the judge cannot validly withhold the issuance of the writ of
possession until full payment of the final value of the expropriated a genuine necessity for it. [Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of
property. As held in National Power Corporation vs. Jocson, 206 Calamba, Laguna (2003)]
SCRA 520. it is the rninisterial duty of the Judge to issue the writ of
possession upon deposit of the provisional value of the
expropriated property withthe National or Provincial Treasurer. WHO HAS JURISDICTION? ------ Regional Trial Court
While the value of the property to be expropriated is
estimated in monetary terms – for the court is duty bound to
EFFECT OF DELAY determine the amount of just compensation to be paid for the
Just compensation means not only the correct amount to property – it is merely incidental to the expropriation suit
be paid to the owner of the land but also payment within a [Barangay San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor
reasonable time from its taking [Eslaban v. De Onorio (2001)] (2000)
General rule on delay of payment: The issuance of a writ of possession becomes ministerial upon the
For non-payement, the remedy is the demand of payment of the (1) filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and
fair market value of the property and not the recovery of substance, and (2) upon deposit made by the government of the
possession of the expropriated lots. [Republic of the Philippines v. amount equivalent to 15% of the fair market value of the property
Court of Appeals (2002); Reyes v. National Housing Authority sought to be expropriated per current tax declaration. [Biglang-
(2003)] Awa v. Judge Bacalla (2000); Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of
Calamba, Laguna (2003)]
Exception:
When the government fails to pay just compensation within five SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
years from the finality of the judgment in the expropriation All Private Property capable of ownership may be expropriated,
proceedings, the owners concerned shall have the right to recover except money and choses in action. Even services may be subject
possession of their property. to eminent domain. [Republic v.
[Republic of the Philippines v. Vicente Lim (2005)] PLDT (1969)]
ABANDONMENT OF INTENDED USE AND RIGHT OF Exercise of right to eminent domain is strictly construed against
REPURCHASE the State or its agent because such right is necessarily in
If the expropriator (government) does not use the derogation of private rights. [Jesus is Lord
property for a public purpose, the property reverts to the owner in Christian School Foundation v. Municipality of Pasig (2005)]
fee simple. [Heirs of Moreno vs. Mactan-Cebu International Airport
(2005)] NECESSITY
The foundation of the right to exercise eminent domain is genuine
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION “TAKING” UNDER SOCIAL necessity and that necessity must be of public character.
JUSTICE CLAUSE Government may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose which
Agrarian Reform (Art. XIII, Sec. 4):This provision is an private property should be expropriated. [Lagcao v. Judge Labra
exercise of the police power of the State through eminent domain (2004)]
PAGE 4
WHEN IS THERE TAKING IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL CASE? have been established and that after said period, no suit shall be
When the owner is deprived of his proprietary rights brought to question the said rights of way, transmission lines,
there is taking of private property. It may include (1) diminution substations, plants or other facilities.” If you were the lawyer of
in value; (2) prevention of ordinary use; (3) deprivation of Farmerjoe, how would you protect and vindicate the rights of
beneficial use. your client?
PAGE 5
Scope and Limitation Progressive system of taxation: The rate increases as the tax base
General Limitations: increases, with basis as social justice. Taxation as an instrument
(1) Power to tax exists for the general welfare; should be exercised for a more equitable distribution of wealth
only for a public purpose
(2) Might be justified as for public purpose even if the immediate Delegated tax legislation: Congress may delegate lawmaking
beneficiaries are private individuals authority when the Constitution itself specifically authorizes it.
(3) Tax should not be confiscatory: If a tax measure is so
unconscionable as to amount to confiscation of property, the SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES
Court will invalidate it. But invalidating a tax measure must be
exercised with utmost caution, otherwise, the State’s power to SIMILARITIES (NACHURA)
legislate for the public welfare might be seriously curtailed (1) Inherent in the State (Exercised even without need of express
(4) Taxes should be uniform and equitable [Sec. 28(1), Art. constitutional grant)
VI] (2) Necessary and indispensable (State cannot be effective
without them)
Judicial review for unconscionable and unjust tax amounting to (3) Method by which state interferes with private property
confiscation of property (4) Presuppose equivalent compensation
The legislature has discretion to determine the nature, object, (5) Exercised primarily by the legislature
extent, coverage, and situs of taxation. But where a tax measure
becomes so unconscionable and unjust as to amount to POLICE POWER EMINENT TAXATION
confiscation of property, courts will not hesitate to strike it down, DOMAIN
for despite all its plenitude, the power to tax cannot override COMPENSATION
constitutional prescriptions. [Tan v. del Rosario (1994)] None Just None
(The altruistic compensation (The protection
Specific Limitations: feeling that one (Full and fair given and public
(1) Uniformity of taxation has contributed equivalent of the improvements
General Rule: simply geographical uniformity, meaning it to the public property taken) instituted by the
operates with the same force and effect in every place where good required. State because of
the subject of it is found. [NACHURA]) these taxes
[NACHURA])
Exception: Rule does not prohibit classification for purposes of USE OF PROPERTY
taxation, provided the ff requisites are met: Not Appropriated for Use taxing power
(SNAGAE) appropriated for public use as an implement
(a) standards used are Substantial and Not Arbitrary public use for the
(b) if the classification is Germane to achieve the legislative attainment of a
purpose legitimate police
(c) if that classification Applies to both present and future objective—to
conditions, other circumstances being equal regulate a
(d) applies Equally to members of the same class. [Pepsi Cola v. business or trade
City of Butuan (1968)]. OBJECTIVE
Property taken Earn revenue for
(2) Tax Exemptions: for public use; it the government
No law granting any tax exemption shall be passed without the is not necessarily
concurrence of a majority of all the Members of Congress [Sec. noxious
28 (4), Art. VI] COVERAGE
Liberty and Property rights Property rights
A corollary power but must be for a public purpose, uniform and Property only only
equitable and in conformity with the equal protection clause
EXECUTIVE
PAGE 6
By virtue of a valid delegation of legislative power, it may McGuire and PAGCOR assailed the validity of the ordinance in
also be exercised by the president, administrative bodies, and law court. How would you resolve the issue? Discuss fully.
making bodies of LGUs. [Sec. 16, R.A. 7160]
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The ordinance should be declared invalid. As held in Magtajas
...this power is limited only by the Acts of Congress and those
vs. Pryce Properties Corporation. Inc., 234 SCRA 255. such an
fundamentals principles which lie at the foundation of all
ordinance contravenes Presidential Decree No. 1869, which
republican forms of government. While an Act of the Legislature
authorizes the Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation to
which is obviously and undoubtedly foreign to any of the
operate casinos within the territorial Jurisdiction of the Philippines,
purposes of the police power and interferes with the ordinary
because it prevents the said corporation from exercising the power
enjoyment of property would, without doubt, be held to be
conferred on it to operate a casino in Tacloban City. The power of
invalid.[Churchill and Tait v. Rafferty (1915)]
Tacloban City to suppress gambling and prohibited games of chance
excludes of chance permitted by law. Implied repeals are not
Rep. Act No. 7924 does not grant the MMDA with police power, let
favored. (Basco v. PAGCOR)
alone legislative power, and all its functions are administrative in
nature. [MMDA v. Bel-Air Village Association (2000)]
⟴ Police Power; Prohibition of Gambling (2009)
To address the pervasive problem of gambling, Congress is
⟴ The MMDA is authorized to confiscate a driver’s
considering the following options: (1) prohibit all forms of
license in the enforcement of traffic regulations.(0.5%)
gambling; (2) allow gambling only on Sundays; (3) allow gambling
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: only in government-owned casinos; and (4) remove all
False. Since Republic Act No. 7924 does not grant the prohibition against gambling but impose a tax equivalent to 30%
Metropolitan manila Development Authority to enact ordinances, on all winnings
the grant to it by Section 5(f) of Republic Act No. 7924 of the power
to confiscate driver’s license without the need of any other law is an (a) If Congress chooses the first option and passes the
authorized exercise corresponding law absolutely prohibiting all forms of gambling,
can the law be validly attacked on the ground that it is an invalid
EMINENT DOMAIN exercise of police power? Explain your answer
The general power to exercise the right of eminent
domain must not be confused with the right to exercise it in a
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Yes. Although the Congress has the plenary power to
particular case.
enact law and interfere with the personal liberty and property in
order to promote the general welfare, the exercise of police power
The power of the legislature to confer, upon municipal corporations
is subject to 2 test: 1. Lawful subject – refers to the interest of the
and other entities within the State, general authority to exercise the
General Public requiring the interference of the State and 2. Lawful
right of eminent domain cannot be questioned by the courts, but
means – refers to the reasonable means employed necessary for the
that general authority of municipalities or entities must not be
accomplishment of its objective and not duly oppressive upon
confused with the right to exercise it in particular instances.
individuals. Basis of the exercise of police power: (1) Sic utere tuo
et alienum non laedas – use your property so that you do not injure
The moment the municipal corporation or entity attempts to
that of another (2) Salus populi est suprema lex – the welfare of the
exercise the authority conferred, it must comply with the
people is the highest law
conditions accompanying the authority. The necessity for
conferring the authority upon a municipal corporation to exercise
the right of eminent domain is admittedly within the power of the ⟴ (b) If Congress chooses the last option and
legislature. passes the corresponding law imposing a 30% tax on all winnings
and prizes won from gambling, would the law comply with the
But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is constitutional limitations on the exercise of the power of taxation?
exercising the right in a particular case under the conditions
imposed by the general authority is a question which the courts
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
NO. Because the lawful means is not reasonably necessary
have the right to inquire into. [City of Manila v. Chinese Community for the accomplishment of its objective. It adds more burden upon
of Manila (1919)] individuals.
As Exercised By Congress As Exercised By Delegates TAXATION
Extent of Power (1) legislature (primarily)
Pervasive and Can only be as broad as (2) local legislative bodies [Sec. 5, Art. X]
allencompassing the enabling law and the (3) President (to a limited extent, when granted delegated tariff
conferring authorities want powers under Sec. 28 (2) Art. VI
it to be
Question of Necessity
Political question Justiciable question. RTC BILL OF RIGHTS
has to determine whether The Bill of Rights is designed to preserve the ideals of
there is a genuine necessity liberty, equality and security "against the assaults of opportunism,
for its exercise, as well as the expediency of the passing hour, the erosion of small
what the property’s value encroachments, and the scorn and derision of those who have no
is. patience with general principles." (Justice Cardozo, Nature of
If not justiciable, there’s Judicial Process, 90-93; Tanada and Fernando, Constitution of the
grant of special authority Philippines, 1952 ed., 71.) [Philippine Blooming Mills Employees
for special purpose Organization v. Philippine Blooming Mills Co., Inc. (1973)]
Re: Private Property
Delegate cannot In the pithy language of Mr. Justice Robert Jackson, the purpose of
expropriate private the Bill of Rights is to withdraw "certain subjects from the
property already devoted vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach
to public use of majorities and officials, and to establish them as legal principles
to be applied by the courts. One's rights to life, liberty and property,
to free speech, or free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and
⟴ Ordinances; Validity; Gambling Prohibition (1995): other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they
No. 4: 2. PAGCOR decided to operate a casino in Tacloban City depend on the outcome of no elections." [West Virginia State Board
under authority of P.D. No. 1869. It leased a portion of a building of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 638]
belonging to Ellen McGuire renovated and equipped it in
preparation for its inauguration. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of
Tacloban City enacted an ordinance prohibiting the operation of
casinos in the City and providing penalty for its violation. Ellen
PAGE 7
APPLICABILITY The ordinance is a valid exercise of police power. The
Sec. 2, Art. III shall apply only against law officials or people right to privacy yields to certain paramount rights of the public
working as agents of government concerned about being able to and defers to the exercise of police power. The ordinance is not
procure evidence. [People v. Marti (1991)] prohibiting the disco pub owners and the hospitality girls from
pursuing their calling or business but is merely regulating it.
Sec. 3 of Art. XIII of the Constitution requires the State to give full (Social Justice Society vs. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 410
protection to labor. We cannot be faithful to this duty if we give no [2008]). This ordinance is a valid exercise of police power, because
protection to labor when the violator of its rights happens to be its purpose is to safeguard public health. (Beltran vs. Secretary of
private parties like private employers. A private person does not Health, 476 SCRA 168 [2005])
have a better right than the government to violate an employee's b) If the court grants the City’s prayer for expropriation, but the
right to due process. To be sure, violation of the particular right of City delays payment of the amount determined by the court as just
employees to security of tenure comes almost always from their compensation, can FCC recover the property from pasig city?
private employers. [Serrano v. NLRC (2000)]
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Yes. As a general rule, non-payment of just
BILL OF RIGHTS VS ARTICLE XIII ON SOCIAL JUSTICE:
compensation does not entitle the landowner to recover possession
The bill of rights focuses on civil and political rights
of the expropriated lots. Instead legal interest on just compensation
whereas Article XIII focuses on social and economical rights.
should be paid (National Power Corporation vs.Henson, 300 SCRA
Moreover, the guarantees in Bill of rights are generally self-
751 [1998]). However, in cases where the government failed to pay
implementing while Article XIII requires implementing legislations.
the just compensation within 5 years from the FINALITY OF THE
JUDGMENT in the expropriation proceedings, the owners
concerned shall have the right to recovery possession of their
⟴ Police Power; Zoning Ordinance vs. Non- property (Republic vs. Lim, 462 SCRA 265 [2005]).
Impairment of Contracts (1989)
No. 12: Pedro bought a parcel of land from Smart Corporation, a (c) Suppose the expropriation succeeds, but the city decides to
realty firm engaged in developing and selling lots to the public. abandon its plan to subdivide the property for residential
One of the restrictions in the deed of sale which was annotated in purposes having found much bigger lot, can FCC legally demand
the title is that the lot shall be used by the buyer exclusively for that it be allowed to repurchase the property from the city of
residential purposes. A main highway having been constructed Pasig? Why or why not?
across the subdivision, the area became commercial in nature. The
municipality later passed a zoning ordinance declaring the area as
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
It depends. The property owner’s right to repurchase
a commercial bank building on his lot. Smart Corporation went to
the property depends upon the character of the title acquired by
court to stop the construction as violative of the building
the expropriator, ie., if the land is expropriated for a particular
restrictions imposed by it. The corporation contends that the
purpose with the condition that when that purpose is ended or
zoning ordinance cannot nullify the contractual obligation
abandoned, the property shall revert to the former owner, then the
assumed by the buyer. Decide the case.
former owner can reacquire the property (Heirs of Timoteo Moreno
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: vs. Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority, 413 SCRA 502
The case must be dismissed. As held in Ortigas and [2003]). But if there is no such condition the owner cannot
Company, Limited Partnership vs. FEATIi Bank and Trust Company, repurchase because the judgment in the expropriation case grants
94 SCRA 533, such a restriction in the contract cannot prevail over title to the lot in fee simple to the REPUBLIC.
the zoning ordinance, because the enactment of the ordinance is a
valid exercise of police power. It is hazardous to health and comfort
to use the lot for residential purposes, since a highway crosses the
subdivision and the area has become commercial.
DUE PROCESS
A law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds
⟴ Police Power; Zoning Ordinance vs. Non- upon inquiry and renders judgment only after trial” [Darthmouth
Impairment of Contracts (2001 College v. Woodward, 4 Wheaton 518] Life includes the right of an
No XVIII In the deeds of sale to, and in the land titles of individual to his body in its completeness, free from dismemberment,
homeowners of a residential subdivision in Pasig City, there are and extends to the use of God-given faculties which make life
restrictions annotated therein to the effect that only residential enjoyable [Justice Malcolm, Philippine Constitutional Law, pp.
houses or structures may be built or constructed on the lots. 320321; See Buck v. Bell, 274 US 200]’
However, the City Council of Pasig enacted an ordinance amending
the existing zoning ordinance by changing the zone classification Generally it is part of the sporting idea of fair play to hear
in that place from purely residential to commercial. "A", a lot "the other side" before an opinion is formed or a decision is made by
owner, sold his lot to a banking firm and the latter started those who sit in judgment.” [Ynot v. IAC (1987)]. It covers any
constructing a commercial building on the lot to house a bank governmental action which constitutes a deprivation of some
inside the subdivision. The subdivision owner and the person's life, liberty, or property.
homeowners' association filed a case in court to stop the
construction of the building for banking business purposes and to MINIMUM REQUIREMENT:
respect the restrictions embodied in the deed of sale by the There must be due notice, opportunity to be heard and to
subdivision developer to the lot owners, as well as the annotation persons who would be affected by the order or act contemplated.
in the titles. If you were the Judge, how would you resolve the
case? NOTED EXCEPTIONS TO DUE PROCESS
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: In such instances, previous judicial hearing may be
If I were the judge, I would dismiss the case. As held in omitted without violation of due process in view of: 1) the nature
Ortigas and Company Limited Partnership vs. FEATI Bank and of the property involved; or 2) the urgency of the need to
Trust Company. 94 SCRA 633 (1979), the zoning ordinance is a protect the general welfare from a clear and present danger.
valid exercise of police power and prevails over the contractual
stipulation restricting the use of the lot to residential purposes. RELATIVITY OF DUE PROCESS
The concept of due process is flexible for not all situations
calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind of
⟴ Ordinance Validity; Regulation of Disco Pubs (2010) procedure. [Secretary of Justice v. Lantion (2000)] However, this
No. XXI The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Pasay City passed an
flexible does not mean that judges are at large to apply it to any and
ordinance requiring all disco pub owners to have all their
all relationships. Its flexibility is in its scope once it has been
hospitality girls tested for the AIDS virus. Both disco pub owners
determined that some process is due; it is a recognition that not all
and the hosptitality girls assailed the validity of the ordinance for
situations calling for procedural safeguards call for the same kind
being violative of their constitutional rights to privacy and to
of procedure. [Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)]
freely choose a calling or business. Is the ordinance valid?
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
PAGE 8
⟴ Due Process; Absence of Denial (1999) 2) No, Stevie was not denied due process simply because the
No VIII - B. On April 6, 1963, Police Officer Mario Gatdula was
complainants, the prosecutor, and the hearing officers were all
charged by the Mayor with Grave Misconduct and Violation of Law
subordinates of the Commissioner of the Bureau of Immigration
before the Municipal Board. The Board investigated Gatdula but
and Deportation. In accordance with the ruling in Erianger &
before the case could be decided, the City charter was approved.
Galinger, Inc. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, 110 Phil. 470, the
The City Fiscal, citing Section 30 of the city charter, asserted that
findings of the subordinates are not conclusive upon the
he was authorized thereunder to investigate city officers and
Commissioners, who have the discretion to accept or reject them.
employees. The case against Gatdula was then forwarded to him,
What is important is that Stevie was not deprived of his right to
and a re-investigation was conducted. The office of the Fiscal
present his own case and submit evidence in support thereof, the
subsequently recommended dismissal. On January 11, 1966, the
decision is supported by substantial evidence, and the
City Mayor returned the records of the case to the City Fiscal for
commissioners acted on their own independent consideration of
the submission of an appropriate resolution but no resolution was
the law and facts of the case, and did not simply accept the views of
submitted. On March 3, 1968, the City Fiscal transmitted the
their subordinates in arriving at a decision.
records to the City Mayor recommending that final action thereon
be made by the City Board of Investigators (CBI). Although the CBI
did not conduct an investigation, the records show that both the
PROCEDURAL AND SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Municipal Board and the Fiscal's Office exhaustively heard the
case with both parties afforded ample opportunity to adduce their
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS
evidence and argue their cause. The Police Commission found
Procedural due process is that aspect of due process which
Gatdula guilty on the basis of the records forwarded by the CBI.
serves as a restriction on actions of judicial and quasi-judicial
Gatdula challenged the adverse decision of the Police Commission
agencies of the government. It refers to the method or manner by
theorizing that he was deprived of due process.
which a law is enforced.
Questions: Is the Police Commission bound by the findings of the
Concerns with government action on established process when it
City Fiscal? Is Gatdula's protestation of lack or nonobservance of
makes intrusion into the private sphere
due process well-grounded? Explain your answers. (4%)
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
The Police Commission is not bound by the findings of the City Substantive due process looks to whether there is a
Fiscal. In Mangubat v. de Castro, 163 SCRA 608, it was held that the sufficient justification for the government’s action. It is an aspect
Police Commission is not prohibited from making its own findings of due process which serves as a restriction on the law-making
on the basis of its own evaluation of the records. Likewise, the and rule making power of the government.
protestation of lack of due process is not well-grounded, since the
hearings before the Municipal Board and the City Fiscal offered The law itself, not merely the procedures by which the law would
Gatdula the chance to be heard. There is no denial of due process if be enforced, should be fair, reasonable, and just. It guarantees
the decision was rendered on the basis of evidence contained in the against the arbitrary power even when exercised according to
record and disclosed to the parties affected. proper forms and procedure.
⟴ Due Process; Deportation (1994) ⟴ Due Process; Procedural vs. Substantive (1999)
No. 9: A complaint was filed by Intelligence agents of the Bureau No VIII - A. Give examples of acts of the state which infringe the
of Immigration and Deportation (BID) against Stevie, a German due process clause:
national, for his deportation as an undesirable alien. The 1. in its substantive aspect and (1%)
Immigration Commissioner directed the Special Board of Inquiry 2. in its procedural aspect? (1%)
to conduct an Investigation. At the said Investigation, a lawyer
from the Legal Department of the BID presented as witnesses the
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
1.) A law violates substantive due process when it is unreasonable
three Intelligence agents who filed the complaint. On the basis of
or unduly oppressive. For example, Presidential Decree No. 1717,
the findings, report and recommendation of the Board of Special
which cancelled all the mortgages and liens of a debtor, was
Inquiry, the BID Commissioners unanimously voted for Stevie's
considered unconstitutional for being oppressive. Likewise, as
deportation. Stevie's lawyer questioned the deportation order 1)
stated in Ermita-Malate Hotel and Motel Operators Association,
On the ground that Stevie was denied due process because the BID
Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila, 20 SCRA 849, a law which is vague so
Commissioners who rendered the decision were not the ones who
that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning and
received the evidence, in violation of the "He who decides must
differ as to its application violates substantive due process. As held
hear" rule. Is he correct? 2) On the ground that there was a
in Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 SCRA 446, due process requires that the
violation of due process because the complainants, the prosecutor
law be published.
and the hearing officers were all subordinates of the BID
Commissioners who rendered the deportation decision. Is he
2.) In State Prosecutors v. Muro, 236 SCRA 505, it was held that the
correct?
dismissal of a case without the benefit of a hearing and without
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: any notice to the prosecution violated due process. Likewise, as
1) No, Stevie is not correct. As held in Adamson A Adamson, Inc. vs. held in People v. Court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 452, the lack of
Amores, 152 SCRA 237, administrative due process does not impartiality of the judge who will decide a case violates procedural
require that the actual taking of testimony or the presentation of due process.
evidence before the same officer who will decide the case. In
American Tobacco Co. v. Director of Patents, 67 SCRA 287, the
Supreme Court has ruled that so long as the actual decision on the REQUIREMENTS:
merits of the cases is made by the officer authorized by law to Laws which interfere with life, liberty or property satisfy
decide, the power to hold a hearing on the basis of which his substantive due process when there is a lawful object i.e. the
decision will be made can be delegated and is not offensive to due interests of the public in general (as distinguished from those of a
process. The Court noted that: "As long as a party is not deprived of particular class) require the intervention of the State, and Lawful
his right to present his own case and submit evidence in support means i.e. means employed are reasonably necessary for the
thereof, and the decision is supported by the evidence in the record, accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive on
there is no question that the requirements of due process and fair individuals. [US v. Toribio, (1910)]
trial are fully met. In short, there is no abrogation of responsibility
on the part of the officer concerned as the actual decision remains Publication of laws is part of substantive due process. [Tañada v.
with and is made by said officer. It is, however, required that to Tuvera (1986)]
give the substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose of making
determinations upon evidence the officer who makes the
determinations must consider and appraise the evidence which
justifies them.
⟴ Due Process; Notice by Publication (1988)
PAGE 9
No. 9: Macabebe, Pampanga has several barrios along the
Pampanga river. To service the needs of their residentst the Q: Due process of law is classified into two kinds namely,
municipality has been operating a ferry service at the same river, procedural due process and substantive due process of law. Was
for a number of years already. Sometime in 1987, the municipality there, or, was there no violation of the harbor pilots' right to
was served a copy of an order from the Land Tansportation exercise their profession and their right to due process of law?
Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), granting a certificate
of public convenience to Mr. Ricardo Macapinlac, a resident of
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
YES. The right of the harbor pilots to due process was
Macabebe, to operate ferry service across the same river and
violated. Am held in Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of
between the same barrios being serviced presently by the
the Philippines, 283 SCRA 31 (1997) pilotage as a profession is a
municipality's ferry boats. A check of the records of the
property right protected by the guarantee of due process. The pre-
application of Macapinlac shows that the application was filed
evaluation cancellation of the licenses of the harbor pilots every
some months before, set for hearing, and notices of such hearing
year is unreasonable and violated their right to substantive due
were published in two newspapers of general circulation in the
process. The renewal is dependent on the evaluation after the
town of Macabebe, and in the province of Pampanga. The
licenses have been cancelled. The issuance of the administrative
municipality had never been directly served a copy of that notice
order also violated procedural due process, since no prior public
of hearing nor had the Sangguniang Bayan been requested by
hearing was conducted. As hold in Commissioner of Internal
Macapinlac for any operate. The municipality immediately filed a
Revenue vs. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 237 (1998), when a
motion for reconsideration with the LTFRB which was denied. It
regulation is being issued under the quasi-legislative authority of
went to the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari to nullify
an administrative agency, the requirements of notice, hearing and
the order granting a certificate of public convenience to
publication must be observed.
Macapinlac on two grounds:
1 Denial of due process to the municipality; ⟴ Due Process; Provisional Order (1991):
2 For failure of Macapinlac to secure approval of the Sangguniang No 7 - On 29 July 1991. the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), in
Bayan for him to operate a ferry service in Macabebe, Resolve the response to public clamor, issued a resolution approving and
two points in the petition with reasons. adopting a schedule for bringing down the prices of petroleum
products over a period of one (1) year starting 15 August 1991,
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: over the objection of the oil companies which claim that the period
The petition for certiorari should be granted,
covered is too long to prejudge and foresee. Is the resolution valid?
1. As a party directly affected by the operation of the ferry service,
the Municipality of Macabebe, Pampanga was entitled to be ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
directly notified by the LTFRB of its proceedings relative to No, the resolution is invalid, since the Energy
Macapinlac's application, even if the Municipality had not notified Regulatory Board issued the resolution without a hearing. The
the LTFRB of the existence of the municipal ferry service. Notice by resolution here is not a provisional order and therefore it can only
publication was not enough. (Municipality of Echague v. Abellera, be issued after appropriate notice and hearing to affected parties.
146 SCRA 180 (1986)). The ruling in Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation vs.
Alcuaz, 180 SCRA 218, to the effect that an order provisionally
2. Where a ferry operation lies entirely within the municipality, the reducing the rates which a public utility could charge, could be
prior approval of the Municipal government is necessary. .... issued without previous notice and hearing, cannot apply.
PAGE 10
(b) They were deprived of due process of law as the Investigating Both Constitutional and Statutory due process has
Committee was improperly constituted because it did not include procedural and substantive due process.
a teacher in representation of the teachers' organization as
required by the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers (R.A. No. In terms of source, the basis of constitutional due process
4670, Sec. 9). is the Constitution while in Statutory due process is the labor code.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: In terms of purpose, constitutional due process protects
The teachers were deprived of due process of law. Under
individual against government and assures him of his right in
Section 9 of the Magna Carta for Public School Teachers, one of the
criminal, civil and administrative proceedings while in statutory due
members of the committee must be a teacher who is a
process, protects employees from being unjustly terminated without
representative of the local, or in its absence, any existing provincial
just cause after notice and hearing.
or national organization of teachers. According to Fabella v. Court
of Appeals, 283 SCRA 256 (1997), to be considered the authorized
The effect of which in constitutional due process, is that the
representative of such organization, the teacher must be chosen by
government action is deemed void while in statutory due process
the organization itself and not by the Secretary of Education,
does not void action but the court provides for other remedies.
Culture and Sports. Since in administrative proceedings, due
process requires that the tribunal be vested with jurisdiction and
There are three reasons why violation by the employer of the
be so constituted as to afford a person charged administratively a
notice requirement cannot be considered a denial of due process
reasonable guarantee of impartiality, if the teacher who is a
resulting in the nullity of the employee's dismissal or layoff:
member of the committee was not appointed in accordance with
(1) The Due Process Clause of the Constitution is a limitation on
the law, any proceeding before it is tainted with deprivation of
governmental powers. It does not apply to the exercise of
procedural due process.
private power, such as the termination of employment under
the Labor Code.
⟴ Due Process; Urgent Public Need (1987): (2) Notice and hearing are required under the Due Process Clause
No. II: The Manila Transportation Company applied for upward before the power of organized society are brought to bear
adjustment of its rates before the Transportation Regulatory Board. upon the individual. This is obviously not the case of
Pending the petition, the TRB, without previous hearing, granted a termination of employment under Art. 283.
general nationwide provisional increase of rates. In another Order, (3) The employer cannot really be expected to be entirely an
TRB required the company to pay the unpaid supervisory fees impartial judge of his own cause. [Serrano v. NLRC (2000)]
collectible under the Public Service Law. After due notice and
hearing, on the basis of the evidence presented by Manila
Transportation Company and the Oppositors, TRB issued an Order
reducing the rates applied for by one-fourth. Characterize the
⟴ Due Process; Meeting vs. Hearing (1999)
No VIII - C. On November 7, 1990, nine lawyers of the Legal
powers exercised by the TRB in this case and determine whether
Department of Y Bank who were all under Fred Torre, sent a
under the present constitutional system the Transportation
complaint to management accusing Torre of abusive conduct and
Regulatory Board can be validly conferred the powers exercised by
mismanagement. Furnished with a copy of the complaint, Torre
it in issuing the Orders given above.
denied the charges. Two days later, the lawyers and Torre were
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: called to a conference in the office of the Board Chairman to give
The orders in this case involve the exercise of judicial their respective sides of the controversy. However, no agreement
function by an administrative agency, and therefore, as a general was reached thereat. Bank Director Romulo Moret was tasked to
rule, the cardinal primary rights enumerated in Ang Tibay v. CIR, look further into the matter. He met with the lawyers together
69 Phil. 635 (1940) must be observed. In Vigart Electric Light Co, v. with Torre several times but to no avail.
PSC, 10 SCRA 46 (1964) it was held that a rate order, which applies
exclusively to a particular party and is predicated on a finding of Moret then submitted a report sustaining the charges of the
fact, partakes of the nature of a quasi-judicial, rather than lawyers. The Board Chairman wrote Torre to inform him that the
legislative, function. The first order, granting a provisional rate bank had chosen the compassionate option of "waiting" for Torre's
increase without hearing, is valid if justified by URGENT PUBLIC resignation. Torre was asked, without being dismissed, to turn
NEED, such as increase in the cost of fuel. The power of the Public over the documents of all cases handled by him to another official
Service Commission to grant such increase was upheld in several of the bank but Torre refused to resign and requested for a "full
cases. (Silva v. Ocampo, 90 Phil. 777 (1952); Halili v. PSC, 92 Phil. hearing". Days later, he reiterated his request for a "full hearing",
1036(1953)) The second order requiring the company to pay claiming that he had been "constructively dismissed". Moret
unpaid supervisory fees under the Public Service Act cannot be assured Torre that he is "free to remain in the employ of the bank"
sustained. The company has a right to be heard, before it may be even if he has no particular work assignment. After another
ordered to pay. (Ang Tibay v. CIR, 69 Phil. 635 (1940)) The third request for a "full hearing" was ignored, Torre filed a complaint
order can be justified. The fact that the TRB has allowed a with the arbitration branch of NLRC for illegal dismissal. Reacting
provisional rate increase does not bind it to make the order thereto, the bank terminated the services of Torre.
permanent if the evidence later submitted does not justify increase
but, on the contrary, warrants the reduction of rates. Questions:
(a) Was Torre "constructively dismissed" before he filed his
complaint?
⟴ Due Process; Provisional Order (1991) (b) Given the multiple meetings held among the bank officials, the
lawyers and Torre, is it correct for him to say that he was not given
No 7 - On 29 July 1991. the Energy Regulatory Board (ERB), in
response to public clamor, issued a resolution approving and an opportunity to be heard? Explain your answers.
adopting a schedule for bringing down the prices of petroleum ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
products over a period of one (1) year starting 15 August 1991, a) Torre was constructively dismissed, as held in Equitable Banking
over the objection of the oil companies which claim that the period Corporation v. National Labor Relations Commission, 273 SCRA
covered is too long to prejudge and foresee. Is the resolution valid? 352. Allowing an employee to report for work without being
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: assigned any work constitutes constructive dismissal.
No, the resolution is invalid, since the Energy Regulatory Board
issued the resolution without a hearing. The resolution here is not b) Torre is correct in saying that he was not given the chance to be
a provisional order and therefore it can only be issued after heard. The meetings in the nature of consultations and conferences
appropriate notice and hearing to affected parties. The ruling in cannot be considered as valid substitutes for the proper observance
Philippine Communications Satellite Corporation vs. Alcuaz, 180 of notice and hearing.
SCRA 218, to the effect that an order provisionally reducing the
rates which a public utility could charge, could be issued without
previous notice and hearing, cannot apply.
HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS
CONSTITUTIONAL VS STATUTORY DUE PROCESS
PAGE 11
When the Bill of Rights also protects property rights, the “overbreath” should read “overbreadth” because breath has no limit
primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized. especially if it is bad breath.)
Because these freedoms are “delicate and vulnerable, as well as What is the doctrine of "void for vagueness"? In what context can
supremely precious in our society” and the “threat of sanctions may it be correctly applied? Not correctly applied? Explain (5%)
deter their exercise almost as potently as the actual application of
sanctions,” they “need breathing space to survive,” permitting
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
A statute is vague when it lacks comprehensible
government regulation only “with narrow specificity.” [Philippine
standards that men of common intelligence that guess at its
Blooming Mills Employees Organization v. Philippine Blooming
meaning and differ as to its application. It applies to both free
Mills Co., Inc (1973)]
speech cases and penal statutes. However, a facial challenge on the
ground of vagueness can be made only in free speech cases. It does
not apply to penal statutes. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement
If the liberty involved were freedom of the mind or the person,
Network, Inc. vs. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 146.)
the standard for the validity of governmental acts is much more
rigorous and exacting, but where the liberty curtailed affects at
the most rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory ⟴ Overbreadth Doctrine vs. Void for Vagueness (2010)
measure is wider. [Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators No. XXIV. Compare and contrast: “Overbreadth” doctrine
Association, Inc. v. City Mayor of Manila (1967)] from void-for vagueness doctrine.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
⟴ In the valid exercise of management prerogative While the overbreadth doctrine decrees that a
consistent with the company's right to protect its economic governmental purpose may not be achieved by means in a statute
interest, it may prohibit its employees from: which sweep unnecessary broadly and thereby invades the area of
protected freedom a statute is void for vagueness when it forbids or
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common
Marrying employees of competitor companies.
intelligence cannot necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to
its application. (Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, 369 vs. SCRA 394
⟴ Human Rights; Civil and Political Rights (1996) [2001]).
No. 1: 1) Distinguish civil rights from political rights and give an
example of each right. 2) What are the relations of civil and
political rights to human rights? Explain.
⟴ Overbreadth doctrine decrees that governmental
purpose may not be achieved by means which sweeps
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
1) The term "CIVIL RIGHTS" refers to the rights secured by the freedoms.
constitution of any state or country to all its Inhabitants and not
connected with the organization or administration of government,
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
“Void for vagueness doctrine" which holds that "a law
[Black, Handbook of American Constitutional Law, 4th ed., 526.)
is facially invalid if men of common intelligence must necessarily
POLITICAL RIGHTS consist in the power to participate, directly or
guess at its meaning and differ as to its application, violates the first
indirectly, in the management of the government. Thus, civil rights
essential of due process of law.
have no relation to the establishment, management or support of
the government. (Anthony vs. Burrow, 129 F 783). pCIVIL RIGHTS
extend protection to all inhabitants of a state, while POLITICAL EQUAL PROTECTION
RIGHTS protect merely its citizens. Equal protection requires that all persons or things
Examples of civil rights are the rights against involuntary similarly situated should be treated alike, both as to rights
servitude, religious freedom, the guarantee against unreasonable conferred and responsibilities imposed.
searches and seizures, liberty of abode, the prohibition against
imprisonment for debt, the right to travel, equal protection, due The guarantee means that no person or class of persons
process, the right to marry, right to return to this country and right shall be denied the same protection of laws which is enjoyed by
to education. Examples of political rights are the right of suffrage, other persons or other classes in like circumstances. [City of Manila
the right of assembly, and the right to petition for redress of v. Laguio (2005) citing Ichong v. Hernandez (1957)]
grievances.
Scope
2) Human rights are broader in scope than civil and political rights. The scope of equal protection clause covers not only
They also include social, economic, and cultural rights. Human natural and juridical persons but also extends to artificial persons
rights are inherent in persons from the fact of their humanity. such as corporation.
Every man possesses them everywhere and at all times simply
because he is a human being. On the other hand, some civil and
political rights are not natural rights. They exist because they are REQUISITES FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION – 4 PRONGED TEST
protected by a constitution or granted by law. For example, the For equal protection clause to apply, there must be (1)
liberty to enter into contracts is not a human right but is a civil substantial distinction which make real differences; (2) must be
right. germane to the purpose of law; (3) must not be limited to existing
conditions only and (4) applies equally to ALL members of the same
VOID-FOR-VAGUENESS DOCTRINE class. [People v. Cayat (1939)]
PAGE 12
The Court upheld the Retail Trade Nationalization Law claim his spouse as a dependent to obtain increased quarter
despite the objection that it violated the equal protection clause, allowance, regardless of whether the wife is actually dependent on
because there exists real and actual, positive and fundamental him, while denying the same right to a servicewoman unless her
differences between an alien and a national. [Ichong v. Hernandez husband was in fact dependent on her for over one half of his
(1957)] support. (Frontierro v Richardson, 411 U.S. 687 (1973); Accord
Craig, v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) (providing for sale of beer to
males under 21 and to females under 18); Reed v. Reed. 404 U.S. 71
⟴ Equal Protection; Alien Employment (1989) (1971) (preference given to men over women for appointment as
No 18: An ordinance of the City of Manila requires every alien
administrators of estates invalid).
desiring to obtain employment of whatever kind, including casual
and part-time employment, in the city to secure an employment
(b) In addition to the Equal Protection Clause, the 1987
permit from the City Mayor and to pay a work permit fee of P500.
Constitution now requires the State to "ensure the fundamental
Is the ordinance valid?
equality before the law of women and men" (Art II, Sec. 14) and to
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: provide them with "such facilities and opportunities that will
No, the ordinance is not valid. In Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong enhance their welfare and enable them to realize their full
Tsai Pao Ho, 86 SCRA 270, it was held that such an ordinance potential in the service of the nation." (Art. XIII, Sec. 14). These
violates equal protection. It failed to consider the valid substantial provisions put in serious doubt the validity of PD 97 limiting the
differences among the aliens required to pay the fee. The same practice of marine profession to males.
among it being collected from every employed alien, whether he is
casual or permanent, part-time or full-time. The ordinance also
violates due process, because it does not contain any standard to
guide the mayor in the exercise of the power granted to him by the
⟴ Equal Protection; Invidious Discrimination (1987)
No. 10: "X", a son of a rich family, applied for enrolment
ordinance. Thus, it confers upon him unrestricted power to allow or
with the San Carlos Seminary in Mandaluyong, Metro Manila.
prevent an activity which is lawful per se.
Because he had been previously expelled from another seminary
for scholastic deficiency, the Rector of San Carlos Seminary denied
FILIPINO FEMALE DOMESTICS WORKING ABROAD
the application without giving any grounds for the denial. After "X"
They are a class by themselves because of the special
was refused admission, the Rector admitted another applicant,
risks to which their class was exposed. [Phil Association of Service
who is the son of a poor farmer who was also academically
Exporters v. Drilon (1988)]
deficient.
LAND-BASED V. SEA-BASED FILIPINO OVERSEAS WORKERS
(a) Prepare a short argument citing rules, laws, or constitutional
There is dissimilarity as to work environment, safety,
provisions in support of "X's" motion for reconsideration of the
danger to life and limb, and accessibility to social, civil and spiritual
denial of his application.
activities. [Conference of Maritime Manning Agencies v. POEA
(1995)] ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The refusal of the seminary to admit "X" constitutes
invidious discrimination, violative of the Equal Protection Clause
⟴ Equal Protection; Invidious Discrimination (1987) (Art. III, Sec. 1) of the Constitution. The fact, that the other
No. VI: Marina Neptunia, daughter of a sea captain and sister to
applicant is the son of a poor farmer does not make the
four marine officers decided as a child to follow in her father's
discrimination any less invidious since the other applicant is also
footsteps. In her growing up years she was as much at home on
academically deficient. The reverse discrimination practiced by the
board a boat as she was in the family home by the sea. In time she
seminary cannot be justified because unlike the race problem in
earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Marine Transportation,
America, poverty is not a condition of inferiority needing redress.
major in Navigation and Seamanship. She served her
apprenticeship for a year in a merchant marine vessel registered
QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE
for foreign trade and another year on a merchant marine vessel
Disqualification from running in the same elective office
registered for coastwise trade. But to become a full-fledged
from which he retired of a retired elective provincial/municipal
marine officer she had to pass the appropriate board
official who has received payment of retirement benefits and who
examinations before she could get her professional license and
shall have been 65 y.o. at the commencement of the term of office to
registration. She applied in January 1986 to take examination for
which he seeks to be elected is valid. [Dumlao v. Comelec (1980)]
marine officers but her application was rejected for the reason
that the law Regulating the Practice of Marine Profession in the
Philippines (Pres. Dec. No. 97 (1973) ) specifically prescribes that
ELECTION OFFICIALS V. OTHER MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS
"No person shall be qualified for examination as marine officer
RA 8189 (Voters’ Registration Act) prohibits election
unless he is:
officers from holding office in a particular city or municipality for
more than four (4) years. The classification is germane to the law
Marina feels very aggrieved over the denial and has come to you
since the risk sought to be addressed is cheating during elections.
for advice. She wants to know:
[De Guzman v. COMELEC (2000)]
(1) Whether the Board of Examiners had any plausible or legal
basis for rejecting her application in 1986. Explain briefly.
OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN
(2) Whether the 1987 Constitution guarantees her the right to
Allowing the Ombudsman to start an investigation based
admission to take the coming January 1988 marine officers
on an anonymous letter does not violate EP clause. The Office of the
examinations. Explain and cite relevant provisions.
Ombudsman is different from other investigatory and prosecutory
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: agencies of government because those subject to its jurisdiction are
(a) The disqualification of females from the practice public officials who, through official pressure and influence, can
of marine profession constitutes as invidious discrimination quash, delay or dismiss investigations against them. [Almonte v.
condemned by the Equal Protection Clause of that Constitution Vasquez (1995)]
(Art. IV, Sec. 1) In the
United States, under a similar provision, while earlier decisions of PRINT V. BROADCAST MEDIA
the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a statute prohibiting There are substantial distinctions between the two to
women from bartending unless she was the wife or daughter of a warrant their different treatment under BP 881
male owner (Goesart v. Cleary, 335 U.S. 464 (1948) and denying to [Telecommunications and Broadcast Attorneys of the Phil v.
women the right to practice law (Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. (16 COMELEC (1998)]
Wall) 130 (1873), recent decisions have invalidated statutes or
regulations providing for differential treatment of females based
on nothing stereotypical and inaccurate generalizations. The Court
held that "classification based on sex, like classifications based
⟴ Due Process; Media Coverage during Hearing (1996)
No 2: At the trial of a rape case where the victim complainant was
upon race, alienage, or national origin, are inherently suspect, and
a well known personality while the accused was a popular movie
must therefore be subjected to strict judicial scrutiny." Accordingly,
star, a TV station was allowed by the trial judge to televise the
the Court invalidated a statute permitting a male serviceman to
PAGE 13
entire proceedings like the O.J. Simpson trial. The accused curtailment of political process and the rational basis standard of
objected to the TV coverage and petitioned the Supreme Court to review for economic legislation. A third standard was created
prohibit the said coverage. As the Supreme Court, how would you known as the immediate scrutiny for evaluating standards based
rule on the petition? Explain. on gender and legitimacy.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: The SC applied strict scrutiny because the ordinance restricts
The Supreme Court should grant the petition. In its Resolution
patrons’ right to liberty. Legitimate sexual behavior, which is
dated October 22, 1991, the Supreme Court prohibited live radio
constitutionally protected, will be unduly curtailed by the
and television coverage of court proceedings to protect the right of
ordinance. Apart from the right to privacy, the ordinance also
the parties to due process, to prevent the distraction of the
proscribes other legitimate activities most of which are grounded
participants in the proceedings, and in the last analysis to avoid a
on the convenience of having a place to stay during the short
miscarriage of justice.
intervals between travels. [White Light Corporation, et al v. City of
Manila (2009)]
STANDARDS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
4 PRONGED TEST OF VALID CLASSIFICATION:
⟴ The Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Youth Association
(GBTYA), an organization of gay, bisexual, and transgender For equal protection clause to apply, there must be (1) substantial
persons, filed for accreditation with the COMELEC to join the distinction which make real differences; (2) must be germane to the
forthcoming party-list elections. The COMELEC denied the purpose of law; (3) must not be limited to existing conditions only
application for accreditation on the ground that GBTYA espouses and (4) applies equally to ALL members of the same class. [People v.
immorality which offends religious dogmas. GBTY A challenges Cayat (1939)]
the denial of its application based on moral grounds because it
violates its right to equal protection of the law. Alternative thought: BERNAS (and Prof. De Vera) opines that in
What are the three (3) levels of test that are applied in equal Serrano v. Gallant Maritime, the Court seems to imply that the Test
protection cases? Explain. (3%) of Valid Classification is to be applied under the Rational Basis
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: standard. Note that in Serrano, where the Court applied Strict
The three kinds of tests applied in equal protection cases, as Scrutiny, the Test of Valid Classification was mentioned but not
introduced in the case of Serrano vs Gallant Maritime are: applied. Note however that the Serrano levels of scrutiny have not
a. Strict Scrutiny Test –This test is triggered been reapplied as of this writing. This issue has not yet been
when a fundamental constitutional right is limited by a law. It is clarified.
which a legislative classification which impermissibly interferes
with the exercise of a fundamental right or operates to a peculiar
disadvantage of a suspect class is presumed unconstitutional. The ⟴ Right to Liberty; Presentability of Policemen
burden is upon the government to prove that the classification is (2008)
necessary to achieve a compelling state interest and that it is the No. VI. The Philippine National Police (PNP) issued a circular to all
least restrictive means to protect such interest. its members directed at the style and length of male police officers’
hair, sideburns and moustaches, as well as the size of their
This is used in cases involving classifications based on race, waistlines. It prohibits beards, goatees, and waistlines over 38
national origin, religion, alienage, denial of right to vote, interstate inches, except for medical reason. Some police officers questioned
migration, access to courts and other rights recognized as the validity of the circular, claiming that it violated their right to
fundamental liberty under the Constitution. Resolve the controversy.
b. Immediate or middle-tier scrutiny test – the court accepts the ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
articulated purpose of the legislation but it closely scrutinizes the Although the National Police is civilian in character, it
relationship between the classification and the purpose based on a partakes of some of the characteristics of military life, thus
spectrum of standards, by gauging the extent to which permitting the imposition of reasonable measures for discipline,
constitutionally guaranteed rights depend upon the affected uniformity in behavior and presentableness. The circular does not
individual interest. It requires government to show that the go beyond what is reasonable and therefore passes the test of due
challenged classification serves as an important state interest and process (Gudani vs. Senga, G.R. No. 170165, Aug. 15, 2006). In Kelly
that the classification is at least substantially related to serving vs. Johnson, 425 US 238 (1976), the US Supreme Court said that the
that interest. This applies to suspect classification like gender or regulations of personal appearance of policemen could be justified
illegitimacy. so long as there was a rational connection between the regulation
and the promotional safety of persons and property. The requisite
C. Rational basis scrutiny – here, there should be a reasonable connection was present since the government had a legitimate
relation to the government’s purpose. In the case of Williamson v interest in policemen’s appearances so that they would: (1) be
Lee Optical, when there is an evil at hand for correction and the readily recognizable to the public and (2) feel a sense of “esprit de
particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct it. This corps” that comes from being similar.
test is mostly applicable for economic legislations.
⟴ Equal Protection; Subsidiary Imprisonment (1989)
NOTE: it is important that when the government attaches a No. 4: "X" was sentenced to a penalty of 1 year and 5 months of
morally irrelevant and negative significance to a difference prision correctional and to pay a fine of P8,000.00, with subsidiary
between the advantaged and the disadvantaged. imprisonment in case of solvency. After serving his prison term,
"X" asked the Director of Prisons whether he could already be
Which of the three (3) levels of test should be applied to the released. "X" was asked to pay the fine of P5,000.00 and he said he
present case? Explain. could not afford it, being an indigent. The Director informed him
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: he has to serve an additional prison term at the rate of one day per
The Rational Basis Test should be applied to the eight pesos in accordance with Article 39 of the Revised Penal
present case. In our jurisdiction, the Supreme Court declared that Code, The lawyer of "X" filed a petition for habeas corpus
the standard of analysis of equal protection challenges is the contending that the further incarceration of his client for unpaid
rational basis test. Jurisprudence has affirmed that if a law neither fines violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution.
burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, the Decide.
classification shall be upheld as long as it bears a rational ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
relationship to some legitimate end. In the case at bar, in so far as (1) The petition should be granted, because Article 39 of the
the party-list system is concerned, GBTYA is similarly situated as all Revised Penal Code is unconstitutional. In Tate vs. Short, 401 U.S.
other groups which are running for a party-list seat in Congress 395, the United States Supreme Court held that imposition of
(Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC). subsidiary imprisonment upon a convict who is too poor to pay a
fine violates equal protection, because economic status cannot
This case churned out three standards for judicial review: the serve as a valid basis for distinguishing the duration of the
strict scrutiny test for laws dealing with freedom of the mind and
PAGE 14
imprisonment between a convict who is able to pay the fine and a their welfare and enable them to realize their full potential in the
convict who is unable to pay it. service of the nation." (Section 14, Article XIII)
(2) On the other hand, in United States ex rel. Privitera vs. Kross,
239 F Supp 118, it was held that the imposition of subsidiary SECTION 2, ARTICLE III
imprisonment for inability to pay a fine does not violate equal “search and seizures”
protection, because the punishment should be tailored to fit the
individual, and equal protection does not compel the eradication of The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
every disadvantage caused by indigence. The decision was affirmed and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals in 345 F2d 533, and nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable and no search
the United States Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue
in 382 U.S. 911. This ruling was adopted by the Illinois Supreme EXCEPT upon probable cause to be determined
Court in People vs. Williams, 31 ALR3d 920. personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
⟴ Equal Protection; Responsible Parenthood (2007): and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
No.II. The City Mayor issues an Executive Order declaring that the persons or things to be seized.
city promotes responsible parenthood and upholds natural family
planning. He prohibits all hospitals operated by the city from FUNDAMENTAL PROTECTION:
prescribing the use of artificial methods of contraception, The fundamental protection given by the search and seizure
including condoms, pills, intrauterine devices and surgical clause is that between person and police must stand the protective
sterilization. As a result, poor women in his city lost their access authority of a magistrate clothed with power to issue or refuse to
to affordable family planning programs. Private clinics, however, issue search warrants or warrants of arrest.
continue to render family planning counsel and devices to paying
clients. NATURE
(a) Is the Executive Order in any way constitutionally infirm? It may be waived expressly or impliedly only by the person
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: whose right is invaded, not by one who is not duly authorized to
effect such waiver. [People v. Damaso (1992)]
The Executive Order is constitutionally infirm. Under the
1987 Constitution, the State shall defend the right of spouses to
establish a family in accordance with their religious convictions and APPLICABILITY:
the demands of responsible parenthood. (Art. XV, Sec. 3[1]). By The right applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the
upholding natural family planning and prohibiting city hospitals
law. The protection cannot extend to acts committed by private
from prescribing artificial methods of contraception, the Mayor is
individuals so as to bring them within the ambit of alleged
imposing his religious beliefs on spouses who rely on the services of
unlawful intrusion by the government. [People v. Marti (1991); See
city hospitals. This clearly violates the above section of the
also Yrasuegui v. Philippine Airlines (2008)]
Constitution.
PAGE 15
What constitutes a reasonable or unreasonable search and articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and
seizure in any particular case is purely a judicial question, seizures. [People v. Tee (2003)]
determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved.
[Valmonte v. De Villa (1989)]
SCOPE
⟴ Due Process; Suspension of Driver's License (1992):
No, 3; Congress is considering a law against drunken driving.
Generally, it protects all persons including aliens but are
Under the legislation, police authorities may ask any driver to take
limited to artificial person such as company. [Bache and Co. Inc v.
a "breathalyzer test", wherein the driver exhales several times
Ruiz (1971)].
into a device which can determine whether he has been driving
under the influence of alcohol. The results of the test can be used,
WARRANT REQUIREMENT: PURPOSE:
in any legal proceeding against him. Furthermore, declaring that
(1)Search Warrant- to gain evidence to convict
the issuance of a driver's license gives rise only to a privilege to
(2) Warrant of Arrest- to acquire jurisdiction
drive motor vehicles on public roads, the law provides that a
driver who refuses to take the test shall be automatically subject
Must refer to one specific offense. [Asian Surety v. Herrera, (1973);
to a 90-day suspension of his driver's license, Cite two [2] possible
Castro v. Pabalan (1976)]
constitutional objections to this law. Resolve the objections and
explain whether any such infirmities can be cured.
The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law that deals
specifically with dangerous drugs which are subsumed into ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
“prohibited” and “regulated” drugs, and defines and penalizes Possible objections to the law are that requiring a driver to
categories of offenses which are closely related or which belong take the breathalyzer test will violate his right against self-
to the same class or species; thus, one search warrant may be incrimination, that providing for the suspension of his driver's license
validly issued for several violations thereof [People v. Dichoso without any hearing violates due process, and that the proposed law
(1993)]. The doctrine was reiterated in People v. Salanguit(2001). will violate the right against unreasonable searches and seizures,
because it allows police authorities to require a drive to take the
REQUISITES breathalyzer test even if there is no probable cause
(1) Existence of probable cause
Existence of Probable Cause: Such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
⟴ Sworn Statement; (2008 Bar)
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
person sought to be arrested. [Webb v. De Leon (1995)] The sworn statement is not admissible in evidence because
(2) Determination of probable cause personally by the judge. it was taken without informing him of his custodial rights and
Determination of probable cause personally by the judge as to without the assistance of counsel which should be independent and
warrant of arrest: competent and preferably of the choice of the accused (People v.
(1) On the basis of the witnesses’ personal knowledge of the Januario,G.R. No. 98252, February 7, 1997).
facts they are testifying to.
(2) The arrest warrant must describe particularly the PLACE TO BE SEARCHED
person to be seized. The search warrant issued to search petitioner’s
(a) By stating the name of the person to be arrested. compound for unlicensed firearms was held invalid for failing to
(b) If not known, then a “John Doe warrant” may be issued, describe the place with particularity, considering that the
with some descriptio persona that will enable the officer to compound was made up of 200 buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff houses,
identify the accused. 1 airstrip etc. spread out over 155 hectares. [PICOP v. Asuncion
(3) The just must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine (1999)]
in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing
and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may ⟴ Search Warrant; Application; Venue (2012)
produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the No.VI. A PDEA asset/informant tipped the PDEA Director
record their own sworn statements, together with the Shabunot that a shabu laboratory was operating in a house at Sta.
affidavits submitted. [Rule 126, Sec. 5, ROC] Cruz, Laguna, rented by two (2) Chinese nationals, Ho Pia and Sio
(4) If the judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the Pao. PDEA Director Shabunot wants to apply for a search warrant,
application is based or that there is probable cause to believe but he is worried that if he applies for a search warrant in any
that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must be Laguna court, their plan might leak out.
substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules. [Rule 126,
Sec. 6, ROC] (a) Where can he file an application for search warrant?
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence PDEA Director Shabunot may file an application for search
of probable cause. warrant in any court within the judicial region where the crime was
committed. (Rule 126, Sec.2[b])
In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the (b) What documents should he prepare in his application for
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is notrequired to search warrant? (2%)
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
He should prepare a petition for issuance of a search warrant
Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: and attach therein sworn statements and affidavits.
(1)Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents (c) Describe the procedure that should be taken by the judge on
submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause the application. (2%
and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
(2)If he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal's report ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to The judge must, before issuing the warrant, examine personally
aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and
cause.[Beltran v. Makasiar (1988)] under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on
facts personally known to them and attach to the record their
(5) On the basis of their personal knowledge of the facts they are sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted. (Rule
testifying to. 126, Sec.5, Rules of Court). If the judge is satisfied of the existence
(6) The warrant must describe particularly the place to be of facts upon which the application is based or that there is
searched and the persons or things to be seized. probable cause to believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant,
which must be substantially in the form prescribed by the Rules.
Requirement is primarily meant to enable the law enforcers (Rule 126, Sec.6, Rules of Court).
serving the warrant to —(1) readily identify the properties to be
seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and Suppose the judge issues the search warrant worded in this way:
(2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES Plaintiff -versus- Criminal Case
PAGE 16
No. 007 for Violation of R.A. 9165 Ho Pia and Sio Pao, Accused. also sought the assistance of barangay tanods who were assigned
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x to look at other portions of the premises around the house. In a
TO ANY PEACE OFFICER nipa hut thirty (30) meters away from the house of Ass-asin, a
Barangay tanod came upon a kilo of marijuana that was wrapped
Greetings: in newsprint. Hetook it and this was later used by the authorities
It appearing to the satisfaction of the undersigned after to charge Ass-asin with illegal possession of marijuana. Ass-asin
examining under oath PDEA Director shabunot that there is objected to the introduction of such evidence claiming that it was
probable cause to believe that violations of Section 18 and 16 of illegally seized. Is the objection of Ass-asin valid?
R.A. 9165 have been committed and that there are good and
sufficient reasons to believe that Ho Pia and Sio Pao have in their
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The objection is valid.
possession or control, in a two (2) door apartment with an iron
The search warrant specifically designates or describes the
gate located at Jupiter St., Sta. Cruz, Laguna, undetermined
house as the place to be searched. Incidentally, the marijuana was
amount of "shabu" and drug manufacturing implements and
seized by the Barangay Tanods thirty (30) meters away from the
paraphernalia which should be seized and brought to the
house of the accused.Since the confiscated items were found in a
undersigned, You are hereby commanded to make an immediate
place other than the one described in the search warrant, it can be
search, at any time in the day or night, of the premises above
considered as fruits of an invalid warrantless search, the
described and forthwith seize and take possession of the
presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of petitioner’s
abovementioned personal property, and bring said property to
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and
the undersigned to be dealt with as the law directs. Witness my
seizure(Ruben Del Castillo v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
hand this 1st day of March, 2012.
185128, January 30, 2012).Besides, the search is also illegal
(signed)
because the marijuana confiscated in the nipa hut was wrapped in
Judge XYZ
a newsprint. Therefore, the same cannot be considered validly
(D) Cite/enumerate the defects, if any, of the search warrant.
seized in plain view (Abraham Miclat v. People of the Philippines,
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: G.R. No. 176077, August 31, 2011).
(1) The search warrant failed to particularly describe the place to
be searched and the things to be seized (Rule 126, Sec.4, Rules of DESCRIPTION OF PERSONS SEARCHED
Court). Search warrant is valid despite the mistake in the name
(2) The search warrant commanded the immediate search, at any of the persons to be searched. The authorities conducted
time in the day or night. The general rule is that a search warrant surveillance and test-buy ops before obtaining the search warrant
must be served in the day time (Rule 126, Sec.8, Revised Rules on and subsequently implementing it. They had personal knowledge
Criminal Procedure), or that portion of the twenty-four hours in of the identity of the persons and the place to be searched,
which a man‟s person and countenance are distinguishable (17 C.J. although they did not specifically know the names of the accused.
1134). By way of exception, a search warrant may be made at [People v. Tiu Won Chua (2003)]
night when it is positively asserted in the affidavit that the
property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched A John Doe search warrant is valid. There is nothing to prevent
(Alvares vs. CFI of Tayabas, 64 Phil. 33). There is no showing that issue and service of warrant against a party whose name is
the exception applies. unknown. [People v. Veloso (1925)]
(e) Suppose the search warrant was served on March 15, 2012 and
the search yielded the described contraband and a case was filed John Doe Warrant:
against the accused in RTC, Sta. Cruz, Laguna and you are the HOWEVER: WHERE Warrants issued against 50 John
lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia, what will you do? (3%) Does, none of whom the witnesses could identify, were
considered as “general warrants” and thus void. [Pangandaman v.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Casar (1988)]
If I were the lawyer of Sio Pao and Ho Pia, I would file a Motion
to Quash the search warrant for having been served beyond its
period of validity. (Rule 126, Sec. 14, Rules of Court). A search
warrant shall be valid only for ten (10) days from its date.
GENERAL WARRANT:
Thereafter, it shall be void. (Rule 126, Sec.10, Revised Rules of
Generally is it is considered as a general warrant when it
Court).
(1) does not describe with particularly the things subject of the
(f) Suppose an unlicensed found in plain view by the searchers and
search and seizure and (2) where probable cause has not been
the warrant was ordered quashed, should the court order the
properly established. This is considered as a void warrant. [Nolasco
return of the same to the Chinese nationals?
v. Paño. (1985)]
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
No, the court should not order the return of the unlicensed Exception to General Warrants: General descriptions will not
armalite because it is contraband or illegal per se. (PDEA vs. invalidate the entire warrant if other items have been particularly
Brodett, G.R. No. 196390, September 28, 2011). The possession of an described. [Uy v. BIR (2000)]
unlicensed armalite found in plain view is mala prohibita. The same
should be kept in custodial legis. CONDUCT OF THE SEARCH
No search of a house, room, or any other premises shall
DESCRIPTION OF PLACE/ THINGS be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or
The description of the property to be seized need not be any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, 2 witnesses
technically accurate or precise. Its nature will vary according to of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality. [Sec. 8,
whether the identity of the property is a matter of concern. The Rule 126, ROC]
description is required to be specific only in so far as the
circumstances will allow. [Kho v. Judge Makalintal (1999)] FORCIBLE ENTRY JUSTIFIED
Occupants of the house refused to open the door despite
the fact that the searching party knocked several times, and the
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things agents saw suspicious movements of the people inside the house.
to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the [People v. Salanguit (2001)]
circumstances will ordinarily allow. [People v. Rubio (1932)] or
when the description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, by UNLAWFUL SEARCH
which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and Police officers arrived at appellant’s residence and
seizure; or when the tings described are limited to those which “sideswiped” (sinagi) appellant’s car (which was parked outside)
bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being to gain entry into the house. Appellant’s son, who is the only one
issued. [Bache and Co. v. Ruiz (1971)] present in the house, opened the door and was immediately
handcuffed to a chair after being informed that they are
⟴ A search warrant was issued for the purpose of policemen with a warrant to search the premises. [People v. Benny
Go (2003)]
looking for unlicensed firearms in the house of Ass-asin, a
notorious gun for hire. When the police served the warrant, they
PAGE 17
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
GEN. RULE: “The essential requisite of probable cause must still be
satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully In this Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the 1985 decision, the
conducted.” In these cases, probable cause (warrantless searches) petitioners submit that a warrantless search can be justified only
must be “based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a if it is an incident to a lawful arrest and that since Aguilar was not
crime has been committed or is about to be committed.” [People v. lawfully arrested, a search without warrant could not be made.
Aruta (1998)] [Nolasco v. Paño on M.R. (1987)]
N.B. In Aruta, the standards for probable cause are different from
those required for the issuance of warrants. Aruta implies that the An “arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the
reasonableness of a warrantless search is determined by the (1) subsequent search was similarly illegal.” [People v. Aruta, supra]
information received and used as a basis for the search, and (2)
additional factors and circumstances. The two, taken together, Section 5, Rule 113: A police officer or PRIVATE person may,
constitute the probable cause which justifies warrantless searches WITHOUT A WARRANT, ARREST A PERSON:
and seizures. [Aruta, supra] (a) when, IN HIS PRESENCE, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an
WAIVER THE RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH: offense
That the person voluntarily and intelligently waived his right (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has
against unreasonable search such as (1) there must appear the right personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
exists, (2) person involved had actual/constructive knowledge of the arrested has committed it; and
existence of such rights; (3) said person had an actual interest to (c) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has excaped
relinquish the rights; (4) waiver is limited only to the arrest. from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
Such waiver does not extend to search made as an incident has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
thereto or to any subsequent seizure of evidence found in the search. another.
[People v. Peralta (2004)]
In case falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof, the person
BURDEN OF PROOF arrested without a warrant shall be forwith delivered to the
It is the State that has the burden of proving, by clear and nearest police station or jail, and he shall be proceeded against in
convincing evidence, that the necessary consent was obtained and accordance with Rule 122, Section 7.
that it was voluntarily and freely given [Caballes v. Court of Appeals
(2002)]. ⟴ Search and Seizure; Warrantless Search (2010)
No. XII. A witnessed two hooded men with baseball bats enter the
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES RECOGNIZED BY JURISPRUDENCE house of their next door neighbor B. after a few seconds, he heard
B shouting, “Huwag Pilo babayaran kita agad.” Then A saw the two
Quick Look [People v. Aruta, supra] hooded men hitting B until the latter fell lifeless. The assailants
(1) Search incident to a lawful arrest escaped using a yellow motorcycle with a fireball sticker on it
a Section 13, Rule 126 toward the direction of an exclusive village nearby. A reported the
b Section 5, Rule 113 incident to PO1 Nuval. The following day, PO1 Nuval saw the
(2) Plain view doctrine motorcycle parked in the garage of a house at Sta. Ines Street
(3) Search of a moving vehicle inside the exclusive village. He inquired with the caretaker as to
(4) Consented search who owned the motorcycle. The caretaker named the brothers
(5) Customs search Pilo and Ramon Maradona who were then outside the country.
(6) Stop and frisk PO1 Nuval insisted on getting inside the garage. Out of fear, the
(7) Exigent and emergency circumstances caretaker allowed him. PO1 Nuval took 2 ski masks and 2 bats
(8) Visual search at checkpoints – not among those enumerated in beside the motorcycle. Was the search valid? What about the
People v. Aruta, but also recognized as an exception to the seizure? Decide with reasons. (4%)
warrant requirement by Aniag v. COMELEC (1994) and
Valmonte v. De Villa (1989, 1990)
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The warrantless search and seizure was not valid. It was
not made as an incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. (People vs.
SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL ARREST
Baula, 344 SCRA 663 [2000]). The caretaker had no authority to
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous waive the right of the brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona to waive
weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission their right against unreasonable search and seizure. (People vs.
of an offense, without a search warrant. [Sec. 13, Rule 126, Rules of Damaso, 212 SCRA 547 [1992].) the warrantless seizure of the ski
Court] masks and bats cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine,
because they were seized after invalid intrusion in to the house.
The provision is declaratory in the sense that it is confined to the (People vs. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459[1999]).
search, without a search warrant, of a person who had been
arrested.
It is also a general rule that, as an incident of an arrest, the place ⟴ Particularity of place to be searched and things to be
or premises where the arrest was made can also be searched seized; Plain view situation
without a search warrant. In this case, the extent and The search warrant authorized the seizure of "undetermined
reasonableness of the search must be decided on its own facts quantity of shabu." During the service of the search warrant, the
and circumstances. raiding team also recovered a kilo of dried marijuana leaves
wrapped in newsprint. The accused moved to suppress the
What must be considered is the balancing of the individual’s right marijuana leaves as evidence for the violation of Section 11 of the
to privacy and the public’s interest in the prevention of crime and Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they were not
the apprehension of criminals. [Nolasco v. Pano (1985)] covered by the search warrant. The State justified the seizure of
the marijuana leaves under the "plain view" doctrine. There was
Test for validity no indication of whether the marijuana leaves were discovered
(1) Item to be searched was within the arrester’s custody; and seized before or after the seizure of the shabu. If you are the
(2) Search was contemporaneous with the arrest judge, how would you rule on the motion to suppress? (2008 Bar)
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Under the Rules of Court, a person charged with an offense may The motion to suppress filed by the accused should be granted.
be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be The search warrant violates the constitutional and statutory
used as proof of the commission of the offense. As an incident of requirement that it should particularly describe the person or things
an arrest, the premises where the arrest was made can also be to be seized (Sec. 2, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 2, Rule 126). The
searched without search warrant. [Nolasco v. Cruz Paño (1985)] “plain view” doctrine cannot be invoked because the marijuana
PAGE 18
leaves were wrapped in newsprint. Besides the marijuana leaves are car, he saw many tablets strewn on the driver's seat. The driver
not the subject of the search warrant. admitted they were ecstacy. Is the search valid?
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Yes, the police acted based on reliable information and the fact that
⟴ The information for illegal possession an officer
of firearm filed against the accused specifically alleged that he had
no license or permit to possess the calibre .45 pistol mentioned
therein. In its evidence-in-chief, the prosecution established the
fact that the subject firearm was lawfully seized by the police from
⟴ Jurisdiction; Complex Crimes (2013)
No.VIII. On his way to the PNP Academy in Silang, Cavite on board
the possession of the accused that is, while the pistol was tucked
a public transport bus as a passenger, Police Inspector Masigasig
at his waist in plain view, without the accused being able to
of the Valenzuela Police witnessed an on-going armed robbery
present any license or permit to possess the firearm. The
while the bus was traversing Makati. His alertness and training
prosecution on such evidence rested its case and within a period
enabled him to foil the robbery and to subdue the malefactor. He
of five days therefrom, the accused filed a demurrer to evidence,
disarmed the felon and while frisking him, discovered another
in sum contending that the prosecution evidence has not
handgun tucked in his waist. He seized both handguns and the
established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and
malefactor was later charged with the separate crimes of robbery
so prayed that he be acquitted of the offense charged. The trial
and illegal possession of firearm.
court denied the demurrer to evidence and deemed the accused
as having waived his right to present evidence and submitted the
A) Where should Police Inspector Masigasig bring the felon for
case for judgment on the basis of the prosecution evidence. In due
criminal processing? To Silang, Cavite where he is bound; to
time, the court rendered judgment finding the accused guilty of
Makati where the bus actually was when the felonies took place;
the offense charged beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly
or back to Valenzuela where he is stationed? Which court has
imposing on him the penalty prescribed therefore. Is the judgment
jurisdiction over the criminal cases? (3%)
of the trial court valid and proper? Reason (2001, 2004 Bar)
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Police Inspector Masigasig should bring the felon to the
Yes. The judgment of the trial court is valid. The accused did not
nearest police station or jail in Makati City where the bus actually
ask for leave to file the demurrer to evidence. He is deemed to have
was when the felonies took place. In cases of warrantless arrest, the
waived his right to present evidence (Sec. 23, Rule 119; People v.
person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
Flores, G.R. 106581, March 3, 1997). However, the judgment is not
the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in
proper or is erroneous because there was no showing from the proper
accordance with section 7 of Rule 11 (Section 113, Rules of Criminal
office that the accused has a permit to own or possess the firearm,
Procedure). Consequently, the criminal case for robbery and illegal
which is fatal to the conviction of the accused (Mallari v. Court of
possession of firearms can be filed in Regional Trial Court of Makati
Appeals,G.R. No. 110569, December 9, 1996)
City or on any of the places of departure or arrival of the bus.
PAGE 19
in customs area, which searches have been upheld. (Papa vs. Mago,
22 SCRA 857 (1968). The rule is based on practical necessity.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The motion to suppress filed by the accused should be
granted. The search warrant violates the constitutional and
⟴ Searches and Seizures; Valid Warrantless Search statutory requirement that it should particularly describe the
(2000): person or things to be seized (Sec. 2, Art. 3, 1987 Constitution;
a) Crack officers of the Anti-Narcotics Unit were assigned on Sec. 2, Rule 126). The “plain view” doctrine cannot be invoked
surveillance of the environs of a cemetery where the sale and use because the marijuana leaves were wrapped in newsprint.
of dangerous drugs are rampant. A man with reddish and glassy Besides the marijuana leaves are not the subject of the search
eyes was walking unsteadily moving towards them but veered warrant.
away when he sensed the presence of policemen. They
approached him, introduced themselves as police officers and
asked him what he had clenched in his hand. As he kept mum, the
⟴ Searches and Seizures; Incidental to Valid Search
(1990)
policemen pried his hand open and found a sachet of shabu, a
No. 9; Some police operatives, acting under a lawfully issued
dangerous drug. Accordingly charged in court, the accused
warrant for the purpose of searching for firearms in the House of
objected to the admission in evidence of the dangerous drug
X located at No. 10 Shaw Boulevard, Pasig, Metro Manila, found,
because it was the result of an illegal search and seizure. Rule on
instead of firearms, ten kilograms of cocaine.
the objection. (3%) b) What are the instances when warrantless
searches may be effected? (2%)
(1) May the said police operatives lawfully seize the cocaine?
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Explain your answer.
(2) May X successfully challenge the legality of the search on the
a) The objection is not tenable. In accordance with ground that the peace officers did not inform him about his right
Manalili v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 (1997). since to remain silent and his right to counsel? Explain your answer.
the accused had red eyes and was walking unsteadily (3) Suppose the peace officers were able to find unlicensed
and the place is a known hang-out of drug addicts, the firearms in the house in an adjacent lot, that is. No, 12 Shaw
police officers had sufficient reason to stop the accused Boulevard, which is also owned by X. May they lawfully seize the
and to frisk him. Since shabu was actually found during said unlicensed firearms? Explain your answer.
the investigation, it could be seized without the need for
a search warrant.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(1) Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize the cocaine,
b) A warrantless search may be effected in the following
because it is an item whose possession is prohibited by law, it was in
cases: a) Searches incidental to a
plain view and it was only inadvertently discovered in the course of
c) lawful arrest: b) Searches of moving vehicles; c)
a lawful search. The possession of cocaine is prohibited by Section 8
Searches of prohibited articles in plain view: d)
of the Dangerous Drugs Act. As held in Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil.
Enforcement of customs law; e) Consented searches; f)
770, an article whose possession is prohibited by law may be seized
Stop and frisk (People v. Monaco, 285 SCRA 703
without the need of any search warrant if it was discovered during
[1998]); Routine searches at borders and ports of entry
a lawful search. The additional requirement laid down in Roan v.
(United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 [1977]); and h)
Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 that the discovery of the article must have
Searches of businesses in the exercise of visitorial
been made inadvertently was also satisfied in this case.
powers to enforce police regulations (New York v.
Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987]).
(2) No, X cannot successfully challenge the legality of the search
simply because the peace officers did not inform him about his right
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE: to remain silent and his right to counsel. Section 12(1), Article III of
the 1987 Constitution provides: "Any person under investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of
APPLICABILITY: his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent
The plain view doctrine is usually applied where a police counsel preferably of his own choice." As held in People v. Dy, 158
officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but SCRA 111. For this provision to apply, a suspect must be under
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. The investigation. There was no investigation involved in this case.
extension of the original justification is legitimate only where it is
immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence before (3) The unlicensed firearms stored at 12 Shaw Boulevard may
them; the plain view doctrine may not be used to extend a general lawfully be seized since their possession is illegal. As held in
exploratory search from one object to another until something Magoncia a Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, when an individual possesses
incriminating at last emerges. (People vs Musa) contraband (unlicensed firearms belong to this category), he is
committing a crime and he can be arrested without a warrant and
An object is in “plain view” if the object itself is plainly exposed to the contraband can be seized.
sight. Where the seized object is inside a closed package, the
object is not in plain view and, therefore, cannot be seized without
a warrant. However, if the package proclaims its contents,
whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its
⟴ Searches and Seizures; Visual Search (1992)
No. 5: During the recent elections, checkpoints were set up to
contents are obvious to an observer, then the content are in plain
enforce the election period ban on firearms. During one such
view, and may be seized. [Caballes v. Court of Appeals (2002)]
routine search one night, while looking through an open window
with a flashlight, the police saw firearms at the backseat of a car
If the package is such that it contains prohibited articles, then the
partially covered by papers and clothes. Antonio, owner and
article is deemed in plain view. [People v. Nuevasm (2007)]
driver of the car in question, was charged for violation of the
firearms ban.
⟴ Particularity of place to be searched and things to be A. Are the firearms admissible in evidence against him? Explain.
seized; Plain view situation
The search warrant authorized the seizure of "undetermined B. If, upon further inspection by the police, prohibited drugs
quantity of shabu." During the service of the search warrant, the were found inside the various compartments of Antonio's car,
raiding team also recovered a kilo of dried marijuana leaves can the drugs be used in evidence against Antonio if he is
wrapped in newsprint. The accused moved to suppress the prosecuted for possession of prohibited drugs? Explain.
marijuana leaves as evidence for the violation of Section 11 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they were not
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
a) Yes, the firearms are admissible in evidence, because they were
covered by the search warrant. The State justified the seizure of
validly seized. In Valmonte vs. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 and 185
the marijuana leaves under the "plain view" doctrine. There was
SCRA 665, the Supreme Court held that checkpoints may be set up
no indication of whether the marijuana leaves were discovered
to maintain peace and order for the benefit of the public and
and seized before or after the seizure of the shabu. If you are the
checkpoints are a security measure against unauthorized firearms.
judge, how would you rule on the motion to suppress? (2008 Bar)
Since the search which resulted in the discovery of the firearms was
PAGE 20
limited to a visual search of the car, it was reasonable. Because of The police officer should properly introduce himself and make
the ban on firearms, the possession of the firearms was prohibited. initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests
Since they were found in plain view in the course of a lawful search, unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latter’s
in accordance with the decision in Magancia vs. Palacio, 80 Phil. outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons. The apprehending
770, they are admissible in evidence. police officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the
police officer’s experience and the surrounding conditions, to
b) No, the drugs cannot be used in evidence against Antonio if he is warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons or
prosecuted for possession of prohibited drugs. The drugs were contraband concealed about him [People v. Sy Chua (2003)].
found after a more extensive search of the various compartments of
the car. As held in Valmonte vs. De Villa, 185 SCRA 665, for such a
search to be valid, there must be a probable cause. In this case,
there was no probable cause, as there was nothing to indicate that
⟴ Using the description of the supplier of shabu
given by persons who had been arrested earlier for selling it, the
Antonio had prohibited drugs inside the compartments of his car.
police conducted a surveillance of the area indicated. When they
saw a man who fitted the description walking from the apartment
When can evidence "in plain view" be seized without need of a
to his car, they approached and frisked him and he did not object.
search warrant? Explain. (2%)
The search yielded an unlicensed gun tucked on his waist and
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: shabu in his car. Is the search valid?
Evidence in plain view can be seized without need of search
warrant if the following elements are present:
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
No, the man did not manifest any suspicious behavior that would
(1) There was a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
give the police sufficient reason to search him.
warrantless arrest in which the police were legally present
pursuant of their duties;
(2) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who ⟴ As he was entering a bar, Arnold — who was
had the right to be where they were; holding an unlit cigarette in this right hand — was handed a match
(3) The evidence must be immediately apparent; and box by someone standing near the doorway. Arnold unthinkingly
(4) Plain view justified seizure of the evidence without further opened the matchbox to light his cigarette and as he did so, a
search. (Del Rosario vs. People, 358 SCRA 372.) sprinkle of dried leaves fell out, which the guard noticed. The
guard immediately frisked Arnold, grabbed the matchbox, and
sniffed its contents. After confirming that the matchbox contained
⟴ Arrest; Warrantless Arrests & Searches (2007) marijuana, he immediately arrested Arnold and called in the
No.VI. (a) On his way home, a member of the Caloocan City police
police. At the police station, the guard narrated to the police that
force witnesses a bus robbery in Pasay City and effects the arrest
he personally caught Arnold in possession of dried marijuana
of the suspect. Can he bring the suspect to Caloocan City for
leaves. Arnold did not contest the guard’s statement; he
booking since that is where his station is? Explain briefly. (5%)
steadfastly remained silent and refused to give any written
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: statement. Later in court, the guard testified and narrated the
No, the arresting officer may not take the arrested suspect from statements he gave the police over Arnold’s counsel’s objections.
Pasay City to Caloocan City. The arresting officer is required to While Arnold presented his own witnesses to prove that his
deliver the person arrested without a warrant to the nearest police possession and apprehension had been set-up, he himself did not
station or jail (Rule 112, Sec. 5, 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure). testify. The court convicted Arnold, relying largely on his
To be sure, the nearest police station or jail is in Pasay City where admission of the charge by silence at the police investigation and
the arrest was made, and not in Caloocan City. during trial. From the constitutional law perspective, was the
court correct in its ruling?
(b) In the course of serving a search warrant, the police find an
unlicensed firearm. Can the police take the firearm even if it is not
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The court was wrong in relying on the silence of Arnold during
covered by the search warrant? If the warrant is subsequently
the police investigation and during the trial. Under Article III,
quashed, is the police required to return the firearm? Explain
Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, he had the right to remain
briefly. (5%)
silent. His silence cannot be taken as a tacit admission, otherwise,
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: his right to remain silent would be rendered nugatory.
Yes, the police may take with him the “unlicensed” firearm Considering that his right against self-incrimination protects his
although not covered by the search warrant. Possession of an right to remain silent, he cannot be penalized for exercising it
“unlicensed firearm” is a criminal offense and the police officer (People v. Galvez, G.R. No. 157221, March 30, 2007, 519 SCRA
may seize an article which is the “subject of an offense.” Thus us 521).
especially so considering that the “unlicensed firearm” appears to
be in “plain view” of the police officer when the conducted the CUSTOMS SEARCH
search. Even if the warrant was subsequently quashed, the police
are not mandated to return the “unlicensed firearm.” The quashal
of the search warrant did not affect the validity of the seizure of Searches of vessel and aircraft for violation of immigration and
the “unlicensed firearm.” Moreover, returning the firearm to a smuggling laws [Papa v. Mago (1968)].
person who is not otherwise allowed by law to possess the same
would be tantamount to abetting a violation of the law. When accused checked in his luggage as passenger of a plane, he
agreed to the inspection of his luggage in accordance with
customs laws and regulations, and thus waived any objection to a
STOP AND FRISK SEARCHES warrantless search [People v.
Gatward (1997)].
There should be a genuine reason to “stop-and-frisk in the light of
the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions to
warrant a belief that the person detained has weapons concealed. EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
[Malacat v. CA (1997), citing Terry v. Ohio]
The raid and seizure of firearms and ammunition at the height of
Police officer has a right to stop a citizen on street and pat him for the 1989 coup-de-etat, was held valid, considering the exigent and
a weapon in the interest of protecting himself from the person emergency situation. The military operatives had reasonable
with whom he was dealing was not armed. ground to believe that a crime was being committed, and they had
no opportunity to apply for a search warrant from the courts
Scope: Outer clothing for concealed weapon, etc. because the latter were closed. Under such urgency and exigency,
a search warrant could be validly dispersed with [People v. de
Test: WON a reasonably prudent man in the circumstances would Gracia (1994)].
be warranted in the belief that his safety of that of others was in
danger [Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S.(1968)].
⟴ Declaration; State of National Emergency
PAGE 21
On February 24, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued Office of the Collector of Customs conducted a hearing on the
Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a state of national emergency. Is confiscation of the equipment.
this Proclamation constitutional? Explain. (2.5%)
Two days thereafter, the corporation filed with the Supreme Court
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to set aside
The proclamation is constitutional insofar as it constitutes a call by
the warrant, enjoin the Collector and his agents from further
the President for the AFP to prevent or suppress lawless violence as
proceeding with the forfeiture hearing and to secure the return of
this is sustained by Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution.
the confiscated equipment, alleging therein that the warrant
However, PP 1017's provisions giving the President express or
issued is null and void for the reason that, pursuant to Section 2 of
implied power (1) to issue decrees; (2) to direct the AFP to enforce
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, only a judge may issue a search
obedience to all laws even those not related to lawless violence as
warrant. In his comment to the petition, the Collector of Customs,
well as decrees promulgated by the President; and (3) to impose
through the Office of the Solicitor General, contends that he is
standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the press, are
authorized under the Tariff and Custom Code to order the seizure
ultra vires and unconstitutional. Likewise, under Section 17, Article
of the equipment whose duties and taxes were not paid and that
XII of the Constitution, the President, in the absence of legislation,
the corporation did not exhaust administrative remedies. Should
cannot take over privately-owned public utilities and businesses
the petition be granted? Decide
affected with the public interest (David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396,
May 3, 2006). ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The petition should not be granted. Under Secs. 2205 and
During the effectivity of this Proclamation, Gener, Lito and Bong 2208 of the Tariff and Customs Code, customs officials are
were arrested by the police for acts of terrorism. Is the arrest authorized to enter any warehouse, not used as dwelling, for the
legal? Explain. (2.5%) purpose of seizing any article which is subject to forfeiture. For this
purpose they need no warrant issued by a court. As stated in
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Viduya vs. Berdiago, 73 SCRA 553. for centuries the seizure of
The arrest, apparently done without a valid warrant, is illegal.
goods by customs officials to enforce the customs laws without
However, a warrantless arrest would be valid if those accused are
need of a search warrant has been recognized.
caught committing crimes en flagrante delicto. On the other hand,
if the arrest is made pursuant to a valid warrant, then it is lawful.
The term "acts of terrorism" has not been legally defined and made ⟴ Search & Seizure; Warrantless Search (2010)
punishable by Congress. No law has been enacted to guide the law No.VII. As Cicero was walking down a dark alley one midnight, he
enforcement agents, and eventually the courts, to determine the saw an "owner-type jeepney" approaching him. Sensing that the
limits in making arrests for the commission of said acts of occupants of the vehicle were up to no good, he darted into a
terrorism (David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. 171396, May 3, 2006). corner and ran. The occupants of the vehicle − elements from the
Western Police District − gave chase and apprehended him. The
police apprehended Cicero, frisked him and found a sachet of 0.09
VISUAL SEARCH AT CHECKPOINTS gram of shabu tucked in his waist and a Swiss knife in his secret
pocket, and detained him thereafter. Is the arrest and body-search
legal?
“Stop and search” without a warrant at military or police
checkpoints, which has been declared not to be illegal per se so ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
long as it is required by exigencies of public order and conducted The arrest and body-search was legal. Cicero appears to be
in a way least intrusive to motorists [Valmonte v. de Villa (1989)]. alone “walking down the dark alley” and at midnight. There
appears probable cause for the policemen to check him,
For a mere routine inspection, the search is normally permissible especially when he darted into a corner (presumably also dark)
when it is limited to a mere visual search, where the occupants are and run under such circumstance. Although the arrest came after
not subjected to physical or body search. On the other hand, when the body search where Cicero was found with shabu and a Swiss
the vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, it knife, the body-search is legal under the “Terry search” rule or
would be constitutionally permissible only If the officers the “stop and frisk” rule. And because the mere possession, with
conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to animus, of dangerous drug (the shabu) is a violation of the law
believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law (R.A. 9165), the suspect is in a continuing state of committing a
offender or they will find the instrumentality or evidence crime while he is illegally possessing the dangerous drug, thus
pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched[Caballes v. making the arrest tantamount to an arrest in flagrante: so the
Court of Appeals (2002); People v. Libnao (2003)]. arrest is legal and correspondingly, the search and seizure of the
shabu and the concealed knife may be regarded as incident to a
PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SEIZURE lawful arrest.
Generally a search warrant may be issued for the search
and seizure of personal property with (1) Property subject of an ⟴ XVII. Hercules was walking near a police station when a
offense; (2) Stolen or embezzled property and other proceeds or police officer signaled for him to approach. As soon as Hercules
fruits of an offense (3) Used or intended to be used as a means of came near, the police officer frisked him but the latter found no
committing an offense [Sec. 2 Rule 126, ROC] contraband. The police officer told Hercules to get inside the
police station. Inside the police station, Hercules asked the police
It is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized officer, "Sir, may problema po ba?" Instead of replying, the police
should be owned by the person against whom the warrant is officer locked up Hercules inside the police station jail.
issued; it is sufficient that the property is within his control or
possession [Burgos v. Chief of Staff (1984)]. a.) What is the remedy available to Hercules to secure his
immediate release from detention? (2%)
⟴ Searches and Seizures; Warrants of Arrest (1991): b.) If Hercules filed with the Ombudsman a complaint for
No. 8: On the basis of a verified report and confidential warrantless search, as counsel for the police officer, what defense
information that various electronic equipment, which were will you raise for the dismissal of the complaint? (3%)
illegally imported into the Philippines, were found in the bodega c.) If Hercules opts to file a civil action against the police officer,
of the Tikasan Corporation located at 1002 Binakayan St., Cebu will he have a cause of action? (3%)
City, the Collector of Customs of Cebu issued, in the morning of 2
January 1988, a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
corporation for the seizure of the electronic equipment. The a) The remedy available to Hercules to secure his immediate
warrant particularly describes the electronic equipment and release from detention is a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
specifies the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code which Under Rule 102, the writ of habeas corpus is available in cases of
were violated by the importation. The warrant was served and illegal detention. Section 5 of Rule 102 provides that a court or
implemented in the afternoon of 2 January 1988 by Customs judge authorized to grant the writ must, when the petition therefor
policemen who then seized the described equipment. The is presented and it appears that the writ ought to issue, grant the
inventory of the seized articles was signed by the Secretary of the same forthwith, and immediately thereupon the clerk of court shall
Tikasan Corporation. The following day, a hearing officer in the issue the writ or in case of emergency, the judge may issue the writ
PAGE 22
under his own hand and may depute any officer or person to serve he, without warrant, arrested the suspect at his house where
it. The court or judge before whom the writ is returned must dried marijuana leaves were found and seized. This is unlawful
immediately proceed to hear and examine the return. (Section 12, arrest. [People v. Rodrigueza (1992)]
Rule 102).
FRUIT OF POISONOUS TREE:
b) I will raise the defense that the warrantless search was
authorized as a “stop and frisk.” “Stop and frisk” is the right of a
police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat
⟴ Offer of Evidence; Fruit of a Poisonous Tree (2009)
No.VI. Arrested in a buy-bust operation, Edmond was brought to
him for weapons and contraband whenever he observes unusual
the police station where he was informed of his constitutional
conduct which leads him to conclude that criminal activity may be
rights. During the investigation, Edmond refused to give any
afoot. (Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1).
statement. However, the arresting officer asked Edmond to
acknowledge in writing that six (6) sachets of “shabu” were
c) Yes Hercules will have a cause of action. Under Article 32(4) of
confiscated from him. Edmond consented and also signed a receipt
the Civil Code, any public officer who violates the right of a person
for the amount of P3,000, allegedly representing the “purchase
to freedom from arbitrary or illegal detention shall be liable to the
price of the shabu.” At the trial, the arresting officer testified and
latter for damages. The action to recover damages is an
identified the documents executed and signed by Edmond.
independent civil action. Here Hercules was illegally detained as
Edmond’s lawyer did not object to the testimony. After the
there was no probable cause to arrest him without warrant.
presentation of the testimonial evidence, the prosecutor made a
formal offer of evidence which included the documents signed by
COMPARISON OF PROCEDURES IN OBTAINING SEARCH
Edmond. Edmond’s lawyer object to the admissibility of the
WARRANTS AND ARREST WARRANTS
document for being the fruit of the poisoned tree. Resolve the
objection with reasons. (3%)
When warrant of arrest may issue – (a) By the Regional Trial
Court – Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
information, the judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of The objection to the admissibility of the documents which
the prosecutor and its supporting evidence. He may immediately the arresting officer asked Edmond to sign without the benefit of
dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly fails to establish counsel, is well-taken. Said documents having been signed by the
probable cause. accused while under custodial investigation, imply an “admission”
without the benefit of counsel, that the shabu came from him and
If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of that the P3,000,00 was received by him pursuant to the illegal
arrest, or a commitment order if the accused has already been selling of the drugs. Thus, it was obtained by the arresting officer in
arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who clear violation of Sec. 12 (3), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution,
conducted the preliminary investigation or when the complaint or particularly the right to be assisted by counsel during custodial
information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule. In case of investigation. Moreover, the objection to the admissibility of the
doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may order the evidence was timely made, i.e., when the same is formally offered.
prosecutor to present additional evidence [Note: This is not found
in the procedure for a search warrant.] within five (5) days from
notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty ⟴.
(30) days from the filing of the complaint of information. [Rule In a buy-bust operation, the police operatives arrested the accused
112, Sec. 6] and seized from him a sachet of shabu and an unlicensed firearm.
The accused was charged in two Informations, one for violation of
Requisites for issuing search warrant – A search warrant shall the “Dangerous Drug Act”, as amended, and another for illegal
not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one possession of firearms. The accused filed an action for recovery of
specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after the firearm in another court against the police officers with an
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the application for the issuance of a writ of replevin. He alleged in his
witness he may produce, and particularly describing the place to complaint that he was a military informer who had been issued a
be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere written authority to carry said firearm. The police officers moved
in the Philippines. [Rule 126, Sec. 4] to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the subject firearm
was in custodia legis. The court denied the motion and instead
issued the writ of replevin.
REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANTLESS ARREST [RULE 113,
SEC. 5, RULES ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE] a. Was the seizure of the firearm valid?
(1) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to Yes. The seizure of the firearm was valid because it was seized in the
commit an offense; (in flagrante delicto) course of a valid arrest in a buybust operation (Secs. 12 and 13, Rule
126). A search warrant was not necessary (People v. Salazar, G.R.
Rebellion is a continuing offense. Therefore a rebel may be No. 98060, January 27, 1997).
arrested without a warrant at any time of the day or the night as
he is deemed to be in the act of committing rebellion. [Umil v. b. Was the denial of the motion to dismiss proper? (2003 Bar)
Ramos (1991)] ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
NO. The denial of the motion to dismiss was not proper. The court
Though kidnapping with serious illegal detention is deemed a had no authority to issue the writ of replevin whether the firearm
continuing crime, it can be considered as such only when the was in custodia legis or not. The motion to recover the firearm
deprivation of liberty is persistent and continuing from one place should be filed in the court where the criminal action is pending.
to another. [Parulan v. Dir of Prisons (1968)]
Hot Pursuit: The arrest of the accused inside his house following (2) When an offense has just been committed and he has
hot pursuit of the person who committed the offense in flagrante probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
was held valid. [People v. De Lara (1994)] facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it;
Buy-Bust: A buy-bust operation is a valid in flagrante arrest. The
subsequent search of the person arrested and the premises within Requisites:
his immediate control is valid as an incident to a lawful arrest. (1) Offense had JUST been committed;
[People v. Hindoy (2001)] (2) Person making the arrest has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge.
Exception to buy-bust: Instead of arresting the suspect after the
sale in a buy-bust op, the officer returned to the police Note: There must be a large measure of immediacy between the
headquarters and filed his report. It was only in the evening that time the offense is committed and the time of the arrest. If there
PAGE 23
was an appreciable lapse of time between arrest and commission imposing an additional qualification. Criminals subjected to RDT
of crime, warrant of arrest must be secured. [Nachura] would violate their right against self-incrimination. [SJS v.
Dangerous Drugs Board (2008)]
Warrantless arrest of accused for selling marijuana 2 days after he
escaped is invalid. [People v. Kimura (2004)]
SECTION 3, ARTICLE III
The warrantless arrest only 3 hours after the killing was held valid “Privacy of Communication”
since personal knowledge was established as to the fact of death (1) GEN: The privacy of communication and correspondence
and facts indicating that the accused killed the victim. [People v. slicehall be inviolable
Gerente (1993)] EXN: upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Personal Knowledge: Experience of an officer which gives the idea
that there is probable cause that the person caught is responsible. (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
It has been ruled that “personal knowledge of facts” in arrests section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any procedure.
without a warrant must be based on probable cause, which means
an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion. [Cadua v.
Court of Appeals (1999)]
PRIVATE AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
There is no personal knowledge when the commission of a crime
REQUISITES OF EXISTENCE OF PRIVACY RIGHT
and identity of the accused were merely furnished by an
(1) Subjective: A person has exhibited an actual expectation of
informant, or when the location of the firearm was given by the
privacy; and
wife of the accused. It is not enough that there is reasonable
(2) Objective: The expectation be one that society is prepared to
ground to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a
recognize as reasonable. [Pollo v. Constantino- David (2011)
crime. That a crime has actually been committed is an essential
citing the Concurring Opinion of Justice Harlan in Katz v. US
precondition. [People v. Burgos (1986)]
(1967)]
(3) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
INTRUSION, WHEN ALLOWED:
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
(1) By lawful order of the court
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another
Probable cause in Sec. 2, Art. III should be followed for the court
to allow intrusion. Particularity of description is needed for
Additional Exceptions (Not in the Rules):
written correspondence, but if the intrusion is done through
(1) When the right is voluntarily waived (estoppel).
wire-taps and the like, there is no need to describe the content.
(2) Violent insanity.
However, identity of the person or persons whose
communication is to be intercepted, and the offense or offenses
Appellant is estopped from questioning the illegality of the arrest
sought to be prevented, and the period of the authorization
when he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
given can be specified.
court by entering a plea of not guilty and by participating in the
trial. [People v. Salvatierra (1997)]
(2) When public safety or public order requires otherwise, as
may be provided by law.
Failure to raise the question of admissibility during the trial is
waiver of the right to assert inadmissibility on appeal. [Manalili v.
Intrusion has to be based upon a non-judicial government
CA (1997)]
official’s assessment that public safety and order demands such
intrusion, limited to the provisions of law. To hold otherwise
Scope of Waiver: Waiver is limited to the illegal arrest.
would be to opt for a government of men, and not of laws.
It does not extend to the search made as an incident
thereto, or the subsequent seizure of evidence allegedly found
Public order and safety is defined as the security of human lives,
during the search [People v. Peralta (2004]]
liberty and property against the activities of invaders,
insurrectionist and rebels. [1971 Constitutional Convention,
ADMINISTRATIVE ARRESTS
Session of November 25, 1972]
General Rule: Only the judge has the power to issue a warrant
after the proper procedure has been duly taken.
FORMS OF CORRESPONDENCE COVERED
(1) letters
Exceptions:
(2) messages
(3) telephone calls
(1) In cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens, whom
(4) telegrams, and the like [Bernas]
the Presidentor the Commissioner of Immigration may order
arrested, following a final order of deportation,for the purpose
TESTS OF REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY:
of deportation. [Salazar v. Achacoso (1990)]
(1) Whether by his conduct, an individual has exhibited an
expectation of privacy;
(2) Warrant of arrest may be issued by administrative authorities
(2) Whether such expectation is one that society recognizes as
only for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a
reasonable. [Ople v. Torres (1998)]
violation of law and not for the sole purpose of investigation
or prosecution. It may be issued only after the proceeding has
N.B. The Court in KMU v. Director-General held that Ople v. Torres
taken place as when there is already a final decision of the
is not an authority on the right to privacy, essentially on the
administrative authorities.
ground that the privacy discussion in Ople is obiter dictum. [See
KMU v. Director-General (2006)] Nevertheless, the Ople testhas
DRUG, ALCOHOL AND BLOOD TESTS
been reapplied by cases such as Sabio v. Gordon (2006) and is
The Court held that Randomized Drug Testing (RDT) for
essentially the same as the test in Pollo v. Constantino-David, infra.
students and employees does not violate the right to privacy in the
Constitution. Students do not have rational expectation of
A legitimate expectation of privacy requires. — (1) a subjective
privacy since they are minors and the school is in loco parentis.
expectation (i.e. demonstrated actual, personal expectation of
Employees and students in universities, on the other hand,
privacy); and (2) an objective expectation (i.e. an expectation that
voluntarily subject themselves to the intrusion because of their
society would recognize). [Pollo v. Constantino-David (2011)]
contractual relation to the company or university.
Other imports from Jurisprudence:
However, it is unconstitutional to subject candidates for public
Anti-Wire Tapping Act (RA 4200), clearly and unequivocably
office and criminals to RDT. The Constitution clearly provides the
makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to
requirements for candidates, and adding RDT would amount to
PAGE 24
any private communication, to secretly record such No. 8: While serving sentence in Muntinlupa for the crime of theft,
communications by means of a tape recorder. The law does not "X" stabbed dead one of his guards, "X" was charged with murder.
make any distinction. [Ramirez v. CA (1995)] During his trial, the prosecution introduced as evidence a letter
written in prison by "X" to his wife tending to establish that the
An extension telephone is not among the devices enumerated in crime of murder was the result of premeditation. The letter was
Sec. 1 of RA 4200. There must be either a physical interruption written voluntarily. In the course of inspection, it was opened and
through a wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or read by a warden pursuant to the rules of discipline of the Bureau
arrangement in order to overhear, intercept, or record the spoken of Prisons and considering its contents, the letter was turned over
words. The telephone extension in this case was not installed for to the prosecutor. The lawyer of "X" objected to the presentation
that purpose. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use. of the letter and moved for its return on the ground that it violates
[Ganaan v. IAC (1986)] the right of "X" against unlawful search and seizure. Decide.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
⟴ Privacy of Communication (2009) The objection of the lawyer must be sustained, Section 3(1), Article
No.VI. In criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution IV of the 1987 Constitution provides:
presented, as witness, an employee of the Manila Hotel who "The privacy of communication and correspondence shall
produced in court a videotape recording showing the heated be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public
exchange between the accused and the victim that took place at safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law."
the lobby of the hotel barely 30 minutes before the killing. The
accused objects to the admission of the videotape recording on the There was no court order which authorized the warden to read the
ground that it was taken without his knowledge or consent, in letter of "X". Neither is there any law specifically authorizing the
violation of his right to privacy and the Anti-Wire Tapping law. Bureau of Prisons to read the letter of "X", Under Section 3(1),
Resolve the objection with reasons. Article III of the 1987 Constitution, to interfere with any
correspondence when there is no court order, there must be a law
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: authorizing it in the interest of public safety or order. The ruling of
The objection should be overruled. What the law prohibits is the
the United States Supreme Court in the case of Stroud vs. United
overhearing, intercepting, and recording of private
States, 251 U.S. 15 is not applicable here, because Section 3(1),
communication. Since the exchange of heated words was not
Article III of the 1987 Constitution has no counterpart in the
private, its videotape recording is not prohibited (Navarro vs.
American Constitution. Hence, in accordance with Section 3(2),
Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 153 [1999]).
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, the letter is inadmissible in
evidence.
PAGE 25
What is the writ of habeas (1) Remedy the preceding
data? (2) Available to any person paragraph.
(3) Whose right to life,
liberty, and Where can the petition be (1) Regional Trial Court
security filed? (a) where the petitioner or
(4) has been violated or is respondent resides,
threatened with violation (b) or that which has
(5) By an unlawful act or jurisdiction
omission
(6) of a public official or Scope of intrusion is reasonable: if measures used in the search
employee, or of a private are reasonable related to the search’s objectives, and it is not
individual or entity highly intrusive. [Pollo, supra]
(7) Engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of Right may be invoked against the wife who went to the clinic of
data or information her husband and there took documents consisting of private
regarding the person, communications between her husband and his alleged paramour.
family, home and [Zulueta v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 699(1996)]
correspondence of the
aggrieved party. N.B. While Zulueta seems to be an exception to the State Action
What rule governs petitions The Rule on the Writ of Requirement, Zulueta’s application of the exclusionary rulehas
for and the issuance of a writ Habeas Data (A.M. No. 08-1- only been cited once but to a state action.]
of habeas data? 16-SC), which was approved
by the SC on 22 January 2008. See also: R.A. No. 10173, Data Privacy Act (2012)
That Rule shall not diminish,
increase or modify WRIT OF HABEAS DATA
substantive rights. The right to informational privacy, as a specific component of the
What is the SC’s basis in right to privacy, may yield to an overriding legitimate state
issuing the Rule? [Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. interest. [Gamboa v. P/Ssupt. Marlou C. Chan (2012)]
5[5]].
When does the Rule take
effect?
The Rule takes effect on 2
February 2008, following its
⟴ What is the writ of habeas data?
publication in three (3) ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
newspapers of general A writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any
circulation. persons whose right to privacy in life, liberty, or security is
Who may file a petition for the (1) The aggrieved party. violated or threatened with violation by unlawful act or omission
issuance of a writ of habeas (2) However, in cases of of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity
data? extralegal killings and engaged in the gathering, collecting, or storing of data or
enforced information regarding the person, family, home and
disappearances, the correspondence of the aggrieved party.
petition may be filed by
(a) Any member of the ⟴ No.XX. Azenith, the cashier of Temptation Investments,
immediate family of Inc. (Temptation, Inc.) with principal offices in Cebu City, is equally
the aggrieved party, hated and loved by her co-employees because she extends cash
namely: the spouse, advances or "vales " to her colleagues whom she likes. One
children and parents; morning, Azenith discovers an anonymous letter inserted under
or the door of her office threatening to kill her. Azenith promptly
(b) Any ascendant, reports the matter to her superior Joshua, who thereupon
descendant or conducts an internal investigation to verify the said threat.
collateral relative of Claiming that the threat is real, Temptation, Inc. opts to transfer
the aggrieved party Azenith to its Palawan Office, a move she resists in view of the
within the fourth civil company’s refusal to disclose the results of its investigation.
degree of Decrying the move as a virtual deprivation of her employment,
consanguinity or Azenith files a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data
affinity, in default of before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) to enjoin Temptation, Inc.
those mentioned in from transferring her on the ground that the company’s refusal to
the preceding provide her with a copy of the investigation results compromises
paragraph. her right to life, liberty and privacy. Resolve the petition. Explain.
Who may file a petition for (3) The aggrieved party. ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
the issuance of a writ of (4) However, in cases of Azenith‟s petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data must
habeas data? extralegal killings and be dismissed as there is no showing that her right to privacy in life,
enforced liberty, or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or
disappearances, the omission. Neither was the company shown to be engaged in the
petition may be filed by gathering, collecting nor storing of data or information regarding
(a) Any member of the the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved
immediate family of party (Sec. 1, Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data)
the aggrieved party,
namely: the spouse,
children and parents;
or SECTION 4, ARTICLE III
(b) Any ascendant, “Freedom of speech”
descendant or No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of
collateral relative of expression, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceable to
the aggrieved party assemble and petition the government for redress of grievance.
within the fourth civil
degree of PROTECTS:
consanguinity or 1. Free of speech
affinity, in default of 2. Of expression
those mentioned in 3. Of the press
PAGE 26
4. Right of the people peaceable to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievance General rules:
(1) Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to the
CONCEPT AND SCOPE BASIS Court bearing a heavy presumption against its
constitutionality, giving the government a heavy burden to
No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs show justification for the imposition of such restraint. [New
and aspirations. [Art. III, Sec. 18(1)] York v. United States (1971)]
(2)There need not be total suppression. Even restriction of
All are indispensable to the “uninhibited, robust and wide open circulation constitutes censorship. [Grosjean v. American Press
debate in the free marketplace of ideas.” [Abrams v. US (1919)] Co., 297 US 233]
While indeed, the news item subject of the present case might Examples of Unconstitutional Prior Restraint
have ruffled the sensitivities of plaintiff, this Court however (1) COMELEC prohibition against radio commentators or
believes that the alleged defamatory articles fall within the newspaper columnists from commenting on the issues
purview of a qualifiedly privileged matter, and that therefore, it involved in a scheduled plebiscite [Sanidad v. COMELEC
cannot be presumed to be malicious. The onus of proving malice (1990)]
is accordingly shifted to the plaintiff, that is, that he must prove (2) Arbitrary closure of a radio station [Eastern Broadcasting v.
that the defendants were actuated by ill-will in what they caused Dans (1985)]; or even when there is a legal justification, such
to be printed and published, with a design to carelessly or as lack of mayor’s permit [Newsounds Broadcasting Network
wantonly injure the plaintiff. [U.S. v. Bustos (1909)] Inc. v. Dy (2009)]
(3) COMELEC resolution prohibiting the posting of decals and
Components stickers in mobile units like cars and other moving vehicles
Speech, expression, and press include: [Adiong v. COMELEC (1992)]
(1) Written or spoken words (recorded or not) (4) Search, padlocking and sealing of the offices of newspaper
(2) Symbolic speech (e.g. wearing armbands as symbol of protest) publishers (We Forum) by military authorities [Burgos v. Chief
Violation of the Hotel’s Grooming Standards by labor union and of Staff, supra]
unprotected speech. [NUWHRAIN-APL-IUF Dusit Hotel Nikko (5) An announcement of a public figure to prohibit the media to
Chapter v. CA (2008)] issue a specific kind of statement [Chavez v. Gonzales (2006)]
(3) Movies
Examples of Constitutional Prior Restraint:
(1) Law which prohibits, except during the prescribed election
PEOPLE POWER: period, the making of speeches, announcements or
commentaries for or against the election of any candidate for
⟴ Phil Con 87; People Power (2003) office [Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969)]
No I -Is "people power" recognized by the 1987 Constitution?
Explain fully. (2) Prohibition on any person making use of the media to sell or
to give free of charge print space or air time for campaign or
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: other political purposes except to the COMELEC.
"People power" is recognized in the Constitution. Article III, Section Ratio: police power of State to regulate media for purpose of
4 of the 1987 Constitution guarantees the right of the people ensuring equal opportunity, time and space for political
peaceable to assemble and petition the government for redress of campaigns. [National Press Club v. COMELEC (1992); Osmena v.
grievances. COMELEC (1998)]
Article VI, Section 32 of the 1987 Constitution requires Congress to (3) Movie censorship: the power of the MTCRB can be exercised
pass a law allowing the people to directly propose and enact laws only for purposes of reasonable classification, not censorship.
through initiative and to approve or reject any act or law or part [NACHURA citing Gonzalez v. Katigbak (1985) and Ayer v.
of it passed by Congress or a local legislative body. Judge Capulong (1988)]
Article XIII, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution provides that the (4) Near v. Minnesota, (1931):
right of the people and their organizations to participate at all (a) When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in
levels of social, political, and economic decision-making shall not time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their
be abridged and that the State shall, by law, facilitate the utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that
establishment of adequate consultation mechanisms. no court could regard them as protected by any
constitutional right
Article XVII, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides that (b) Actual obstruction to the government’s recruiting service
subject to the enactment of an implementing law, the people may or the publication of the sailing dates of transports or the
directly propose amendments to the Constitution through number and location of troops
initiative. (c) Obscene publications
(d) Incitements to acts of violence and the overthrow
by force of orderly government
PAGE 27
the sailing dates of transports or the number and location of troops, judges. A reporter is prohibited from recklessly disregarding a
or for the purpose of enforcing the primary requirements of decency private reputation without any bona fide effort to ascertain
or the security of community life. (Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S, 697 the truth thereof [In Re: Emil Jurado (1995)]
(1931)). Attacks on the government, on the other hand, cannot
justify prior restraints. For as has been pointed out, "the interest of (5) Right of students to free speech in school premises must not
society and the maintenance of good government demand a full infringe on the school’s right to discipline its students [Miriam
discussion of public affairs. Complete liberty to comment on the College Foundation v. CA (2000)]
conduct of public men is a scalpel in the case of free speech. The
sharp incision of its probe relieves the abscesses of officialdom. Men Exceptions:
in public life may suffer under a hostile and an unjust accusation; (1) Fair comment on matters of public interest. Fair comment
the wound can be assuaged with the balm of a clear conscience," is that which is true or, if false, expresses the real opinion
(United States v Bustos, 37 Phil. 741 (1918)). of the author based upon reasonable degree of care and on
reasonable grounds.
The parties adversely affected may also disregard the regulation as (2) Criticism of official conduct is given the widest latitude. [US
being on its face void. As has been held, "any system of prior v. Bustos (1918)]
restraints of expression comes to the court bearing a heavy
presumption against its constitutional validity," and the
government "thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification
for the imposition of such a restraint." (New York Times Co. v.
United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)).
PAGE 28
criminally liable for attending the rally. However, under Section 12 As the size of these groups increases, the chances for members of
thereof, when the public assembly is held without a permit where a such groups to recover damages on tortious libel become elusive.
permit is required, the said public assembly may be peacefully This principle is said to embrace two important public policies:
dispersed.
(1) Where the group referred to is large, the courts presume that
no reasonable reader would take the statements as so literally
⟴ Declaration; State of National Emergency (Q1-2006) applying to each individual member; and
(2) The limitation on liability would satisfactorily safeguard
On February 24, 2006, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued
Proclamation No. 1017 declaring a state of national emergency. Is freedom of speech and expression, as well as of the press,
this Proclamation constitutional? Explain. (2.5%) effecting a sound compromise between the conflicting
fundamental interests involved in libel cases. [MVRS v. Islamic
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Da’Wah Council of the Phil (2003)]
The proclamation is constitutional insofar as it
constitutes a call by the President for the AFP to prevent or suppress
lawless violence as this is sustained by Section 18, Article VII of the
Constitution. However, PP 1017's provisions giving the President ⟴ Freedom of the Press; Actual Malice (2004)
express or implied power (1) to issue decrees; (2) to direct the AFP (5-a) The STAR, a national daily newspaper, carried an exclusive
to enforce obedience to all laws even those not related to lawless report stating that Senator XX received a house and lot located at
violence as well as decrees promulgated by the President; and (3) to YY Street, Makati, in consideration for his vote cutting cigarette
impose standards on media or any form of prior restraint on the taxes by 50%. The Senator sued the STAR, its reporter, editor and
press, are ultra vires and unconstitutional. Likewise, under Section publisher for libel, claiming the report was completely false and
17, Article XII of the Constitution, the President, in the absence of malicious. According to the Senator, there is no YY Street in
legislation, cannot take over privately-owned public utilities and Makati, and the tax cut was only 20%. He claimed one million
businesses affected with the public interest (David v. Arroyo, G.R. No. pesos in damages. The defendants denied "actual malice,"
171396, May 3, 2006). claiming privileged communication and absolute freedom of the
press to report on public officials and matters of public concern. If
During the effectivity of this Proclamation, Gener, Lito and Bong there was any error, the STAR said it would publish the correction
were arrested by the police for acts of terrorism. Is the arrest promptly. Is there "actual malice" in STAR'S reportage? How is
legal? Explain. (2.5%) "actual malice" defined? Are the defendants liable for damages?
PAGE 29
Absent any clear and present danger of a substantive evil,
Freedom of Expression and the Right to Privacy peaceable assembly in public places like streets or parks
Being a public figure does not automatically destroy in cannot be denied. [J.B.L. Reyes v. Bagatsing (1983)]
toto a person’s right to privacy. The right to invade a person’s
privacy to disseminate public info does not extend to a fictional The Calibrated Pre-emptive Response (CPR), insofar as it would
representation of a person, no matter how public a figure he/she purport to differ from or be in lieu of maximum tolerance, is NULL
may be. [Lagunzad v. Soto (1979)] and VOID.
Freedom of speech and expression includes freedom to CPR serves no valid purpose if it means the same thing as
film and produce motion pictures and to exhibit them. The fact maximum tolerance (Sec. 3 [c] of B.P. 880), and is illegal if it means
that such film production is a commercial activity is not a something else. Accordingly, what is to be followed is and should
disqualification for availing of freedom of speech and expression. be that mandated by the law itself, namely, maximum tolerance.
The right to privacy cannot be invoked to resist publication and B.P. 880 not unconstitutional
dissemination of matter of public interest. The intrusion is no B.P. No. 880 is not an absolute ban of public assemblies but a
more than necessary to keep the film a truthful historical account. restriction that simply regulates the time, place and manner of the
Enrile is a public figure because of his participation as a principal assemblies. The law is not vague or overbroad. There is, likewise,
actor in the culminating events of the EDSA revolution. [Ayer no prior restraint, since the content of the speech is not relevant
Productions v. Capulong (1988)] to the regulation. A fair and impartial reading of B.P. No. 880 thus
readily shows that it refers to all kinds of public assemblies that
Freedom of Expression and the Administration of Justice would use public places.
Due to the delay in the disposition of his original case,
Cabansag asked for help from the President through a letter Freedom Parks
addressed to the Presidential Complaints and Actions B.P. 880 provides that every city and municipality must set aside
Commission (PCAC). He was charged for contempt because such a freedom park within six months from the law’s effectivity in
complaint should have been raised to the Secretary of Justice or 1985. Section 15 of the law provides for an alternative forum
SC instead. through the creation of freedom parks where no prior permit is
needed for peaceful assembly and petition at any time. Without
SC ruled that for his act to be contemptuous, the danger such alternative forum, to deny the permit would in effect be to
must cause a serious imminent threat to the administration of deny the right to peaceably assemble.
justice. It cannot be inferred that such act has "a dangerous
tendency" to belittle the court or undermine the administration of Permit Application
justice for the writer merely exercised his constitutional right to There is a need to address the situation adverted to by petitioners
petition the government for redress of a legitimate grievance. where mayors do not act on applications for a permit and when
[Cabansag v. Fernandez (1957)] the police demand a permit and the rallyists could not produce
one, the rally is immediately dispersed.
PAGE 30
including the right to strike in accordance with law. CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane The question in every case is whether the words used
conditions of work, and a living wage. They shall are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to
also participate in policy and decision-making create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
processes affecting their rights and benefits as may substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a
be provided by law. [Art. XIII, Sec. 3(2), par. 2] question of proximity and degree. [Schenck v. United States
(1919)]
FACIAL CHALLENGES AND THE OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE
General Rule: A party can question the validity of a statute only if, This rule requires that “the danger created must not only be clear
as applied to him, it is unconstitutional. and present but also traceable to the ideas expressed”. [Gonzales
v. COMELEC (1969)]
Exception: Facial Challenges:
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a Note: This test has been adopted by the Philippine SC lock, stock
vague statute and to one which is overbroad because of and barrel and is the test most applied to cases re: freedom of
possible “chilling effect” upon protected speech. The expression.
theory is that “[w]hen statutes regulate or proscribe
speech and no readily apparent construction suggests BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST - applies when 2 conflicting
itself as a vehicle for rehabilitating the statutes in a interest does NOT involve NATIONAL SECURITY CRIMES
single prosecution, the transcendent value to all society When a particular conduct is regulated in the interest of
of constitutionally protected expression is deemed to public order, and the regulation results in an indirect, conditional
justify allowing attacks on overly broad statutes with no and partial abridgement of speech, the duty of the courts is to
requirement that the person making the attack determine which of the two conflicting interests demands greater
demonstrate that his own conduct could not be protection. [American Communications Assoc. v. Douds, 339 US
regulated by a statute drawn with narrow specificity.” 282]
The possible harm to society in permitting some unprotected The test is applied when two legitimate values not involving
speech to go unpunished is outweighed by the possibility that the national security crimes compete.[Gonzales v. COMELEC (1969)]
protected speech of others may be deterred and perceived
grievances left to fester because of possible inhibitory effects of
overly broad statutes.
It is sufficient if the natural tendency and the probable effect of the DIRECT INCITEMENT TEST
utterance were to bring about the substantive evil that the The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not
legislative body seeks to prevent. [People v. Perez(1956)] permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force
or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to
inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite
or produce such action.
PAGE 31
[Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444)] The Court pronounced that the freedom of broadcast media is
lesser in scope than the press because of their pervasive presence
Political discussion even among those opposed to the present in the lives of people and because of their accessibility to children.
administration is within the protective clause of freedom of
speech and expression. The same cannot be construed as MOVIE CENSORSHIP
subversive activities per se or as evidence of membership in a When MTRCB rated the movie, “Kapit sa Patalim” as fit “For Adults
subversive organization. [Salonga v. Cruz Only”, SC ruled that there was no grave abuse of discretion.
Paño(1986)]
Censorship is allowable only under the clearest proof of a clear
GRAVE-BUT-IMPROBABLE DANGER TEST and present danger of a substantive evil to public safety, morals,
To determine the clear and present danger of the utterances health or any other legitimate public interest:
bringing about the evil which that legislature has the power to (1) There should be no doubt what is feared may be traced to the
punish, "In each case [courts] must ask whether the gravity of the expression complained of.
'evil,' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free (2) Also, there must be reasonable apprehension about its
speech as is necessary to avoid the danger." In this case, an attempt imminence. It does not suffice that the danger is only
to overthrow the Government by force is a sufficient evil for probable. [Gonzales v. Kalaw-Katigbak (1985)]
Congress to prevent. It is the existence of the conspiracy which
creates the danger. [Dennis v. US (1951)] Limited intrusion into a person’s privacy is permissible when that
person is a public figure and the information sought to be
MILLER TEST (CCA-SL) To published is of a public character.
determine obscenity:
(1) Whether the average person, applying Contemporary What is protected is the right to be free from unwarranted
Community standards would find that the work, taken as a publicity, from the wrongful publicizing of the private affairs of an
whole, Appeals to prurient interest individual which are outside the realm of public concern. [Ayer
(2) Whether the work depicts or describes in a patently offensive Productions v. Capulong, supra]
way, sexual conduct Specifically defined by the applicable
state law TELEVISION CENSORSHIP
(3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, Lacks serious, literary, P.D. 1986 gave MTRCB the power to screen, review and examine
artistic, political, or scientific value [Miller v. CA all television programs.
(1973) also applied in Fernando v. CA (2006)]
By the clear terms of the law, the Board has the power to “approve,
O’ BRIEN TEST (C-GUN) delete, or prohibit the exhibition and/or television broadcasts of
To determine whether Content- Based or Content- television programs. The law also directs the Board to apply
Neutral: contemporary Filipino culture values as standard to determine
(1) If it is within the Constitutional power of the Government those which are objectionable for being immoral, indecent,
(2) If it furthers an important or substantial Government interest contrary to law and/or good customs injurious to the prestige of
(3) If the Government interest is Unrelated to the suppression of the Republic of the Philippines and its people, or with a dangerous
free expression tendency to encourage the commission of a violence or of a wrong
(4) If the incidental restriction is No greater than is essential to or a crime.
the furtherance of that interest
The law gives the Board the power to screen, review and examine
COMELEC banned the publication of surveys 15 and 7 days prior ALL “television programs” whether religious, public affairs, news
to election concerning national and local candidates, respectively. documentary, etc. (Ubilex non distinguit nec distinguere de bemos-
The SC held that this regulation is contentbased because applying when the law does not make any exception, courts may not except
the 3rd prong of the O-Brien Test, it actually suppresses a whole something
class of expression, while allowing the expression of opinion therefrom). [Iglesia ni Cristo v. CA (1996)]
concerning the same subject matter by other opinion takers. The
prohibition may be for a limited time, but the curtailment of the Also, notwithstanding the fact that freedom of religion has been
right of expression is direct, absolute, and substantial. [SWS v. accorded a preferred status, Iglesiani Cristo’s program is still not
COMELEC (2001)] exempt from MTRCB’s power to review. Freedom of expression
and of the press has not been
STATE REGULATION OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF MASS MEDIA declared of preferred status. [MTRCB v. ABS-CBN (2005)]
(1) The ownership and management of mass media shall be On the program of Dating Daan, Soriano made crude remarks like
limited to citizens of the Philippines, or to corporations, “lihitimong anak ng demonyo, sinungaling, etc.” MTRCB
cooperatives or associations, wholly-owned and managed by such preventively suspended him and his show. SC held that the State
citizens. has a compelling interest to protect the minds of the children who
are exposed to such materials. [Soriano v. Laguardia (2009)]
The Congress shall regulate or prohibit monopolies in commercial
mass media when the public interest so requires. No The SC could not compel TV stations and radio stations, being
combinations in restraint of trade or unfair competition therein indispensable parties, to give UNIDO free air time as they were
shall be allowed. not impleaded in this case. UNIDO must seek a contract with these
TV stations and radio stations at its own expense. [UNIDO v.
(2) The advertising industry is impressed with public COMELEC (1981)]
interest, and shall be regulated by law for the protection of
consumers and the promotion of the general welfare. The television camera is a powerful weapon which intentionally
or inadvertently can destroy an accused and his case in the eyes
Only Filipino citizens or corporations or associations at least of the public.
seventy per centum of the capital of which is owned by such
citizens shall be allowed to engage in the advertising industry. Considering the prejudice it poses to the defendant’s right to due
process as well as to the fair and orderly administration of justice,
The participation of foreign investors in the governing body of and considering further that the freedom of the press and the
entities in such industry shall be limited to their proportionate right of the people to information may be served and satisfied by
share in the capital thereof, and all the executive and managing less distracting, degrading and prejudicial means, live radio and
officers of such entities must be citizens of the Philippines. [Art. television coverage of the court proceedings shall not be allowed.
XVI, Sec. 11(1)] No video shots or photographs shall be permitted during the trial
proper.Video footages of court hearings for news purposes shall
be limited and restricted. [Secretary of
Justice v. Sandiganbayan (2001)]
PAGE 32
RADIO CENSORSHIP CONCEPT
The SC does not uphold claim that Far Eastern had no right to The clause prohibits excessive government entanglement with,
require the submission of the manuscript. It is the duty of Far endorsement or disapproval of religion [Victoriano v. Elizalde
Eastern to require the submission of a manuscript as a Rope Workers Union (1974); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 US 668 (1984)
requirement in broadcasting speeches. O'Connor, J., concurring); Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburg
Besides, laws provide for such actions: ACLU (1989)]
Act 8130. Franchise for Far Eastern; radio to be open to the BASIS
general public but subject to regulations Rooted in the separation of Church and State [Sec. 2(5), Art. IX-C;
Sec. 5(2), Sec. 29(2) Art. VI, 1987 Consti]
Comm. Act 98. Sec. of Interior and/or the Radio Board is
empowered to censor what is considered “neither moral, ACTS NOT PERMITTED BY NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (1)
educational or entertaining, and prejudicial to public interest.” Prayer and Bible-reading in public schools [Engel v.
The Board can forfeit the license of a broadcasting station. Vitale (1967); Abington School District v. Schemp (1963)]
(2) Financial subsidy for parochial schools[Lemon vs. Kurtzman
Sec. of the Interior, Dept. Order 13. Requires submission of daily (1971)]
reports to Sec. of Interior/Radio Board re: programs before airing. (3) Religious displays in public spaces: Display of granite
For speeches, a manuscript or short gist must be submitted. monument of 10 commandments in front of a courthouse is
[Santiago v. Far Eastern Broadcasting unconstitutional for being unmistakably non-secular.
(1941)] [Glassroth vs. Moore, 335 F.3d 1282 (11th Cir. 2003)]
(4) Mandatory religious subjects or prohibition of secular subjects
Strict rules have also been allowed for radio because of its (evolution) in schools [Epperson vs. Arkansas (1968)]
pervasive quality and because of the interest in the protection of (5) Mandatory bible reading in school (a form of preference for
children. [FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978)] belief over non-belief) [School District vs. Schempp (1963)]
(6) Word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance: religious vs atheist
COMMERCIAL SPEECH students [Newdow vs. US (2003)]
Commercial speech is unprotected speech. Commercial
advertising in the U.S. has been accorded First Amendment ACTS PERMITTED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
protection but not in the same level of protection given to political Constitutionally created
speech. One case set down the requirements for protection of (1) Tax exemption
commercial speech: Charitable institutions, churches and personages or
(1) speech must not be false, misleading or proposing an illegal convents appurtenant thereto, mosques, non-profit cemeteries, and
activity; all lands, buildings, and improvements, actually, directly, and
(2) government interest sought to be served by regulation must exclusively used for religious, charitable, or educational purposes
be substantial; shall be exempt from taxation. [Art. VI, Sec. 28 (3)]
(3) the regulation must advance government interest; and
(4) the regulation must not be overbroad. [Bernas] (2) Operation of sectarian schools
Educational institutions, other than those established
PRIVATE V. GOVERNMENT SPEECH by religious groups and mission boards, shall be owned solely
Parliamentary immunity guarantees the members the freedom of by citizens of the Philippines or corporations or associations at
expression without fear of being made responsible in criminal or least sixty per centum of the capital of which is owned by such
civil actions before courts or forum outside of Congress. But this citizens… [Art. XIV, Sec. 4(2)]
does not protect them from responsibility from the legislative
body. The members may nevertheless be questioned in Congress (3) Religious instruction in public schools
itself. At the option expressed in writing by the parents or
guardians, religion shall be allowed to be taught to their children
For unparliamentary conduct, members of the Congress have or wards in public elementary and high schools within the regular
been, or could be censured, committed to prison, even expelled by class hours by instructors designated or approved by the religious
the votes of their colleagues. [Osmeña v. authorities of the religion to which the children or wards belong,
Pendatun (1960)] without additional cost to the Government. [Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3)]
HECKLER’S VETO The government promotes the full growth of the faculties of every
An attempt to limit unpopular speech. For example, an unpopular child. For this purpose, the government will establish, whenever
group wants to hold a rally and asks for a permit. The government possible:
isnot allowed to refuse the permit based upon the beliefs of the (1) Schools in every barrio, municipality and city where optional
applicants. But the government can deny the permit, reasoning religious instruction shall be taught as part of the curriculum
that it isnot because the government disapproves of the group's at the option of the parent or guardian. xxx [Art. 359, Civil
message, it is just afraid that so many people will be outraged that Code]
there might be violent protests. Under the Free Speech Clause of
Sec. 4 Art. III, the government may not silence speech based on the PUBLIC AID TO RELIGION:
reaction (or anticipated reaction) of a hostile audience, unless
there is a "clear and present danger" of grave and imminent harm, No public money or property shall be appropriated,
which isnot easy to prove. applied, paid, or employed, directly or indirectly, for the use,
benefit, or support of any sect, church, denomination, sectarian
institution, or system of religion, or of any priest, preacher,
minister, other religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except
when such priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to
SECTION 5, ARTICLE III the armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium.[Art. VI, Sec. 29(2)]
No shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment religious profession and worship, without discrimination Jurisprudence
or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be Religious activities with secular purpose/character.— Postage
requires for the exercise of civil or political rights. stamps depicting Philippines as the site of a significant religious
event – promotes Philippine tourism [Aglipay vs. Ruiz, (1937)]
PAGE 33
Book lending program for students in parochial schools. – benefit Although morality contemplated in laws is secular, benevolent
to parents and students [Board of Education vs. neutrality could allow for accommodation of morality based on
Allen, 392 U.S. 236] religion, provided it does not offend
compelling state interests. [Estrada v. Escritor (2003)]
Display of crèche in a secular setting – depicts origins of the
holiday [Lynch vs. Donnely (1984)] TESTS CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
Financial support for secular academic facilities(i.e library and Used for religious speech
science center) in parochial schools – has secular use
[Tilton vs. Richardson (403 U.S. 672)] In orderto justify restraint the court must determine whether the
expression presets a clear and present danger ofany substantive
Exemption from zoning requirements to accommodate unique evil, which the state has a right toprevent. [American Bible Society
architectural features of religious buildings i.e Mormon’s tall v City of Manila (1957) citing Tañada and Fernando on the
pointed steeple [Martin vs. Corporation of the Constitution of the Philippines, Vol. 1, 4th ed., p. 297]
Presiding Bishop (434 Mass. 141)]
PAGE 34
When: within limits prescribed by law The right to change abode and the right to travel are not absolute.
The liberty of changing abode may be unpaired upon order of the
The executive of a municipality does not have the right to force court. The order of the Court of Appeals is lawful, because purpose
citizens of the Philippine Islands to change their domicile from is to ensure that the accused will be available whenever his
one locality to another. [Villavicencio vs. Lukban (1919)] presence is required. He is not being prevented from changing its
abode. He is merely being required to inform the Court of Appeals if
LIBERTY OF ABODE: he does. (Yap vs. Court of Appeals, 358 SCRA 564.)
(b) Are "liberty of abode" and "the right travel" absolute rights?
⟴ Liberty of Abode; Limitations (1998) Explain. What are the respective exception/s to each right if any?
No VIII - Juan Casanova contracted Hansen's disease (leprosy) ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
with open lesions. A law requires that lepers be isolated upon The liberty of abode and the right to travel are not absolute. The
petition of the City Health Officer. The wife of Juan Casanova wrote liberty of abode and changing it can be imposed within the limits
a letter to the City Health Officer to have her formerly philandering prescribed by law upon lawful order of the court. The right to travel
husband confined in some isolated leprosarium. Juan Casanova may be unpaired in the interest of national security, public safety, or
challenged the constitutionality of the law as violating his liberty public health as may be provided by law. (Section 6, Article III of the
of abode. Will the suit No, the suit will not prosper. Section 6, Constitution.) in addition, the court has the inherent power to restrict
Article III of the Constitution provides: "The liberty of abode and the right of an accused who has pending criminal case to travel
of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not abroad to maintain its jurisdiction over him. (Santiago vs. Vasquez,
be impaired except upon lawful order of the court." 217 SCRA 633.)
The liberty of abode is subject to the police power of the State.
Requiring the segregation of lepers is a valid exercise of police
power. In Lorenzo us. Director of Health. 50 Phil 595, 598, the
Supreme Court held: "Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that RIGHT TO TRAVEL
leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease tending Who: courts (lawful order) or by the appropriate executive officer.
to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded from
society, and that compulsory segregation of lepers as a means of When: in the interest of national security (Human Security Act),
preventing the spread of the disease is supported by high scientific public safety or public health (quarantine)
authority. "prosper? [5%]
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Relocation of Manguinaes, a nomadic people, is a proper restraint
No, the suit will not prosper. Section 6, Article III of the to their liberty. It is for their advancement in civilization and so
Constitution provides: "The liberty of abode and of changing the that material prosperity may be assured. [Rubi vs. Provincial
same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired Board (1919)]
except upon lawful order of the court." The liberty of abode is
subject to the police power of the State. Requiring the segregation Restraint on right to travel of accused on bail is allowed to avoid
of lepers is a valid exercise of police power. In Lorenzo us. Director the possibility of losing jurisdiction if accused travels abroad.
of Health. 50 Phil 595, 598, the Supreme Court held: [Manotok vs. CA (1986)]
"Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that leprosy is
commonly believed to be an infectious disease tending to
cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and excluded RIGHT TO TRAVEL WATCH LIST ORDER
from society, and that compulsory segregation of lepers Issued against accused in criminal cases (irrespective of
as a means of preventing the spread of the disease is nationality in RTC or below), any person with pending case in DOJ
supported by high scientific authority."
PAGE 36
Demand or request required to them while employed in the judiciary, whether such information
gain access (IDEALS) came from authorized or unauthorized sources.
WHAT IS ASSERTED
DUTY TO DISCLOSE of the RIGHT Public Concern: no exact Confidential information means information not yet made a
TO ACCESS INFO. gov’t, pursuant definition and adjudicated by matter of public record relating to pending cases, as well as
to the policy See below for the courts on a case-by-case information not yet made public concerning the work of any
documents of full public basis; but examples abound in justice or judge relating to pending cases, including notes, drafts,
disclosure specifically under jurisprudence (e.g. peace research papers, internal discussions, internal memoranda,
scope negotiations, board exams, records of internal deliberations and similar papers.
PCGG compromise agreements
civil service matters) The notes, drafts, research papers, internal discussions, internal
memoranda, records of internal deliberations and similar papers
that a justice or judge uses in preparing a decision, resolution or
SCOPE OF RIGHT TO ACCESS INFORMATION order shall remain confidential even after the decision, resolution
Essence: matters of public concern or order is made public. [Canon II Confidentiality Code of Conduct
(1) Official records Includes the names of nominees of party-lists for Court Personnel (AM No. 03-06-13-SC)]
because ultimately, the individual members and not the party
list itself will sit in Congress [Bantay Republic v. COMELEC
(2007)] DECISIONS ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND
(2) Documents pertaining to official acts Includes negotiations INTEREST.
leading to the consummation of the transaction. Otherwise,
the people can never exercise the right if no contract is Pleadings and other documents filed by parties to a case need not
consummated, or if one is consummated, it may be too late for be matters of public concern or interest. They are filed for the
the public to expose its defects. Limited to definite purpose of establishing the basis upon which the court may issue
propositions, see below. [Chavez v. PEA and Amari (2002)] an order or a judgment affecting their rights and interest.
(3) Gov’t research data used as basis for policy development Access to court records may be permitted at the discretion and
subject to the supervisory and protective powers of the court, after
LIMITATIONS considering the actual use or purpose for which the request for
Restrictions to the right to information may be: access is based and the obvious prejudice to any of the
(1) Based on kinds of information parties.[Hilado, et al v. Judge (2006)]
(2) Based on access: Definite propositions: While evaluation of bids or proposals is on-
(a) opportunity to inspect and copy records at his expense. going, there are no “official acts, transactions, or decisions.”
[Chavez v. PEA and Amari, supra] However, once the committee makes an official recommendation,
(b) not the right to compel custodians of official records to there arises a definite proposition. From this moment, the public’s
prepare lists, summaries and the like. [Valmonte v. right to information attaches, and any citizen can assail the non-
Belmonte (1989)] proprietary information leading to such definite prop. [Chavez v.
PEA, supra]
Based on reasonable regulation for the convenience of and for
order in the office that has custody of the documents.[Baldoza v. The limitations recognized to the right of information are:
Dimaano (1976)] . Discretion does not carry with it the authority (1) National security matter including state secrets regarding
to prohibit access, inspection, examination, or military and diplomatic matters, intergovernment exchanges
prior to the conclusion of treaties and executive agreements.
(3) copying.[Lantaco v. Llamas (1981)] (2) Trade secrets and banking transactions
(4) Based on Availability (3) Criminal Matters
(5) Right available only to citizens (4) Other confidential matters. [Neri v. Senate (2008) citing Chavez
v. President Commission on Good Government]
PUBLICATION OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS
General: Full publication is a condition for law’s effectivity. ⟴ Right to Information; Matters of Public Concern
(2009)
Scope: All statutes [includes those of local application and private No. XIV. The Philippine Government is negotiating a new security
laws], presidential decrees and executive orders by President treaty with the United States which could involve engagement in
acting under power either directly conferred by the Constitution joint military operations of the two countries’ armed forces. A
or validly delegated by the legislature, and administrative rules loose organization of Filipinos, the Kabataan at Matatandang
and regulations for implanting existing laws, charter of a city, Makabansa (KMM) wrote the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
circulars by Monetary Board Internal regulations and letter of and the Department of National Defense (DND) demanding
instructions concerning guidelines for subordinates and not the disclosure of the details of the negotiations, as well as copies of the
public are not included minutes of the meetings. The DFA and the DND refused,
contending that premature disclosure of the offers and counter-
Effectivity: Fifteen days after publication unless a different offers between the parties could jeopardize ongoing negotiations
effectivity date is fixed by the legislature [Tañada v. Tuvera with another country. KMM filed suit to compel disclosure of the
(1986)] negotiation details, and be granted access to the records of the
meetings, invoking the constitutional right of the people to
ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS information on matters of public concern.
(A)Decide with reasons. (3%)
SECTION 1. Court personnel shall not disclose to any
unauthorized person any confidential information acquired by ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The petition of KMM must be denied. Diplomatic negotiations are
privileged in order to encourage a frank exchange of exploratory
PAGE 37
ideas between the parties by shielding the negotiations from liberty to affiliate or not affiliate with labor unions. [Victoriano v.
public view (Akbayan Citizens Action Party vs. Aquino, 558 SCRA Elizalde (1974)]
468 [2008]).
Every group has a right to join the democratic process, association
(b) Will your answer be the same if the information sought by itself being an act of expression of the member’s belief, even if the
KMM pertains to contracts entered into by the Government in its group offends the sensibilities of the majority. Any restriction to
proprietary or commercial capacity? Why or why not? (3%) such requires a compelling state interest to be proven by the
State. [Ang Ladlad LGBT Party v. COMELEC (2010)]
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
KKM is entitled to have access to information pertaining to
government contracts entered into by the Government in the FREEDOM TO ASSOCIATION:
exercise of its proprietary commercial capacity. The right to The freedom of association presupposes a freedom not to
information under the Constitution does not exclude contracts of associate. An organization may remove a member if:
public interest and are not privileged (Section 7, Article III of the (1) It is engaged in some form of expression, whether public or
Constitution; Valmonte vs. Belmonte, 170 SCRA 256 [1989]). private
(2) The forced inclusion of a member would significantly affect the
DIPLOMATIC NEGOTIATIONS organization’s ability to advocate public or private viewpoints
Diplomatic secrets (Diplomatic Negotiations Privilege): Secrecy of [Boy Scouts of America v. Dale
negotiations with foreign countries is not violative of the right to (2000)]
information. Diplomacy has a confidential nature. While the full
text [of the JPEPA] may not be kept perpetually confidential, it is Does not include the right to compel others to form an association.
in line with the public interest that the offers exchanged during But there may be situations in which, by entering into a contract,
negotiations continue to be privileged information. Furthermore, one may also be agreeing to join an association. [Bernas]
the information sought includes docs produced and
communicated by a party external to the PHL gov’t. However, such If a land buyer who buys a lot with an annotated lien that the lot
privilege is merely presumptive, and will not apply to all cases. owner becomes an automatic member of a homeowners’
[Akbayan v. Aquino (2008)] association thereby voluntarily joins the
association. [Bel-Air Village Association v. Diokno (1989)]
COURT HEARINGS
Right of accused over right to public information: Note: Right to association and right to unionize of government
With the possibility of losing not only the precious employees do not include the right to strike. [SSS Employees
liberty but also the very life of an accused, it behooves all to make Association v. CA (1989)]
absolutely certain that an accused receives a verdict solely on the
basis of a just and dispassionate judgment, a verdict that would
come only after the presentation of credible evidence testified to ⟴ Right to Assembly; Public Teachers (2000)
by unbiased witnesses unswayed by any kind of pressure, No XII - Public school teachers staged for days mass actions at the
whether open or subtle, in proceedings that are devoid of Department of Education, Culture and Sports to press for the
histrionics that might detract from its basic aim to ferret veritable immediate grant of their demand for additional pay. The DECS
facts free from improper influence, and decreed by a judge with Secretary issued to them a notice of the illegality of their
an unprejudiced mind unbridled by running emotions or unauthorized action, ordered them to immediately return to work,
passions. [Re: Request for Live Radio-TV Coverage of the Trial in the and warned them of imposable sanctions. They ignored this and
Sandiganbayan of the Plunder Cases against former President continued with their mass action. The DECS Secretary issued
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, Secretary of Justice Hernando Perez v. orders for their preventive suspension without pay and charged
Joseph Ejercito Estrada, A.M. No. 00-1-4-03-SC, June 29, 2001] the teachers with gross misconduct and gross neglect of duty for
unauthorized abandonment of teaching posts and absences
without leave.
a) Are employees in the public sector allowed to form unions? To
strike? Why? (3%)
SECTION 8, ARTICLE III b) The teachers claim that their right to peaceably assemble and
“RIGHT OT ASSOCIATION” petition the government for redress of grievances has been
The right of the people, including those employed in the public and curtailed. Are they correct? Why?
private sectors, to form unions, associations or societies for purposes ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
not contrary to law shall not be abridged. a) Section 8, Article III of the Constitution allows employees in the
public sector to form unions. However, they cannot go on strike. As
The right to self-organization shall not be denied to government explained in Social Security System Employees Association v. Court
employees. [Art. IX—B, Sec. 2(5)] of Appeals. 175 SCRA 686 [1989], the terms and conditions of their
employment are fixed by law. Employees in the public sector
xxx. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self organization, cannot strike to secure concessions from their employer.
collective bargaining and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in accordance with law. b. The teachers cannot claim that their right to peaceably
They shall be entitled to security of tenure, humane conditions of assemble and petition for the redress of grievances has been
work, and a living wage. They shall also participate in policy and curtailed. According to Bangalisan v. Court of Appeals. 276 SCRA
decision-making processes affecting their rights and benefits as 619 (1997), they can exercise this right without stoppage of
may be provided by law. [Art. XIII, Sec. 3] classes.
PAGE 38
decision was affirmed by the DECS Secretary and the Civil Service compensation, transfer to public ownership utilities and other
Commission. On appeal, they reiterated the arguments they raised private enterprises to be operated by the government. [Art. XII,
before the administrative bodies, namely: Sec. 18]
(a) Their strike was an exercise of their constitutional right to The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
peaceful assembly and to petition the government for redress of founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are
grievances. landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the
case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: thereof.
(a) According to De la Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 303
(1999), the argument of the teachers that they were merely
To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just
exercising their constitutional right to peaceful assembly and to
distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
petition the government for redress of grievance cannot be
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking
sustained, because such rights must be exercised within reasonable
into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations,
limits. When such rights were exercised on regular school days
and subject to the payment of just compensation.
instead of during the free time of the teachers, the teachers
committed acts prejudicial to the best interests of the service.
In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of
small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for
voluntary land-sharing. [Art. XIII, Sec. 4]
LABOR UNIONISM
The State shall, by law, and for the common good, undertake, in
LEGAL PERSONALITY AS PRE-CONDITION FOR EFFECTIVE
cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of
ASSOCIATION ACTION
urban land reform and housing which will make available at
The right to form associations does not necessarily
affordable cost, decent housing and basic services to under-
include the right to be given legal personality. However, if the law
privileged and homeless citizens in urban centers and resettlement
itself should make possession of legal personality a precondition
areas.
for effective associational action, involved would be not just the
right to have legal personality but also the right to be an
It shall also promote adequate employment opportunities to such
association. [Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions v.
citizens. In the implementation of such program the State shall
Secretary of Labor (1969)]
respect the rights of small property owners. [Art. XIII, Sec. 9]
ELIGIBILITY TO JOIN, ASSIST OR FORM UNION EXPRESSLY
The National assembly may authorize, upon payment of just
DENIED BY LAW
compensation, the expropriation of private lands to be subdivided
The right of association of managerial employees is
into small lots and conveyed at cost to
denied because of Article 245 of the Labor Code which provides
deserving citizens. [Art. XIV, Sec. 13]
that managerial employees are not eligible to join, assist or form
any labor organization. This is because Art III Sec 8 is subject to
the condition that its exercise is for the purposes not contrary to
EMINENT DOMAIN
law. [United Pepsi-Cola Supervisory Union (UPSU) v. Laguesma
The power of eminent domain is the inherent right of
(1998)]
the State to condemn private property to public use upon payment
of just compensation. It is also known as the power of
COMMUNIST AND SIMILAR ORGANIZATIONS
expropriation. It is well settled that eminent domain is an inherent
The basic guidelines for prosecution under the Anti-
power of the state that need not be granted even by the
Subversion Act, are the following elements for the crime to be
fundamental law. Sec. 9, Art. III merely imposes a limit on the
established:
government’s exercise of this power. [Republic v Tagle (1998)].
(1) In case of subversive organizations other than the CPP:
REQUISITES:
(a) that the purpose of the organization is to overthrow the
For the state’s power of eminent domain to apply, the
present Government of the Philippines and to establish in this
property must be (1) private property (2) there is a genuine
country a totalitarian regime under the domination of a
necessity and must be proven, (3) there is a public use ; (4) the
foreign power;
property owner has been paid for just compensation and the taking
(b) that the accused joined such organization; and (c) that he did
is under a due process. (Manapat vs CA, 2007)
so knowingly, willfully and by overt acts; and (2) In the case
of the CPP:
PRIVATE PROPERTY
(a) that the CPP continues to pursue the objectives which led
Private property already devoted to public use cannot be
Congress in 1957 to declare it to be an organized conspiracy
expropriated by a delegate of legislature acting under a general
for the overthrow of the Government by illegal means for the
grant of authority. [City of Manila v. Chinese
purpose of placing the country under the control of a foreign
Community (1919)]
power;
(b) that the accused joined the CPP; and
Generally, all private property capable of ownership may be
(c) that he did so willfully, knowingly and by overt acts.
expropriated, except money and chooses in action.
[People v. Ferrer (1972)]
[Republic v. PLDT (1969)]
INTEGRATED BAR OF THE PHILIPPINES
A chose in action is a proprietary right in personam, such as debts
Compulsory membership of a lawyer in the integrated
owned by another person, a share in a joint-stock company, or a
bar of the Philippines does not violate the constitutional
claim for damages in tort; it is the right to bring an action to
guarantee. [In Re: Edillon (1978)]
recover a debt, money or thing [Black’s
Law Dictionary]
TAKING
SECTION 9, ARTICLE III
The exercise of the power of eminent does not always
result in the taking or appropriation of title to the expropriated
Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
property; it may only result in the imposition of a burden upon the
compensation.
owner of the condemned property, without loss of title or possession.
[National Power Corporation v. Gutierrez (1991)]
NOTE: IN RELATION TO SECTION 1, ARTICLE III, 1987
CONSTITUTION. REQUISITES FOR A VALID TAKING:
(6) The expropriator must enter a private property
The State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, (7) Entry must be for more than a momentary period
establish and operate vital industries and, upon payment of just
PAGE 39
(8) Entry must be under warrant or color of legal authority when the property is taken BEFORE the filing of expropriation suit,
(9) Property must be devoted to public use or otherwise and even if it is the property owner who brings the action for
informally appropriated or injuriously affected compensation. The nature and character of land at the time of its
(10) Utilization of the property must be in such a way as to taking is the principal criterion for determining how much just
oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the compensation should be given to the landowner.
property. [Republic v. Castellvi (1974)]
In determining just compensation, ALL FACTS as to the
DUE PROCESS condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements
Hearing or procedure for determination of propriety of and capabilities, should be considered (EPZA vs Dulay, 59603,
the expropriation or the reasonableness of the compensation must 1987)
be provided. [Belen v. CA (1991)]
Full and fair equivalent of the property taken; it is the fair market
value of the property. [Province of Tayabas vs. Perez (1938)] ⟴ Eminent Domain; Legal Interest (1993)
No, 5: In expropriation proceedings: 1) What legal interest should
be used in the computation of interest on just compensation?
PAGE 40
public use is no longer restricted to the traditional concept. The (b) But the contention that the Presidential Decrees providing that
fact that the expropriation will benefit the members of the in determining just compensation the value stated by the owner in
religious sect is merely incidental. The fact that other birthplaces his tax declaration or that determined by the assessor, whichever is
have not been expropriated is likewise not a valid basis for lower, in unconstitutional is correct. In EPZA v. Dulay. G.R. No.
opposing the expropriation. As held in J.M. Tuason and Company, 59603, April 29, 1987, it was held that this method prescribed for
Inc. v. Land Tenure Administration, 31 SCRA 413 (1970), the ascertaining just compensation constitutes an impermissible
expropriating authority is not required to adhere to the policy of encroachment on the prerogatives of courts. It tends to render
"all or none". courts inutile in a matter which, under the Constitution, is reserved
to them for final determination. For although under the decrees
the courts still have the power to determine just compensation,
their task is reduced to simply determining the lower value of the
property as declared either by the owner or by the assessor. "JUST
⟴ Eminent Domain; Power to Exercise (2005) COMPENSATION" means the value of the property at the time of
(10-2) The Sangguniang Bayan of the Municipality of Santa, Ilocos
the taking. Its determination requires that all facts as to the
Sur passed Resolution No. 1 authorizing its Mayor to initiate a
condition of the property and its surroundings and its
petition for the expropriation of a lot owned by Christina as site
improvements and capabilities must be considered, and this can
for its municipal sports center. This was approved by the Mayor.
only be done in a judicial proceeding.
However, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur
disapproved the Resolution as there might still be other available
lots in Santa for a sports center.
⟴ Eminent Domain; Socialized Housing (1996)
Nonetheless, the Municipality of Santa, through its Mayor, filed a No. 4 - The City of Pasig initiated expropriation proceedings on a
complaint for eminent domain. Christina opposed this on the one-hectare lot which is part of a ten-hectare parcel of land
following grounds: devoted to the growing of vegetables. The purpose of the
1 the Municipality of Santa has no power to expropriate; expropriation is to use the land as a relocation site for 200 families
2 Resolution No. 1 has been voided since the Sangguniang squatting along the Pasig river. a) Can the owner of the property
Panlalawigan disapproved it for being arbitrary; and oppose the expropriation on the ground that only 200 out of the
3 the Municipality of Santa has other and better lots for that more than 10,000 squatter families in Pasig City will benefit from
purpose. Resolve the case with reasons. (5%) the expropriation? Explain. b) Can the Department of Agrarian
Reform require the City of Pasig to first secure authority from said
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Department before converting the use of the land from
a) Under Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160, the power of eminent domain
agricultural to housing?
is explicitly granted to the municipality, but must be exercised
through an ordinance rather than through a resolution. ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(Municipality ofParanaque v. V.M. Realty Corp., G.R. No. 127820, a) No, the owner of the property cannot oppose the expropriation
July 20, 1998) on the ground that only 200 out of more than 10,000 squatter
b) The Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Ilocos Sur was without the families in Pasig City will benefit from the expropriation. As held in
authority to disapprove Resolution No. 1 as the municipality Philippine Columbian Association vs. Pants, 228 SCRA 668, the
clearly has the power to exercise the right of eminent domain and acquisition of private property for socialized housing is for public
its Sangguniang Bayan the capacity to promulgate said resolution. use and the fact that only a few and not everyone will benefit from
The only ground upon which a provincial board may declare any the expropriation does not detract from the nature of the public
municipal resolution, ordinance or order invalid is when such use.
resolution, ordinance or order is beyond the powers conferred
upon the council or president making the same. Such is not the b) No, the Department of Agrarian Reform cannot require Pasig
situation in this case. (Moday v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107916, City to first secure authority from it before converting the use of
February 20, 1997) the land from agricultural to residential. According to Province of
Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 173, there is no
c) The question of whether there is genuine necessity for the provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which
expropriation of Christina's lot or whether the municipality has subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local
other and better lots for the purpose is a matter that will have to be government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian
resolved by the Court upon presentation of evidence by the parties Reform and to require approval from the Department of Agrarian
to the case. Reform will mean that it is not the local government unit but the
Department of Agrarian Reform who will determine whether or
not the expropriation is for a public use.
⟴ Eminent Domain; Public Use (1987)
No. XVI: In January 1984, Pasay City filed expropriation
proceedings against several landowners for the construction of an
aqueduct for flood control in a barangay. Clearly, only the ⟴ Eminent Domain; Writ of Possession (1993)
residents of that barangay would be benefited by the project. As No, 5: In expropriation proceedings: Can the judge validly
compensation, the city offered to pay only the amount declared by withhold issuance of the writ of possession until full payment of
the owners in their tax declarations, which amount was lower the final value of the expropriated property?
than the assessed value as determined by the assessor. The
landowners oppose the expropriation on the grounds that:
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
No, the judge cannot validly withhold the issuance of the writ of
(a) the same is not for public use; and
possession until full payment of the final value of the expropriated
(b) assuming it is for public use, the compensation must be based
property. As held in National Power Corporation vs. Jocson, 206
on the evidence presented in court and not, as provided in
SCRA 520. it is the rninisterial duty of the Judge to issue the writ of
presidential decrees prescribing payment of the value stated in
possession upon deposit of the provisional value of the
the owner's tax declarations or the value determined by the
expropriated property withthe National or Provincial Treasurer.
assessor, whichever is lower. If you were judge, how would you
rule on the issue? Why?
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: EFFECT OF DELAY
(a) The contention that the taking of private property for the Just compensation means not only the correct amount to
purpose of constructing an aqueduct for flood control is not for be paid to the owner of the land but also payment within a
public use" is untenable- The idea that "PUBLIC USE" means reasonable time from its taking [Eslaban v. De Onorio (2001)]
exclusively use by the public has been discarded. As long as the
purpose of the taking is public, the exercise of power of eminent General rule on delay of payment:
domain is justifiable. Whatever may be beneficially employed for For non-payement, the remedy is the demand of payment of the
the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use. (Heirs fair market value of the property and not the recovery of
of Juancho Ardona v. Reyes, 123 SCR A 220 (1983)) possession of the expropriated lots. [Republic of the Philippines v.
PAGE 41
Court of Appeals (2002); Reyes v. National Housing Authority Awa v. Judge Bacalla (2000); Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of
(2003)] Calamba, Laguna (2003)]
The RTC has the power to inquire into the legality of the exercise Examples from Jurisprudence:
of the right of eminent domain and to determine whether there is (4) The imposition of an aerial easement of right-of-way was held
a genuine necessity for it. [Bardillon v. Barangay Masili of to be taking. The exercise of the power of eminent domain
Calamba, Laguna (2003)] does not always result in the taking or appropriation of title to
the expropriated property; it may also result in the imposition
of a burden upon the owner of the condemned property,
WHO HAS JURISDICTION? ------ Regional Trial Court without loss of title or possession. [NPC v. Gutierrez (1991)]
While the value of the property to be expropriated is (5) May include trespass without actual eviction of the owner,
estimated in monetary terms – for the court is duty bound to material impairment of the value of the property or
determine the amount of just compensation to be paid for the prevention of the ordinary uses for which the property was
property – it is merely incidental to the expropriation suit intended. [Ayala de Roxas v. City of Manila (1907)]
[Barangay San Roque, Talisay, Cebu v. Heirs of Francisco Pastor (6) A municipal ordinance prohibiting a building which would
(2000) impair the view of the plaza from the highway was likewise
considered taking. [People v. Fajardo
The issuance of a writ of possession becomes ministerial upon the (1958)]
(1) filing of a complaint for expropriation sufficient in form and
substance, and (2) upon deposit made by the government of the When the State exercises the power of eminent domain in the
amount equivalent to 15% of the fair market value of the property implementation of its agrarian reform program, the constitutional
sought to be expropriated per current tax declaration. [Biglang- provision which governs is Section 4, Article XIII of the
PAGE 42
Constitution. Notably, this provision also imposes upon the State b. Parcels owned by small property owners are exempt from
the obligation of paying the landowner compensation for the land such acquisition. Small property owners are owners of residential
taken, even if it is for the government’s agrarian reform purposes. lands with an area not more than 300 sq.m. in highly urbanized
[Land Bank of the Philippines v. Honeycomb Farms Corporation cities and not more than 800 sq.m. in other urban areas; and they
(2012)] do not own residential property other than the same.
PAGE 43
SECTION 11, ARTICLE III For purpose of determining the number of hours actually
LEGAL ASSISTANCE AND FREE ACCESS TO COURTS provided by the lawyer and/or professional firm in the provision
Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate of legal services, the association and/or organization duly
legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of accredited by the Supreme Court shall issue the necessary
poverty. certification that said legal services were actually undertaken.
Such authority shall include an exemption from payment of (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other
docket and other lawful fees, and of transcripts of stenographic means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret
notes which the court may order to be furnished him. The amount detention places, solitary, incommunicado or other similar forms of
of the docket and other lawful fees which the indigent was detention are prohibited.
exempted from paying shall be a lien on any judgment rendered
in the case favorable to the indigent, unless the court otherwise (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or
provides. Section 17 thereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him
(4) The law shall provide penal and civil sanctions for violation of
Any adverse party may contest the grant of such authority at any this section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims
time before judgment is rendered by the trial court. If the court of torture or similar practices and their families.
should determine after hearing that the party declared as an
indigent is in fact a person with sufficient income or property, the
proper docket and other lawful fees shall be assessed and In Miranda v. Arizona: The Federal Supreme Court made it clear
collected by the clerk of court. If the payment is not made within that what is prohibited is the "incommunicado interrogation of
the time fixed by the court, execution shall issue or the payment individuals in a police dominated atmosphere, resulting in self-
thereof, without prejudice to such other sanctions as the court incriminating statements without full warnings of constitutional
may impose. [Rule 3, Sec. 21, Rules of Court] rights.”
MIRANDA RIGHTS
RA NO. 9999: FREE LEGAL ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010 The person under custodial investigation must be warned that:
Legal services- any activity which requires the application of law, (1) He has a right to remain silent;
legal procedure, knowledge, training and experiences which shall (2) That any statement he makes may be used as evidence against
include, among others, legal advice and counsel, and the him; and
preparation of instruments and contracts, including appearance (3) That he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either
before the administrative and quasijudicial offices, bodies and retained or appointed.
tribunals handling cases in court, and other similar services as
may be defined by the Supreme Court.
⟴ Rights of the Accused; Right to Counsel (2012)
No. III. Mr. Brown, a cigarette vendor, was invited by PO1 White to
Section 4. Requirements for Availment. - For purposes of availing
a nearby police station. Upon arriving at the police station, Brown
of the benefits and services as envisioned in this Act, a lawyer or
was asked to stand side-by-side with five (5) other cigarette
professional partnership shall secure a certification from the
vendors in a police line-up. PO1 White informed them that they
Public Attorney's Office (PAO), the Department of Justice (DOJ) or
were looking for a certain cigarette vendor who snatched the
accredited association of the Supreme Court indicating that the
purse of a passer-by and the line-up was to allow the victim to
said legal services to be provided are within the services defined
point at the vendor who snatched her purse. No questions were to
by the Supreme Court, and that the agencies cannot provide the
be asked from the vendors.
legal services to be provided by the private counsel.
PAGE 44
(a) Brown, afraid of a "set up" against him, demanded that he be Includes issuing an invitation to a person under investigation in
allowed to secure his lawyer and for him to be present during the connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed.
police line-up. Is Brown entitled to counsel? Explain (5%) [Sec. 2, RA 7438]
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: CRITICAL PRE-TRIAL STAGE
Brown is not entitled to counsel during the police line-up. He was
Any critical confrontation by the prosecution at pretrial
not yet being asked to answer for a criminal offense. (Gamboa vs.
proceedings where the results might well determine his fate and
Cruz, 162 SCRA 642.)
where the absence of counsel might derogate from his right to a fair
trial. [U.S. vs. Wade (1967)]
(b) Would the answer in (a.) be the same if Brown was specifically
invited by White because an eyewitness to the crime identified
SHOW - UP AND POLICE LINE-UP
him as the perpetrator? Explain.
General: No right to counsel
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Brown would be entitled to the assistance of a lawyer. He was already Out-of-court identification like a “show up” (accused is brought
considered as a suspect and was therefore entitled to the rights face to face with the witness for identification), or “police line-up”
under custodial investigation. (People vs. Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95.) (suspect is identified by witness from a group of persons gathered
for that purpose)
(c) Briefly enumerate the so-called "Miranda Rights". (2%)
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Exception: Right to counsel if accusatory
The Miranda warning means that a person in custody who will be
interrogated must be informed of the following: The moment there is a move or even an urge of said investigators
(a) He has the right to remain silent; to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain information
(b) Anything said can be used as evidenced against him; which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time, from said
(c) He has the right to have counsel during the investigation; and suspect [Gamboa v. Cruz (1988)]
(d) He must be informed that if he is indigent, a lawyer will be
appointed to represent him. (Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.) POLICE LINE-UPS
When petitioner was identified by the complainant at the police
line-up, he had not been held yet to answer for a criminal offense.
RA 7438, The police line-up is not a part of the custodial inquest, hence, he
RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION was not yet entitled to counsel.
Thus, it was held that when the process had not yet shifted from
Section 1. Statement of Policy. - It is the policy of the Senate to the investigatory to the accusatory as when police investigation
value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect does not elicit a confession the accused may not yet avail of the
for human rights services of his lawyer. [Escobedo v. Illinois of the United States
Federal Supreme Court (1964)]
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under
Custodial Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. – Any public However, given the clear constitutional intent in the 1987
officer or employee, or anyone acting under his order or his place, Constitution, the moment there is a move or even an urge of said
who arrests, detains or investigates any person for the investigators to elicit admissions or confessions or even plain
commission of an offense: information which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time,
(1) shall inform the latter, in a language known to and understood from said suspect, he should then and there be assisted by
by him, counsel, unless he waives the right, but the waiver shall be made
(2) of his rights to remain silent and in writing and in the presence of counsel. [Gamboa vs. Cruz
(3) to have competent and independent counsel, preferably of his (1988)]
own choice,
(4) who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the REQUISITES
person arrested, detained or under custodial investigation. Essence: Effective communication by the investigator of rights of
(5) If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel, he accused [People v. Agustin (1995)]
must be provided with a competent and independent counsel
by the investigating officer.
PAGE 45
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights Constitution, the confession is inadmissible only against the one
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. who confessed. Only the one whose rights were violated can raise
the objection as his right is personal.
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Right to Counsel (2000):
No XI. On October 1, 1985, Ramos was arrested by a security guard
because he appeared to be "suspicious" and brought to a police ⟴ Custodial Investigation; Extrajudicial Confession;
precinct where in the course of the investigation he admitted he Police Line-Up (1994)
was the killer in an unsolved homicide committed a week earlier. No. 10: An information for parricide was filed against Danny. After
The proceedings of his investigation were put in writing and dated the NBI found an eyewitness to the commission of the crime.
October 1, 1985, and the only participation of counsel assigned to Danny was placed in a police line-up where he was identified as
him was his mere presence and signature on the statement. The the one who shot the victim. After the line-up, Danny made a
admissibility of the statement of Ramos was placed in issue but confession to a newspaper reporter who interviewed him.
the prosecution claims that the confession was taken on October
1, 1985 and the 1987 Constitution providing for the right to 1) Can Danny claim that his identification by the eyewitness be
counsel of choice and opportunity to retain, took effect only on excluded on the ground that the line-up was made without benefit
February 2, 1987 and cannot be given retroactive effect. Rule on of his counsel?
this. (3%) 2) Can Danny claim that his confession be excluded on the ground
that he was not afforded his "Miranda" rights?
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The confession of Ramos is not admissible, since the ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
counsel assigned to him did not advise him of his rights. The fact that 1) No, the identification of Danny, a private person, by an
his confession was taken before the effectivity of the 1987 eyewitness during the line-up cannot be excluded in evidence. In
Constitution is of no moment. Even prior to the effectivity of the accordance with the ruling in People vs. Hatton, 210 SCRA 1, the
1987 Constitution, the Supreme Court already laid down strict rules accused is not entitled to be assisted by counsel during a police
on waiver of the rights during investigation in the case of People v. line-up, because it is not part of custodial investigation.
Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985).
2) No. Danny cannot ask that his confession to a newspaper
reporter should be excluded in evidence. As held in People vs.
Bernardo, 220 SCRA 31, such an admission was not made during a
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Right to Counsel; Receipt of custodial interrogation but a voluntary statement made to the
Property Seized (2002):
media.
No VIII. One day a passenger bus conductor found a man's
handbag left in the bus. When the conductor opened the bag, he
found inside a catling card with the owner's name (Dante Galang) ⟴ Custodial Investigation; Police Line-Up (1997)
and address, a few hundred peso bills, and a small plastic bag No. 10: A, while on board a passenger jeep one night, was held up
containing a white powdery substance. He brought the powdery by a group of three teenagers who forcibly divested her of her
substance to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory watch, necklace and wallet containing P100.00. That done, the trio
examination and it was determined to be methamphetamine jumped off the passenger jeep and fled. B, the jeep driver, and A
hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante Galang was complained to the police to whom they gave description of the
subsequently traced and found and brought to the NBI Office culprits. According to the jeep driver, he would be able to identify
where he admitted ownership of the handbag and its contents. In the culprits if presented to him. Next morning A and B were
the course of the interrogation by NBI agents, and without the summoned to the police station where five persons were lined up
presence and assistance of counsel, Galang was made to sign a before them for identification. A and B positively identified C and
receipt for the plastic bag and its shabu contents. Galang was D as the culprits. After preliminary investigation. C and D and one
charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs and was John Doe were charged with robbery in an information filed
convicted. On appeal he contends that – against them in court. C and D set up, in defense, the illegality of
A. The plastic bag and its contents are inadmissible in evidence their apprehension, arrest and confinement based on the
being the product of an illegal search and seizure; (3%) and identification made of them by A and B at a police line-up at which
they were not assisted by counsel. How would you resolve the
B. The receipt he signed is also inadmissible as his rights under issues raised by C and D?
custodial investigation were not observed. (2%) Decide the case
with reasons.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The arguments of the accused are untenable. As held in People vs.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Acot, 232 SCRA 406, the warrantless arrest of accused robbers
A. It is admissible... Immediately after their commission of the crime by police officers
B. The receipt which Galang signed without the assistance of sent to look for them on the basis of the information related by the
counsel is not admissible in evidence. As held in People v. Castro, victims is valid under Section 5(b).Rule 113 of the Rules on
274 SCRA 115 {1997), since the receipt is a document admitting Criminal Procedure. According to People vs. Lamsing, 248 SCRA
the offense charged, Galang should have been assisted by 471, the right to counsel does not extend to police line-ups, because
counsel as required by Article III, Section 11 of the Constitution. they are not part of custodial investigations. However, according to
People vs. Macan 238 SCRA 306, after the start of custodial
investigation, if the accused was not assisted by counsel, any
identification of the accused in a police line-up is inadmissible.
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Extrajudicial Confession
No IX - Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of murder before
RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT
the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Asccused Joseph turned state
witness against his co-accused Rafael and Carlos, and was The warning is needed simply to make the person under custodial
accordingly discharged from the information. Among the evidence investigation aware of the existence of the right;
presented by the prosecution was an extrajudicial confession
made by Joseph during the custodial Investigation, implicating This warning is the threshold requirement for an intelligent
Rafael and Carlos who, he said, together with him (Joseph), decision as to its exercise.
committed the crime. The extrajudicial confession was executed
without the assistance of counsel. More importantly, such a warning is an absolute prerequisite in
overcoming the inherent pressures of the interrogation
Accused Rafael and Carlos vehemently objected on the ground that atmosphere.
said extrajudicial confession was inadmissible in evidence against
them. Rule on whether the said extrajudicial confession is Further, the warning will show the individual that his
admissible in evidence or not. (5%) interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he
choose to exercise it.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
According to People vs. Balisteros, 237 SCRA 499 (1994), the
confession is admissible. Under Section 12, Article III of the
PAGE 46
⟴ Rights of the Accused; Right to Remain Silent (2013) RIGHT TO COUNSEL
No.VII. As he was entering a bar, Arnold who was holding an unlit
cigarette in his right hand -was handed a match box by someone Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
standing near the doorway. Arnold unthinkingly opened the Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. –
matchbox to light his cigarette and as he did so, a sprinkle of dried (a) Any person arrested detained or under custodial investigation
leaves fell out, which the guard noticed. The guard immediately shall at all times be assisted by counsel; otherwise the waiver shall
frisked Arnold, grabbed the matchbox, and sniffed its contents. be null and void and of no effect. [RA 7438, Rights of Persons under
After confirming that the matchbox contained marijuana, he Custodial Investigation; Section 2.]
immediately arrested Arnold and called in the police.
Essence: when a counsel is engaged by anyone acting on behalf of
At the police station, the guard narrated to the police that he the person under investigation, or appointed by the court upon
personally caught Arnold in possession of dried marijuana leaves. petition by said person or by someone on his behalf. [People v.
Arnold did not contest the guard's statement; he steadfastly Espiritu (1999)]
remained silent and refused to give any written statement. Later
in court, the guard testified and narrated the statements he gave Competent and independent counsel preferably of the suspects
the police over Arnold's counsel's objections. While Arnold own choice
presented his own witnesses to prove that his possession and
apprehension had been set-up, he himself did not testify. Not competent counsel: lawyer signing only as witness [People v.
The court convicted Arnold, relying largely on his admission of the Ordono (June 2000)], mayor of town where accused is detained
charge by silence at the police investigation and during trial. From [People v. Velarde (2002)]
the constitutional law perspective, was the court correct in its
ruling? (6%) Failure to ask for a lawyer does not constitute a waiver.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: No effective waiver of the right to counsel during interrogation can
The court was wrong in relying on the silence of Arnold during be recognized unless specifically made after the warnings have
the police investigation and during the trial. Under Article III, been given.
Section 12 of the 1987 Constitution, he had the right to remain
silent. His silence cannot be taken as a tacit admission, otherwise, Request for assistance of counsel before any interrogation cannot
his right to remain silent would be rendered nugatory. be ignored/denied by authorities. Not only right to consult with
Considering that his right against self-incrimination protects his an attorney but right to be given a lawyer to represent him if he’s
right to remain silent, he cannot be penalized for exercising it indigent
(People vs. Galvez, 519 SCRA 521).
⟴
⟴ Sgt. GR of WPD arrested two NPA suspects, Max and Brix, both
An accused's custodial rights, e.g., right to counsel and right to aged 22, in the act of robbing a grocery in Ermita. As he handcuffed
remain silent, is available: them he noted a pistol tucked in Max’s waist and a dagger hidden
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: under Brix’s shirt, which he promptly confiscated. At the police
At the Preliminary Investigation. Any person under investigation investigation room, Max and Brix orally waived their right to
for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be counsel and to remain silent. Then under oath, they freely
informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and answered questions asked by the police desk officer. Thereafter
independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person they signed their sworn statements before the police captain, a
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with lawyer. Max admitted his part in the robbery, his possession of a
one. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the pistol and his ownership of the packet of shabu found in his
presence of counsel. (Article III, Sec. 12 (1), 1987 Constitution). pocket. Brix admitted his role in the robbery and his possession of
a dagger. But they denied being NPA hit men. In due course,
These guaranteed rights are available in all kinds of investigation proper charges were filed by the City Prosecutor against both
including a preliminary investigation. In a preliminary arrestees before the MM RTC. May the written statements signed
investigation, a public prosecutor determines whether a crime and sworn to by Max and Brix be admitted by the trial court as
has been committed and whether there is probable cause that evidence for the prosecution? Reason. (2004 Bar)
the accused is guilty thereof. (Rules of Court, Rule 112, Section
1). (Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company vs. Rogelio Reynaldo,
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
No. The sworn written statements of Max and Brix may not be
et.al., G.R. No. 164538, August 9, 2010, Del Castillo, J.). admitted in evidence, because they were not assisted by counsel,
even if the police captain before whom they signed the
The right to have a preliminary investigation conducted before statements was a lawyer, nor can he be considered as an
being bound over to trial for a criminal offense and hence independent counsel. Waiver of the right to a lawyer must be
formally at risk of incarceration or some other penalty, is not a done in writing and in the presence of independent counsel
mere formal or technical right: it is a substantive right. To deny (People v. Mahinay,G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999)
the accused‟s claim to a preliminary investigation would be to
deprive him of the full measure of his right to due process.” (Sales
vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 143802, November 16, 2001). ⟴ Rights of the Accused; Counsel of his Choice
Applying the foregoing constitutional and procedural precepts, (1) Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a suspect in the shopping
there is no doubt that the custodial rights are available during mall bombings. Advised of his rights, Mariano asked for the
the preliminary investigation. assistance of his relative, Atty. Santos. The NBI noticed that Atty.
Santos was inexperienced, incompetent and inattentive. Deeming
him unsuited to protect the rights of Mariano, the NBI dismissed
Atty. Santos. Appointed in his place was Atty. Barroso, a bar
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION topnotcher who was in the premises visiting a relative. Atty.
UNDER ART. III, SEC. 17 Barroso ably assisted Mariano when the latter gave a statement.
However, Mariano assailed the investigation claiming that he was
The warning of the right to remain silent must be
deprived of counsel of his choice. Was the NBI correct in
accompanied by the explanation that anything said can and will be
dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead?
used against the individual in court.
Is Mariano's statement, made with the assistance of Atty. Barroso,
admissible in evidence? (5%)
This warning is needed in order to make him aware not only of the
privilege to remain silent, but also of the consequences of forgoing ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
it. The NBI was not correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing
Atty. Barroso in his stead. Article III, Section 12(1) of the 1987
Constitution requires that a person under investigation for the
PAGE 47
commission of an offense shall have no less than "competent and the assistance of counsel and therefore Inadmissible in evidence.
independent counsel preferably of his own choice " This is meant to Decide.
stress the primacy accorded to the voluntariness of the choice
under the uniquely stressful conditions of a custodial investigation'
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The confession of Jose Walangtakot is inadmissible in evidence. The
Thus, the lawyer called to be present during such investigation
warning given to him is insufficient in accordance with the ruling
should be as far as reasonably possible, the choice of the individual
in People v. Duero, 104 SCRA 379, he should have been warned also
undergoing questioning.
that he has the right to remain silent and that any statement he
makes may be used as evidence against him. Besides, under Art. III,
The appointment of Atty. Barroso is questionable because he was
Sec. 12(1) of the Constitution, the counsel assisting a person being
visiting a relative working in the NBI and thus his independence is
investigated must be independent. Assistant Fiscal Aniceto
doubtful. Lawyers engaged by the police, whatever testimonials are
Malaputo could not assist Jose Walangtakot. As held in People v.
given as proof of their probity and supposed independence, are
Viduya, 189 SCRA 403, his function is to prosecute criminal cases.
generally suspect, as in many areas, the relationship between
To allow him to act as defense counsel during custodial
lawyers and law enforcement authorities can be symbiotic.
investigations would render nugatory the constitutional rights of
Considering that Mariano was deprived of counsel of his own
the accused during custodial investigation. What the Constitution
choice, the statement is inadmissible in evidence. (People v.
requires is a counsel who will effectively undertake the defense of
Januario, G.R. No. 98252, February 7, 1997)
his client without any conflict of interest. The answer of Jose
Walangtakot indicates that he did not fully understand his rights.
Hence, it cannot be said that he knowingly and intelligently waived
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Rights (1996): those rights.
No. 3: 1) A, who was arrested as a suspect in a murder case was
not represented by counsel during the "question and answer"
stage. However, before he was asked to sign his statements to the
police investigator, the latter provided A with a counsel, who
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Right to Counsel (2000)
No XI. On October 1, 1985, Ramos was arrested by a security guard
happened to be at the police station. After conferring with A, the
because he appeared to be "suspicious" and brought to a police
counsel told the police investigator that A was ready to sign the
precinct where in the course of the investigation he admitted he
statements. Can the statements of A be presented in court as his
was the killer in an unsolved homicide committed a week earlier.
confession? Explain.
The proceedings of his investigation were put in writing and dated
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: October 1, 1985, and the only participation of counsel assigned to
1) No, the statements of A cannot be presented in belatedly him was his mere presence and signature on the statement. The
conferred with him fully explained to him the nature and admissibility of the statement of Ramos was placed in issue but
consequences of his confession. In People vs. Compil 244 SCRA 135, the prosecution claims that the confession was taken on October
the Supreme Court held that the accused must be assisted by 1, 1985 and the 1987 Constitution providing for the right to
counsel during the actual questioning and the belated assistance of counsel of choice and opportunity to retain, took effect only on
counsel before he signed the confession does not cure the defect. February 2, 1987 and cannot be given retroactive effect. Rule on
this. (3%)
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Right to Counsel (1988) The confession of Ramos is not admissible, since the counsel
No. 15: Armando Salamanca, a notorious police character, came assigned to him did not advise him of his rights. The fact that his
under custodial investigation for a robbery in Caloocan City. From confession was taken before the effectivity of the 1987 Constitution
the outset, the police officers informed him of his right to remain is of no moment. Even prior to the effectivity of the 1987
silent, and also his right to have a counsel of his choice, if he could Constitution, the Supreme Court already laid down strict rules on
afford one or if not, the government would provide him with such waiver of the rights during investigation in the case of People v.
counsel. He thanked the police investigators, and declared that he Galit, 135 SCRA 465 (1985).
fully understands the rights enumerated to him, but that, he is
voluntarily waiving them. Claiming that he sincerely desires to
atone for his misdeeds, he gave a written statement on his
participation in the crime under investigation. In the course of the
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Right to Counsel; Receipt of
Property Seized (2002)
trial of the criminal case for the same robbery, the written
No VIII. One day a passenger bus conductor found a man's
admission of Salamanca which he gave during the custodial
handbag left in the bus. When the conductor opened the bag, he
investigation, was presented as the only evidence of his guilt. If
found inside a catling card with the owner's name (Dante Galang)
you were his counsel, what would you do? Explain your answer.
and address, a few hundred peso bills, and a small plastic bag
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: containing a white powdery substance. He brought the powdery
I would object to it on the ground that the waiver of the rights to substance to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory
silence and to counsel is void, having been made without the examination and it was determined to be methamphetamine
presence of counsel. (Art. III, sec. 12(1); People v. Galit, 135 SCRA hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante Galang was
465 (1980). The waiver must also be in writing, although this subsequently traced and found and brought to the NBI Office
requirement might possibly have been complied with in this case where he admitted ownership of the handbag and its contents. In
by embodying the waiver in the written confession. It should also the course of the interrogation by NBI agents, and without the
be noted that under Rule 134, sec. 3, even if the extrajudicial presence and assistance of counsel, Galang was made to sign a
confession is valid, it is not a sufficient ground for conviction if it is receipt for the plastic bag and its shabu contents. Galang was
not corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs and was
convicted. On appeal he contends that –
A. The plastic bag and its contents are inadmissible in evidence
being the product of an illegal search and seizure; (3%) and
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Right to Counsel (1993) B. The receipt he signed is also inadmissible as his rights under
No. 17; In his extrajudicial confession executed before the police
custodial investigation were not observed. (2%)
authorities, Jose Walangtakot admitted killing his girlfriend in a fit
of jealousy. This admission was made after the following answer ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
and question to wit: A. It is admissible...
T -Ikaw ay may karapatan pa rin kumuha ng serbisyo ng isang B. The receipt which Galang signed without the assistance of
abogado para makatulong mo sa imbestigasyong ito at kung wala counsel is not admissible in evidence. As held in People v. Castro,
kang makuha, ikaw ay aming bibigyan ng libreng abogado, ano 274 SCRA 115 {1997), since the receipt is a document admitting
ngayon ang iyong masasabi?" "S - Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal the offense charged, Galang should have been assisted by counsel
(point to Assistant Fiscal Aniceto Malaputo) kaya hindi ko na as required by Article III, Section 11 of the Constitution.
kinakailanganang abogado." During the trial. Jose Walangtakot
repudiated his confession contending that it was made without
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Police Line-up (1993)
PAGE 48
No. 9: Johann learned that the police were looking for him in 1) The packages are inadmissible in evidence being the product of
connection with the rape of an 18-year old girl, a neighbor. He an illegal search and seizure;
went to the police station a week later and presented himself to 2) Neither is the receipt he signed admissible, his rights under
the desk sergeant. Coincidentally, the rape victim was in the custodial investigation not having been observed.
premises executing an extrajudicial statement. Johann, along with
six (6) other suspects, were placed in a police lineup and the girl
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
On the assumption that the issues were timely raised the answers
pointed to him as the rapist. Johann was arrested and locked up in
are as follows:
a cell. Johann was charged with rape in court but prior to
1) The packages are admissible in evidence. ...
arraignment invoked his right to preliminary investigation. This
2) The receipt is not admissible in evidence. According to the ruling
was denied by the judge, and thus, trial proceeded. After the
in People vs. Mirantes, 209 SCRA 179, such receipt is in effect an
prosecution presented several witnesses, Johann through counsel,
extrajudicial confession of the commission of an offense. Hence, if it
invoked the right to bail and filed a motion therefor, which was
was signed without the assistance of counsel, in accordance with
denied outright by the Judge. Johann now files a petition for
Section 12(3), Article IV of the Constitution, it is inadmissible in
certiorari before the Court of Appeals arguing that: 2) He should
evidence. [People v. Duhan, 142 SCRA 100 (1986)].
have been informed of his right to be represented by counsel prior
to his identification via the police line up. Decide.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: ⟴ Custodial Investigation; Rights (1996)
2} Pursuant to the decision in People us. Castmillo. 213. SCRA 777,
No. 3: 1) A, who was arrested as a suspect in a murder case was
Johann need not be informed of his right to counsel prior to his
not represented by counsel during the "question and answer"
identification during the police line-up. The police line-up is not
stage. However, before he was asked to sign his statements to the
part of custodial investigation, since Johann was not being
police investigator, the latter provided A with a counsel, who
questioned but was merely being asked to exhibit his body for
happened to be at the police station. After conferring with A, the
identification by a witness.
counsel told the police investigator that A was ready to sign the
statements. Can the statements of A be presented in court as his
confession? Explain.
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Rights (1990) ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
No. 9; Some police operatives, acting under a lawfully issued
1) No, the statements of A cannot be presented in court as his
warrant for the purpose of searching for firearms in the House of
confession. He was not assisted by counsel during the actual
X located at No. 10 Shaw Boulevard, Pasig, Metro Manila, found,
questioning. There is no showing that the lawyer who
instead of firearms, ten kilograms of cocaine.
belatedly conferred with him fully explained to him the nature
and consequences of his confession. In People vs. Compil 244
(1) May the said police operatives lawfully seize the cocaine?
SCRA 135, the Supreme Court held that the accused must be
Explain your answer.
assisted by counsel during the actual questioning and the
belated assistance of counsel before he signed the confession
(2) May X successfully challenge the legality of the search on the
does not cure the defect.
ground that the peace officers did not inform him about his right
to remain silent and his right to counsel? Explain your answer.
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Rights (1989)
(3) Suppose the peace officers were able to find unlicensed No. 7: Pursuing reports that great quantities of prohibited drugs
firearms in the house in an adjacent lot, that is. No, 12 Shaw are being smuggled at nighttime through the shores of Cavite, the
Boulevard, which is also owned by X. May they lawfully seize the Southern Luzon Command set up checkpoints at the end of the
said unlicensed firearms? Explain your answer. Cavite coastal road to search passing motor vehicles. A 19-year old
boy, who finished fifth grade, while driving, was stopped by the
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: authorities at the checkpoint. Without any objection from him, his
car was inspected, and the search yielded marijuana leaves hidden
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
in the trunk compartment of the car. The prohibited drug was
(1) Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize the cocaine, ....
promptly seized, and the boy was brought to the police station for
(2) No, X cannot successfully challenge the legality of the search
questioning.
simply because the peace officers did not inform him about his
(1) Was the search without warrant legal?
right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Section 12(1),
(2) Before interrogation, the policeman on duty informed the boy
Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: "Any person under
in English that he does "have a right to remain silent and the right
investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right
to counsel." However, there was no counsel available as it was
to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent
midnight. He declared orally that he did not need any lawyer as he
and independent counsel preferably of his own choice."
was innocent, since he was only bringing the marijuana leaves to
As held in People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111. for this provision to apply, a
his employer in Quezon City and was not a drug user. He was
suspect must be under investigation. There was no investigation
charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs. Is his waiver
involved in this case.
of the right to counsel valid?
(3) The unlicensed firearms stored at 12 Shaw Boulevard may
lawfully be seized ... ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(1) No, the search was not valid, because there was no probable
cause ....
(2) No, the waiver of the right to counsel is not valid, since it was
⟴ Custodial Investigation; Rights (1993) not reduced in writing and made in the presence of counsel. Under
No. 4: Larry was an overnight guest in a motel. After he checked
Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution to be valid, the
out the following day, the chambermaid found an attache case
waiver must be made in writing and in the presence of counsel.
which she surmised was left behind by Larry. She turned it over to
the manager who, to determine the name and address of the
RIGHTS TO VISITATION AND CONFERENCE
owner, opened the attache case and saw packages which had a
peculiar smell and upon squeezing felt like dried leaves. His
curiosity aroused, the manager made an opening on one of the Sec. 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
packages and took several grams of the contents thereof. He took Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. – (f) Any person arrested or
the packages to the NBI, and in the presence of agents, opened the detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits
packages, the contents of which upon laboratory examination, by or conferences with:
turned out to be marijuana flowering tops, Larry was (1) any member of his immediate family, or
subsequently found, brought to the NBI Office where he admitted (2) any medical doctor;
ownership of the attache case and the packages. He was made to (3) priest or religious minister chosen by him; or
sign a receipt for the packages. Larry was charged in court for (4) by his counsel; or
possession of prohibited drugs. He was convicted. On appeal, he (5) by any national non-governmental organization duly
now poses the following issues: accredited by the Commission on Human Rights or
PAGE 49
(6) by any international non-governmental organization duly 3) In accordance with Art. III. sec. 13 of the Constitution, Johann
accredited by the Office of the President. may be denied bail if the evidence of his guilt is strong considering
(7) The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her that the crime with which he is charged is punishable by reclusion
spouse, fiance or fiancee, parent or child, brother or sister, perpetua. It is thus not a matter of right for him to be released on
grandparent or grandchild, uncle or aunt, nephew or niece, bail in such case. The court must first make a determination of the
and guardian or ward. strength of the evidence on the basis of evidence already presented
by the prosecution, unless it desires to present some more, and give
RA 7438, RIGHTS OF PERSONS UNDER CUSTODIAL the accused the opportunity to present countervailing evidence. If
INVESTIGATION having done this the court finds the evidence not to be strong, then
Section 2. Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial it becomes the right of Johann to be admitted to bail. The error of
Investigation; Duties of Public Officers. – the trial court lies in outrightly denying the motion for bail of
(e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the Johann.
provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under
custodial investigation, shall be in writing and signed by such
person in the presence of his counsel; otherwise the waiver shall
be null and void and of no effect. WHO MAY AVAIL
Generally, all person under custody of the law are entitled
to bail EXCEPT (1) hose charged with capital offense when
WAIVER evidence of guilt is strong since the evidence (rebellion) in this
What can be waived: case is hearsay, the evidence of guilt is not strong, bail is allowed.
The right to remain silent and the right to counsel [Enrile v. Perez (En Banc Resolution, 2001)] and (2) Military men
[People v. Reyes (1992)] Military men who participated in failed
What cannot be waived coup d’etat because of their threat to national security
The right to be given the MIRANDA warnings. [Comendador v. De Villa (1991)]
BURDEN OF PROVING VOLUNTARINESS OF WAIVER [PEOPLE Bail is a matter of right in (1) In case the evidence of guilt is
V. JARA, 1986] all cases not punishable strong. In such a case, according to
Presumption against the waiver Burden of proof: prosecution must by reclusion perpetua. People v. San Diego (1966), the court's
prove with strongly convincing evidence to the satisfaction of this discretion to grant bail must be
Court that indeed the accused: exercised in the light of a summary of
(1) Willingly and voluntarily submitted his confession and the evidence presented by the
(2) Knowingly and deliberately manifested that he was not prosecution. Thus, the order
interested in having a lawyer assist him during the taking of granting or refusing bail must
that confession. contain a summary of the evidence
for the prosecution followed by the
conclusion on whether or not the
evidence of guilt is strong (Note: it is
SECTION 13, ARTICLE III
not the existence of guilt itself which is
BAIL
concluded but the strength of the
All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by RP
probability that guilt exists).
when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction be bailable
by sufficient sureties or be release on recognized as may be provided
by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail
shall not be required. (2) In extradition proceedings. Extradition courts do not render
judgments of conviction or acquittal so it does not matter WON
the crimes the accused is being extradited for is punishable by
NOTE: relate this one to Section 15, Article III reclusion perpetua[US Gov’t. v. Judge Puruganan and Mark Jimenez
(2002)
Bail is the security given for the release of a person in custody of
the law, furnished by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his
appearance before any court as may be required. [Rule 114, Sec. 1,
ROC]. The basis of which is that the accused shall be entitled to be ⟴
presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyong All persons charged shall, before conviction, be bailable by
reasonable doubt (Section 1(a), Rule 115, ROC) sufficient sureties, except those charged with:
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
⟴ Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail (1993) strong.
No. 9: Johann learned that the police were looking for him in
connection with the rape of an 18-year old girl, a neighbor. He
went to the police station a week later and presented himself to ⟴ Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail; Capital Offense
the desk sergeant. Coincidentally. the rape victim was in the (Q4-2006)
premises executing an extrajudicial statement. Johann, along with State whether or not the law is constitutional. Explain briefly.
six (6) other suspects, were placed in a police lineup and the girl 2. A law denying persons charged with crimes punishable by
pointed to him as the rapist. Johann was arrested and locked up in reclusion perpetua or death the right to bail. (2%)
a cell. Johann was charged with rape in court but prior to
arraignment invoked his right to preliminary investigation. This ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
was denied by the judge, and thus, trial proceeded. After the The law is invalid as it contravenes Section 13, Article III of the
prosecution presented several witnesses, Johann through counsel, 1987 Constitution which provides that "all persons, except those
invoked the right to ball and filed a motion therefor, which was charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when
denied outright by the Judge. Johann now files a petition for evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction, be bailable by
certiorari before the Court of Appeals arguing that: 3) He is sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be
entitled to bail as a matter of right, thus the Judge should not have provided by law." The accused may not be deprived of his
denied his motion to fix ball outright. Decide. constitutional right to bail even if charged with a capital offense
where the evidence of guilt is not strong.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
PAGE 50
⟴ Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail; Deportation
(i) The fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice when
arrested; and
Case (1989)
(j) Pendency of other cases where the accused is on bail. Excessive
No. 15: May an alien invoke the constitutional right to bail during
bail shall not be required.
the pendency of deportation proceedings?
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
No. an alien may not invoke the constitutional right to bail during "Discretion is with the court called upon to rule on the question of
the pendency of deportation proceedings. In Harvey vs Santiago, bail. We must stress, however, that where conditions imposed
162 SCRA 840, it was held that the constitutional guarantee to bail upon a defendant seeking bail would amount to a refusal thereof
may not be invoked in deportation proceedings, because they do and render nugatory the constitutional right to bail, we will not
not partake of the nature of a criminal action. hesitate to exercise our supervisory powers to provide the
required remedy.
[Dela Camara v. Enage (1971)]
⟴ Rights of the Accused; Right to Bail; Matter of Right PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
or a Matter of Discretion (Q7-2005)
a) State with reason(s) whether bail is a matter of right or a matter
of discretion in the following cases: (4%) a) The imposable The requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt is a
penalty for the crime charged is reclusion perpetua and the necessary corollary of the constitutional right to be presumed
accused is a minor; innocent. [People vs. Dramavo (1971)]
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: The accused cannot present evidence before the prosecution does
If the accused is a minor where the imposable penalty for the crime
so, even if the accused pleads guilty. It violates the presumption
charged is reclusion perpetua, bail would be a matter of right.
of innocence. [Alejandro vs. Pepito (1980)]
Under Article 68 of the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is a
minor under eighteen years of age, he is entitled to a penalty,
The presumption of regularity (in official duties) cannot by itself
depending on his age, lower by one or two degrees than that
prevail over the presumption of innocence of the accused. But
prescribed by law for the crime committed. The Constitution
where it is not the sole basis for conviction, the presumption of
withholds the guaranty of bail from one who is accused of a capital
regularity of performance of official functions may prevail over
offense where the evidence of guilt is strong. The obvious reason is
the constitutional presumption of innocence. [People vs. Acuram
that one who faces a probable death sentence has a particularly
(2000)]
strong temptation to flee. This reason does not hold where the
accused has been established without objection to be a minor who
by law cannot be sentenced to death. (Bravo v. Borja, G.R. No. L-
65228, February 18, 1985) ⟴ Rights of the Accused; Presumption of Innocence vs.
b) The imposable penalty for the crimE charged is life Presumption of Theft (2004)
imprisonment and th accused is a minor; (5-b) OZ lost five head of cattle which he reported to the police as
stolen from his barn. He requested several neighbors, including
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: RR, for help in looking for the missing animals. After an extensive
If the accused is a minor and the imposable penalty for the crime
search, the police found two head in RR's farm. RR could not
charged is life imprisonment, bail would not be a matter of right. In
explain to the police how they got hidden in a remote area of his
the instant case, assuming that evidence of guilt strong, bail shall be
farm. Insisting on his innocence, RR consulted a lawyer who told
denied as the privileged mitigating circumstance of minority is not
him he has a right to be presumed innocent under the Bill of
available for violation of special laws penalized by life imprisonment.
Rights. But there is another presumption of theft arising from his
unexplained possession of stolen cattle— under the penal law. Are
WHEN AVAILABLE
the two presumptions capable of reconciliation In this case? If so,
General rule: From the very moment of arrest (which may be
how can they be reconciled? If not, which should prevail? (5%)
before or after the filing of formal charges in court) up to the time
of conviction by final judgment (which means after appeal). ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The two presumptions can be reconciled. The presumption of
No charge need be filed formally before one can file for bail, so innocence stands until the contrary is proved. It may be overcome
long as one is under arrest. [Heras Teehankee v. Rovica (1945)] by a contrary presumption founded upon human experience. The
presumption that RR is the one who stole the cattle of OZ is logical,
Arraignment of the accused is not essential to the approval of the since he was found in possession of the stolen cattle. RR can prove
bail bond. When bail is authorized, it should be granted before his innocence by presenting evidence to rebut the presumption. The
arraignment. Otherwise the accused may be precluded from filing burden of evidence is shifted to RR, because how he came into
a motion to quash. Also, the court will be assured of the presence possession of the cattle is peculiarly within his knowledge. (Dizon-
of the accused at the arraignment precisely by grating bail and Pamintuan v. People, 234 SCRA 63 (1994)).
ordering his presence at any stage of the proceeding. [Lavides v.
CA (2000)] EQUIPOISE RULE
Exceptions: Where the evidence adduced by the parties is evenly balanced, the
(1) When charged with an offense punishable by reclusion constitutional presumption of innocence should tilt the balance in
perpetua. favor of the accused. [Corpuz vs.
(2) Traditionally, the right to bail is not available to the military, People (1991)]
as an exception to the bill of rights. [People v. Reyes (1992)]
In order that circumstantial evidence may warrant conviction, the
STANDARDS FOR FIXING BAIL following requisites must concur:
(1) There is more than one circumstance
RULE 114. Sec. 9. Amount of bail; guidelines. – The judge who (2) The facts from which the inferences are derived are proven
issued the warrant or granted the application shall fix a (3) The combination of all the circumstances is such as to produce
reasonable amount of bail considering primarily, but not limited conviction beyond reasonable doubt. [People v. Bato (1998)]
to, the following factors: (a) Financial liability of the accused to
give bail;
(b) Nature and circumstance of the offense;
(c) Penalty for the offense charged; SECTION 14, ARTICLE III
(d) Character and reputation of the accused; RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
(e) Age and health of the accused; (1) No person shall be held to answer for criminal offense without
(f) Weight of the evidence against the accused; due process of law
(g) Probability of the accused appearing at the trial;
(h) Forfeiture of other bail;
PAGE 51
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed Sec. 1(f) of the 2000 Rules of Criminal Procedure enjoins that in all
innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be criminal prosecutions the accused shall be entitled to confront and
heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause cross-examine the witnesses against him at the trial. Accordingly,
of accusation against him to have a speedy, impartial and public the testimony of a witness given on direct examination should be
trial to meet the witness face to face and to have compulsory process stricken off the record where there was not adequate opportunity
to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence for cross-examination (People v.
in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed Fernando Monjey Rosario, G.R. No. 146689, September 27, 2002).
notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has
been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable. In People v. Manchetti, G.R. No. L-48883, Aug. 6, 1980, the Supreme
Court also held that if a party is deprived of the opportunity of
cross examination without fault on his part, as in case of the illness
and death of a witness after direct examination, he is entitled to
Section 1, Rule 115. Rights of accused at trial. – In all criminal
have the direct testimony stricken from the records. Since the
prosecutions, the accused shall be entitled to the following rights:
accused was deprived of his opportunity to cross examine the
(a) To be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved beyond
witness without faulty on his part, the motion to expunge is
reasonable doubt.
meritorious.
(b) To be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.
CRIMINAL DUE PROCESS
(c) To be present and defend in person and by counsel at every
stage of the proceedings, from arraignment to promulgation of
the judgment. The accused may, Requisites [People vs. Vera (1937)]
however, waive his presence at the trial pursuant to the (1) Accused is heard by a court of competent jurisdiction;
stipulations set forth in his bail, unless his presence is (2) Accused is proceeded against under the orderly process of
specifically ordered by the court for purposes of identification. law;
(3) Accused is given notice and opportunity to be heard;
The absence of the accused without justifiable cause at the trial (4) Judgment rendered is within the authority of a constitutional
of which he had notice shall be considered a waiver of his right law. [Mejia vs. Pamaran (1988)]
to be present thereat.
PAGE 52
implementing the same shall be interpreted as a bar to any charge defense attorney, you learned that the woman accused has been in
of denial of the right to speedy trial guaranteed by Section 14(2), detention for six months, yet she has not been to a courtroom nor
Article III, of the 1987 Constitution. [RA 8493] seen a judge.
IMPARTIAL TRIAL: A civilian cannot be tried by a military court What remedy would you undertake to address the situation and
so long as the civil courts are open and operating, even during what forum would you use to invoke this relief? (3%)
Martial Law. [Olaguer vs. Military Commission (1987)]
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
A) Section 7, Rule 119 provides, if the public attorney assigned to
Dismissal based on the denial of the right to speedy trial amounts
defend a person charged with a crime knows that the latter is
to an acquittal. [Acevedo vs. Sarmiento (1970)]
preventively detained, either because he is charged with a
bailable crime but has no means to post bail, or, is charged with a
Note: RA 8493 provides: a 30-day arraignment within the filing of
non-bailable crime, or, is serving a term of imprisonment in any
the information or from the date the accused appeared before the
penal institution, it shall be his duty to do the following:
court; trial shall commence 30 days from the arraignment, as fixed
by the court. The entire trial period shall not exceed 180 days,
(a) Shall promptly undertake to obtain the presence of the
except as otherwise authorized by the SC Chief Justice.
prisoner for trial or cause a notice to be served on the person
having custody of the prisoner requiring such person to so advise
AVAILABILITY
the prisoner of his right to demand trial.
(1) When proceeding is attended by vexatious, capricious and
(b) Upon receipt of that notice, the custodian of the prisoner shall
oppressive delays
promptly advise the prisoner of the charge and of his right to
(2) When unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for and
demand trial. If at anytime thereafter the prisoner informs his
secured
custodian that he demands such trial, the latter shall cause notice
(3) When without cause or justifiable motive, a long period of time
to that effect to sent promptly to the public attorney.
is allowed to elapse without the party having his case tried.
xxxx
[dela Rosa v. Court of Appeals (1996); Tai Lim v. Court of Appeals
Moreover, Section 1 (e), Rule 116 provides, when the accused is
(1999)]
under preventive detention, his case shall be raffled and its
records transmitted to the judge to whom the case was raffled
Unreasonable delay weighed by following factors:
within three (3) days from the filing of the information or
(1) Length of delay
complaint. The accused shall be arraigned within ten (10) days
(2) Reason for delay
from the date of the raffle. The pre-trial conference of his case
(3) Assertion/failure to assert right by the accused Failure to shall be held within ten (10) days after arraignment.
assert means waiver of privilege.
(4) Prejudice caused by the delay [Roquero v. The Chancellor of UP On the other hand, if the accused is not under preventive
Manila (2010)]
detention, the arraignment shall be held within thirty (30) days
from the date the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of
RA 8493 is a means of enforcing the right of the accused to a
the accused. (Section 1 (g), Rule116)
speedy trial. The spirit of the law is that the accused must go on
record in the attitude of demanding a trial or resisting delay [Uy
Since the accused has not been brought for arraignment within
v. Hon. Adriano (2006)]
the limit required in the aforementioned Rule, the Information
may be dismissed upon motion of the accused invoking his right
When right not available right to speedy trial cannot be invoked
to speedy trial (Section 9, Rule 119) or to a speedy disposition of
where to sustain the same would result in a clear denial of due
cases (Section 16, Article III, 1987 Constitution).
process to the prosecution. [Uy v. Hon.
Adriano (2006)]
PAGE 53
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, the
remedy of mandamus may be availed of. Trial in Absentia
As a general rule, subject to certain exceptions, any constitutional
or statutory right may be waived if such waiver is not against
RIGHT OF CONFRONTATION public policy.
This is the basis of the right to cross-examination.
Considering Art IV, Sec 19, 1973 Constitution (trial of a capital
Two-fold purpose: offense may proceed even in the absence of the accused) and the
(1) to afford the accused an opportunity to test the testimony of absence of any law specifically requiring his presence at all stages
witnesses by cross-examination of his trial, there appears, no logical reason why petitioner,
(2) to allow the judge to observe the deportment of witnesses. [Go, although he is charged with a capital offense, should be precluded
et al. v. The People of the Philippines and Highdone Company, from waiving his right to be present in the proceedings for the
Ltd., et al., (2012)] perpetuation of testimony, since this right was conferred upon
him for his protection and benefit. [Aquino vs. Military Commission
Inadmissibility for lack of right to confrontation: (1975)]
(1) Testimony of a witness who has not submitted himself to cross
examination
(2) Affidavits of witnesses who are not presented during the trial,
hence not subjected to cross examination– hearsay, [Cariago
⟴ The requisites of a valid trial in absentia exclude:
v. Court of Appeals (2001)] ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Wherein he/she allows himself/herself to be identified by the
Rule on Examination of a Child Witness [AM No. 004-07-SC] witness in his/her absence, without further unqualified
The judge may exclude any person, including the accused, admitting that every time a witness mentions a name by which
whose presence or conduct causes fear to the child. he/she is known, it shall be understood to refer to him/her.
(Carredo vs. People, 183 SCRA 373)
COMPULSORY PROCESS
(1) Right to Secure Attendance of Witness
(2) Right to Production of Other Evidence
SECTION 15, ARTICLE III
Subpoena is a process directed to a person requiring him to attend WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
and to testify at the hearing or trial of an action or at any GEN: The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be
investigation conducted under the laws of the Philippines, or for suspended
the taking of his deposition. [Caamic v. Galapon (1994)] EXN: in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires
it.
Before a subpoena ducestecum may issue, the court must first be
satisfied that the following requisites are present:
(1) The books, documents or other things requested must appear The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces
prima facie relevant to the issue subject of the controversy of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call
(test of relevancy), and out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence,
(2) Such books must be reasonably described by the parties to be invasion or rebellion.
readily identified (test of definiteness).
[Roco v. Contreras (2005)] In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it,
he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or
any part thereof under martial law.
TRIALS IN ABSENTIA WHEN CAN TRIAL Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or
IN ABSENTIA BE DONE 3 requisites: the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the
(1) Accused failed to appear for trial despite postponement and President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the
notice Congress.
(2) Failure to appear is unjustified
(3) After arraignment The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all
its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such
If not then the right of the accused to be informed of the nature proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set
and cause of accusation against him will be impaired for lack of aside by the President.
arraignment [Borja vs. Mendoza (1977)]
Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same
Consequences: Waiver of right to cross examine and manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to
present evidence [Gimenez vs. Nazareno (1988)] be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall
persist and public safety requires it.
WHEN PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED IS A DUTY
(1) Arraignment and Plea The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours
(2) During Trial, for identification following such proclamation or suspension, convene in
(3) Promulgation of Sentence accordance with its rules without need of a call.
Exception: Light offense —> can be via counsel The Supreme Court may: 1) review, 2) in an appropriate
proceeding; 3) filed by any citizen, 4) the sufficiency of the factual
Petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of military commissions to basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the
try him (for murder, illegal possession of firearms and for privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and 5) must
violation of the Anti-Subversion Act) arguing that he being a promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.
civilian, such trial during martial law deprives him of his right to
due process. A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the
Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or
An issue has been raised as to WON petitioner could waive his legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of
right to be present during trial. jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where
civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the
On a 7-5 Voting: privilege of the writ. The suspension of the privilege of the writ
Seven justices voted that petitioner may waive his right shall apply only to persons judicially charged for rebellion or
to be present at all stages of the proceedings while five voted that offenses inherent in or directly connected with invasion. [Art.
this waiver is qualified, he cannot waive when he is to be VII, Sec. 18]
identified.
PAGE 54
threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity.
⟴ Suspension of Writ of Habeas Corpus (1997) [Sec. 1, The Rule on the Writ of Amparo]
(a) When may the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus be
suspended?
Basis
(b) If validly declared, what would be the full consequences of such
The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx
suspension?
(5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: of constitutional rights, xxx. Such rules shall provide a simplified
(a) Under Section 16, Article VII of the Constitution, the privilege and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases,
of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended when there is an shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not
invasion or rebellion and public safety requires it. diminish, increase, or
modify substantive rights. Xxx [Art. VIII, Sec. 5]
(b) According to Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution, the
suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall PETITION FOR WRIT
apply only to persons judicially charged with rebellion or Form
offenses Inherent to or directly connected with invasion. Any The petition shall be signed and verified. [Sec. 5]
person arrested or detained should be judicially charged within
three days. Otherwise, he should be released. Moreover, under Contents
Section 13. Article III of the Constitution, the right to bail shall not The petition shall allege the following:
be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus (1) The personal circumstances of the petitioner
is suspended. (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
⟴ The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be assumed appellation
(3) The right to life, liberty and security of the aggrieved party
suspended except in cases of:
violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: omission of the respondent, and how such threat or violation
Invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it. (Section 18, is committed with the attendant circumstances detailed in
Article VII of Constitution) supporting
affidavits
(4) The investigation conducted, if any, specifying the names,
personal circumstances, and addresses of the investigating
AVAILABILITY authority or individuals, as well as the manner and conduct of
(1) A prime specification of an application for a writ of habeas the investigation, together with any report
corpus is involuntary restraint of liberty. (5) The actions and recourses taken by the petitioner to determine
(2) Voluntary restraint of liberty i.e right of parents to regain the fate or whereabouts of the aggrieved party and the identity
custody of minor child even if the child is in the custody of a of the person responsible for the threat, act or omission
third person of her own free will [Sombong v. CA (1990)] (6) The relief prayed for.
(3) Illegal arrest with supervening event when restraint of liberty
is already by virtue of the complaint or information [Velasco The petition may include a general prayer for other just
vs. CA (1995)] and equitable reliefs. [Sec. 5]
(a) The issuance of a judicial process preventing the discharge of Where to file
the detained person. The petition may be filed on any day and at any time [Sec.
(b) Another is the filing of a complaint or information for the 3]
offense for which the accused is detained. [Section 4 of Rule
102] Filing Enforceability Returnable
(4) Where a sentence imposes punishment in excess of the power
of the court to impose, such sentence is void as RTC of the place Before the
to the excess [Gumabon v. Director of Prisons (1971)] where the issuing court or
threat, act or judge
RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY omission was
Not only physical restraint, any restraint on freedom of action is commit
sufficient i.e (1) curtailed freedom of movement by the condition ted or any
that he must get approval of respondents for any travel outside of
Metro Manila, (2) abridged liberty of abode because prior its
approval of respondent is required in case petitioner wants to elements
change place of residence, (3) abridged freedom of speech due to occurred
prohibition from taking any interviews inimical to national Sandiganbayan (1) Before
security, and (4) petitioner is required to report regularly to Anywhere in the
or any of its the issuing court
respondents or their reps. [Moncupa v. Enrile (1986)] Philippines
justices or any justice
Court of Appeals thereof, OR
Note: Even if the party to whom the writ is addressed has illegally or any of its (2) Any
parted with the custody of a person before the application for the justices RTC of the place
writ is no reason why the writ should not where the
issue. [Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919)] threat, act or
omission was
Test for valid suspension of the privilege of the writ: committed or
arbitrariness, not correctness any of its
elements
Conditions for valid suspension: occurred
(1) Presence of invasion, insurrection or rebellion SC or any of its (1) Before
(2) Public safety requires it [Lansang v. Garcia (1971)] justices the issuing court
or any justice
Anywhere in the thereof
WRIT OF AMPARO, HABEAS DATA AND KALIKASAN (2) Before
Philippines
the
WRIT OF AMPARO Sandiganbayan
The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any or CA or any of
person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or
PAGE 55
their justices,
OR RETURN OF RESPONDENT
Filing Enforceability Returnable Within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days after service of
the writ, the respondent shall file a verified return which shall
(3) Any RTC of contain all defenses; all defenses not raised are deemed waived
the place where
the threat, act or HEARING
omission was Preliminary conference; same prioprity as other writs [no more
committed or than 60 days];
any of its
elements Reliefs
occurred Permanent cease and desist order, other reliefs
Return Within 72 hours after service of the writ, the respondent SECTION 17, ARTICLE III
shall file a verified written return together with supporting SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE
affidavits which shall, among other things, contain his defenses. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself
A general denial is not allowed. [Sec. 9]
Hearing
SCOPE AND COVERAGE
Summary or court may call for a preliminary conference; given
No person shall be compelled to be a witness against
same priority as petition for habeas corpus [Sec. 13]
himself. [Art. III, Sec. 17]
Burden of proof : Substantial evidence
Only applies to compulsory testimonial, and doesn’t apply to
material objects [Villaflor vs. Summers (1920)]
Defense:
Private individual – ordinary diligence; public official –
It refers therefore to the use of the mental process and the
extraordinary diligence, no presumption of regularity of duties
communicative faculties, and not to a merely physical activity.
[Sec. 17]
If the act is physical or mechanical, the accused can be compelled
The Manalo brothers were abducted, detained, and tortured
to allow or perform the act, and the result can be used in evidence
repeatedly by the military. After their escape, they filed a petition
against him.
for the privilege of the Writ of Amparo. The Supreme Court
granted the petition and held that there was a continuing violation
EXAMPLES
of the Manalos’ right to security.
(1) Handwriting in connection with a prosecution for falsification
is not allowed, [Beltran v. Samson (1929); Bermudez vs. Castillo
As regards the relief granted, the Court held that the production
(1937)]
order under the Amparo rule is different from a search warrant and
(2) Re-enactment of the crime by the accused is not allowed
may be likened to the production of documents or things under Rule
(3) The accused can be required to allow a sample of a substance
27.1, ROC. [Secretary of National Defense v. Manalo (2008)]
taken from his body [U.S. vs. Tan The (1912)], or be ordered to
expel the morphine from his mouth [U.S. v. OngSio Hong
WRIT OF HABEAS DATA (SEE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION) The writ
(1917)]
of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy designed
(4) Accused may be made to take off her garments and shoes and
to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and freedom of
be photographed [People v. Otadura (1950)]; compelled to
information of an individual, and to provide a forum to enforce
show her body for physical investigation to see if she is
one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy.
pregnant by an adulterous relation [Villaflor v. Summers
(1920)]
There must be a nexus between right to privacy and right to life,
(5) Order to give a footprint sample to see if it matches the ones
liberty and security.
found in the scene of the crime is allowed [People v. Salas and
People v. Sara]
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 ⟴ The right of the accused against self-incrimination will
this case entails a delicate balancing of the alleged intrusion upon be violated if
the private life of Gamboa and the relevant state interest involved.
[Gamboa v. P/Ssupt. Marlou C. Chan, et al., (2012)]
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
he is charged with violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act
and he was required to produce his bank passbook (Khetin vs.
WRIT OF KALIKASAN Villareal, 42 Phil. 886)
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 ⟴ Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (1988)
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in two or more No. 3: Dr. Juan Sto. Tomas is a practicing dentist in Marikina, Metro
cities or provinces Manila. He was charged with immorality before the Board of
Dentistry by a lady patient, who claims that Dr. Sto. Tomas took
WHO MAY FILE: liberties with her person and kissed her while she was under the
Natural or juridical persons, NGO or public interest groups in behalf treatment at the latter's clinic. At the initial hearing of the
of persons whose right is violated administrative complaint, the complainant's counsel called the
respondent as his first witness. The respondent through counsel,
WHO HAS JURISDICTION objected vigorously, claiming his constitutional right to be exempt
Supreme Court or Court of Appeals from being a witness against himself. The Board noted the
objection, but ruled that in the next scheduled hearing, a month
DOCKET FEES: None and a half later, the respondent would be called to testify as a
witness, as the right he claims is not available in administrative
WHEN IS WRIT ISSUED: investigations, but only in criminal prosecutions. Dr. Sto. Tomas is
Within three (3) days from the date of filing of the petition, decided not to testify. As his lawyer, what would you do? Why?
if the petition is sufficient in form and substance ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
PAGE 56
I will file a petition for prohibition with prayer fo preliminary South Dakota vs. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, it was held for this reason
injunction with the Regional Trial Court. The privilege against that requiring a driver to take a blood-alcohol test is valid.
self incrimination I available not only in judicial proceedings but
als in administrative investigations. In Pascual v. Board of As held in Mackey vs. Afontrya 443 U.S. 1, because of compelling
Medical Examiners, 28 SCRA 344 (1969), it was held that the government interest in safety along the streets, the license of a
revocation of a license as a medical practitioner can be an even driver who refuses to take the breathalyzer test may be
greater deprivation than mere forfeiture of property. In some suspended immediately pending a post-suspension hearing, but
aspects it is similar to criminal proceedings and, therefore, the there must be a provision for a post-suspension hearing. Thus, to
respondent cannot be made to testify as a witness for the save the proposed law from unconstitutionally on the ground of
complainant. denial of due process, it should provide for an immediate hearing
upon suspension of the driver's license. The proposed law
violates the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. It
will authorize police authorities to stop any driver and ask him to
⟴ Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (1990) take the breathalyzer test even in the absence of a probable
No. 4: The privilege of self-incrimination must be timely invoked,
cause.
otherwise it is deemed waived.
1 In a CIVIL CASE, the plaintiff called the defendant a hostile
witness and announced that the defendant would be asked
incriminating questions in the direct examination. When should ⟴ Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (2000)
the defendant invoke the privilege against self-incrimination? No XI. b) A man was shot and killed and his killer fled. Moments
2 In a CRIMINAL CASE, the prosecution called the accused to the after the shooting, an eyewitness described to the police that the
witness stand as the first witness in view of certain facts admitted slayer wore white pants, a shirt with floral design, had boots and
by the accused at the pre-trial. When should the accused invoke was about 70 kilos and 1.65 meters. Borja, who fit the description
the privilege against self-incrimination? given, was seen nearby. He was taken into custody and brought to
3. In an administrative case for malpractice and the cancellation of the police precinct where his pants, shirt and boots were forcibly
license to practice medicine filed against C, the complainant called taken and he was weighed, measured, photographed,
C to the witness stand. When should C invoke the privilege against fingerprinted and subjected to paraffin testing. At his trial, Borja
self-incrimination? Explain your answers to the three questions. objected to the admission in evidence of the apparel, his height
and weight, his photographs, fingerprints comparison and the
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: results of the paraffin test, asserting that these were taken in
(1) As held in Bagadiong v, De Guzman, 94 SCRA 906, the
violation of his right against self-incrimination. Rule on the
defendant should take the witness stand and object when a
objection. (2%)
question calling for an incriminating question is propounded.
Unlike in proceedings which are criminal in character in which ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
the accused can refuse to testify, the defendant must wait until a b) The objection of Borja is not tenable. As held in People v.
question calling for an incriminatory answer is actually asked. Paynor, 261 SCRA 615 (1996), the rights guaranteed by Section
(Suarez v. Tongco, 2 SCRA 71) 12, Article in of the Constitution applies only against testimonial
(2) As held in Chavez v. Court of Appeals, 24 SCRA 663, in a evidence. An accused may be compelled to be photographed or
criminal case the accused may altogether refuse to take the measured, his garments may be removed, and his body may be
witness and refuse to answer any question, because the purpose examined.
of calling him as a witness for the prosecution has no other
purpose but to incriminate him.
(3) As in a criminal case, C can refuse to take the witness stand
and refuse to answer any question. In Pascual v. Board of Medical
⟴ Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (Q7- 2006)
Select the best answer and explain.
Examiners, 28 SCRA 344, it was held that an administrative case
1. An accused's right against self-incrimination is violated in the
for malpractice and cancellation of the license to practice
following cases: (5%)
medicine is penal in character, because an unfavorable decision
_ When he is ordered by the trial court to undergo a paraffin test
would result in the revocation of the license of the respondent to
to prove he is guilty of murder;
practice medicine. Consequently, he can refuse to take the
_ When he is compelled to produce his bankbooks to be used as
witness stand.
evidence against his father charged with plunder;
_ When he is ordered to produce a sample of his handwriting to be
used as evidence that he is the author of a letter wherein he agreed
⟴ Rights of the Accused; Self-Incrimination (1992) to kill the victim;
No, 3; Congress is considering a law against drunken driving. _ When the president of a corporation is subpoenaed to produce
Under the legislation, police authorities may ask any driver to take certain documents as proofs he is guilty of illegal recruitment.
a "breathalyzer test", wherein the driver exhales several times
into a device which can determine whether he has been driving
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The best answer is c) when he is ordered to produce a sample of
under the influence of alcohol. The results of the test can be used,
his handwriting to be used as evidence that he is the author of a
in any legal proceeding against him. Furthermore, declaring that
letter wherein he agreed to kill the victim. Under Article HI,
the issuance of a driver's license gives rise only to a privilege to
Section 17 of the 1987 Constitution, "no person shall be
drive motor vehicles on public roads, the law provides that a
compelled to be a witness against himself." Since the provision
driver who refuses to take the test shall be automatically subject
prohibits compulsory testimonial incrimination, it does not
to a 90-day suspension of his driver's license, Cite two [2] possible
matter whether the testimony is taken by oral or written means
constitutional objections to this law. Resolve the objections and
as either way it involves the USE OF INTELLECTUAL FACULTIES.
explain whether any such infirmities can be cured.
The purpose of the privilege is to avoid and prohibit thereby the
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: repetition and recurrence of compelling a person, in a criminal or
Possible objections to the law are that requiring a driver to take any other case, to furnish the missing evidence necessary for his
the breathalyzer test will violate his right against self- conviction (Bermudez v. Castillo, Per Rec. No. 714-A, July 26,
incrimination, that providing for the suspension of his driver's 1937; Beltran v. Samson, G.R. No. 32025, September 23,1929).
license without any hearing violates due process, and that the
proposed law will violate the right against unreasonable searches
and seizures, because it allows police authorities to require a
drive to take the breathalyzer test even if there is no probable
⟴ Rights of the Accused; Self- Incrimination (2010)
No. X. A, the wife of an alleged victim of enforced disappearance,
cause.
applied for the issuance of a writ of amparo before a Regional Trial
Court in Tarlac. Upon motion of A, the court issued inspection and
Requiring a driver to take a BREATHALYZER TEST does not
production orders addressed to the AFP chief of Staff to allow
violate his right against self-incrimination, because he is not
entry at Camp Aquino and permit the copying of relevant
being compelled to give testimonial evidence. He is merely being
documents, including the list of detainees, if any. Accompanied by
asked to submit to a physical test. This is not covered by the
court-designated Commission on Human Rights (CHR) lawyers, A
constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. Thus, in
PAGE 57
took photographs of a suspected isolation cell where her husband The great majority of persons who file income tax returns do not
was allegedly seen being held for three days and tortured before incriminate themselves by disclosing their occupation. [US v.
he finally disappeared. The CHR lawyers requested one Lt. Valdez Sullivan (1927)]
for a photocopy of the master plan of Camp Aquino and to confirm
in writing that he had custody of the master plan. Lt. Valdez APPLICATION
objected on the ground that it may violate his right against self- General Rule: The privilege is available in any proceedings, even
incrimination. Decide with reasons. (4%). outside the court, for they may eventually lead to a criminal
prosecution.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The objection of Lt. Valdez is not valid. The right against self-
EXPANDED APPLICATION:
incrimination refers to testimonial evidence and does not apply
(1) Administrative proceedings with penal aspect i.e medical
to the production of a photocopy of the master plan of Camp
board investigation [Pascual v. Board of Medical
Aquino, because it is a public record. He cannot object to the
Examiners(1969)], forfeiture proceeding [Cabal v. Kapunan Jr.
request for him to confirm his custody of the master plan,
(1962)]
because he is the public officer who had custody of it. (Almonte
(2) Fact-Finding investigation by an ad hoc body [Galman vs.
vs. Vasquez, 244 SCRA 286 [1995]).
Pamaran (1985)]
FOREIGN LAWS A private person who contracts obligations of this sort toward the
The privilege which exists as to private papers, cannot be Army cannot, by law that we know of, either civil or military be
maintained in relation to “records required by law to be kept in compelled to fulfill them by imprisonment and deportation from
order that there may be suitable information of transactions his place of residence, we deem it wholly improper to sustain such
which are the appropriate subjects of governmental regulation means of compulsion which are not justified either by law or by
and the enforcement of the contract. [In Re Brooks (1901)]
restrictions validly established. [Shapiro v. US (1948)]
Domestic services are always to be remunerated, and no
In recent cases, the US Supreme Court has struck down certain agreement may subsist in law in which it is stipulated that any
registration requirements that presented real and appreciable domestic service shall be absolutely gratuitous, unless it be
risk of self-incrimination. These involved statues directed at admitted that slavery may be established in this country through
inherently suspect groups in areas permeated by criminal a covenant entered into between interested parties. [de los Reyes
statutes, a circumstance which laid the subjects open to real risk v. Alojado (1910)]
of self-incrimination. [Bernas]
A former court stenographer may be compelled under pain of
contempt to transcribe stenographic notes he had failed to attend
PAGE 58
to while in service. x xx such compulsion is not the condition of The import of the grant of power to Congress to restore the death
enforced compulsory service referred to by the Constitution. penalty requires:
(1) that Congress define or describe what is meant by heinous
Fernando, J. concurring opinion: crimes
The matter could become tricky should a stenographer (2) that Congress specify and penalize by death, only crimes that
stubbornly refuse to obey and the court insist on keeping him in qualify as heinous in accordance with the definition or
jail. The detention could then become punitive and give rise to the description set in the death penalty bill and/or designate
issue of involuntary servitude. [Aclaracion v. Gatmaitan (1975)] crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death in which
latter case, death can only be imposed upon the attendance of
POLITICAL PRISONERS circumstances duly proven in court that characterize the
If the petitioners are political prisoners subject to the civil crime to be heinous in accordance with the definition or
jurisdiction of ordinary courts of justice if they are to be description set in the death penalty bill
prosecuted at all, the army has no jurisdiction, nor power, nor (3) that Congress, in enacting this death penalty bill be singularly
authority, from all legal standpoints, to continue holding them in motivated by “compelling reasons involving heinous crimes.”
restraint. They are entitled, as a matter of fundamental right, to be
immediately released, any allegation as to whether the war was For a death penalty bill to be valid, a positive manifestation in the
ended or not. [Raquiza v. Bradford (1945)] form of higher incidence of crime should first be perceived and
statistically proven following the suspension of the death penalty
Sec. 19 of CA No. 682 authorizes that the political prisoners in [is not required in Sec. 19 (1)]. Neither does the said provision
question "may be released on bail, even prior to the presentation require that the death penalty be resorted to as a last recourse
of the corresponding information," and this may be done "existing when all other criminal reforms have failed to abate criminality in
provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding." We must society. [People v. Echegaray (1997)]
assume that the discretion granted must be construed in the sense
that the same may be exercised in cases wherein it was not Sec 19 (2) as worded, already embodies constitutional
heretofore granted by law. And it is reasonable to assume that the authorization for the Commission on Human Rights to take action
discretion granted is to the effect that the People's Court may in accordance with Art XIII Sec 18. There is a command addressed
exercise jurisdiction to order the release on bail of political to Congressed to pass whatever civil or penal legislation might be
prisoners "even prior to the presentation of the corresponding required for the subject. [Bernas]
information." [Duran v. Abad Santos (1945)]
PAGE 59
Double jeopardy provides three related protections:
(1) Against a second prosecution for the same offense after
acquittal;
SECTION 21, ARTICLE III (2) Against a second prosecution for the same offense after
Double Jeopardy conviction; and
No person shall be twice put in jeopardy or punishment for the same (3) Against multiple punishments for the same offense.
offense. If an act is punished by a law n ordinance, conviction or [People v. Dela Torre (2002)]
acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution
for the same act. DISMISSAL WITH CONSENT OF ACCUSED
When an accused appeals his conviction, he waives his right to the ⟴ Double Jeopardy (1993)
plea of double jeopardy. If the accused had been prosecuted for a No. 13: A Pajero driven by Joe sideswiped a motorcycle driven by
higher offense but was convicted for a lower offense, he has Nelson resulting in damage to the motorcycle and injuries to
technically been acquitted of the higher offense. His appeal would Nelson. Joe sped on without giving assistance to Nelson. The Fiscal
give the Court the right to impose a penalty higher than that of the filed two informations against Joe, to wit: (1) reckless imprudence
original conviction imposed on him. [Trono v. US (1905)] resulting in damage to property with physical injuries under Art.
365, RPC, before the RTC; and (2) abandonment of one's victim
PAGE 60
under par. 2 Art 275, before the MTC. Joe was arraigned, tried and ratiocinating and ruling as follows: "This is not to say that the
convicted for abandonment of one's victim in the MTC. He appellant did nothing wrong...she was seduced by the
appealed to the RTC. It was only a year later that he was arraigned appellant with promises (of marriage) just to accomplish his
in the reckless imprudence charge before the RTC. He pleaded not lewd designs." Years later, Virginia brought another
guilty. Subsequently, the RTC affirmed the decision of the MTC complaint for Qualified Seduction. Geralde presented a
relative to the abandonment of one's victim charge. Joe filed a Motion to Quash on the ground of double jeopardy, which
petition for review before the Court of Appeals, invoking his right motion and his subsequent motion for reconsideration were
to double Jeopardy, contending that the prosecution for denied:
abandonment under Art. 275 of the Revised Penal Code is a bar to C. Question: May Geralde validly invoke double jeopardy in
the prosecution for negligence under Article 365 of the same Code. questioning the institution of the case for Qualified
Decide. Seduction? He placed reliance principally on the "same
evidence" test to support his stance. He asserted that the
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: offenses with which he was charged arose from the same set
Joe cannot claim that his conviction for abandoning his victim in
of facts. Furthermore, he averted that the complaint for
violation of Article 275 of the Revised Penal Code is a bar to his
Qualified Seduction is barred by waiver and estoppel on the
prosecution for negligence under Article 365 of the Revised Penal
part of the complainant, she having opted to consider the case
Code. As held in Lamera v. Court of Appeals, 198 SCRA 186, there is
as consented abduction. Finally, he argued that her delay of
no double jeopardy, because these two offenses are not identical.
more than eight (8) years before filing the second case against
Reckless imprudence is a crime falling under the chapter on
him constituted pardon on the part of the offended party.
criminal negligence, while abandonment of one's victim is a crime
How would you resolve Gerald's contentions? Explain. (4%)
falling under the chapter on crimes against security. The former is
committed by means of culpa, while the latter is committed by ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
means of dolo. Failure to help one's victim is not an offense by itself Geralde cannot invoke double jeopardy. According to Perez v. Court
nor an element of reckless imprudence. It merely Increases the of Appeals, 168 SCRA 236, there is no identity between consented
penalty by one degree. abduction and qualified seduction. CONSENTED ABDUCTION
requires that the taking away of the offended party must be with
her consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and the
taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs. On
⟴ Double Jeopardy (1997) the other hand, QUALIFIED SEDUCTION requires that the crime be
No. 2: The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila approved an
committed by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship and
ordinance (No. 1000) prohibiting the operation in the streets
the offender had sexual intercourse with the woman. The delay in
within the city limits of taxicab units over eight years old (from
filing the second case does not constitute pardon, according to
year of manufacture). The imposable penalty for violation thereof
Article 344 of the Revised Penal Code, to be valid the pardon of the
is a fine of P4,000.00 or imprisonment for one year upon the
offender by the offended party must be expressly given.
erring operator. Thereafter and while the city ordinance was
already in effect. Congress enacted a law (Republic Act No. 500)
prohibiting the operation in the streets of cities throughout the ⟴ Double Jeopardy (2000)
country of taxicab units beyond ten years old. The imposable No XV. Charged by Francisco with libel, Pablo was arraigned on
penalty for violation thereof is the same as in Ordinance No. 1000. January 3, 2000, Pre-trial was dispensed with and continuous trial
A, an owner/operator of a taxicab unit operating in the City of was set for March 7, 8 and 9, 2000. On the first setting, the
Manila, was charged with violation of the city ordinance. Upon prosecution moved for its postponement and cancellation of the
arraignment, he pleaded not guilty; whereupon, trial was set five other settings because its principal and probably only witness, the
days thereafter. For failure of the witnesses to appear at the trial, private complainant Francisco, suddenly had to go abroad to fulfill
the City Court dismissed the case against A. The City Prosecutor of a professional commitment. The judge instead dismissed the case
Manila forthwith filed another information in the same court for failure to prosecute. b) Would the reversal of the trial court's
charging A with violation of Republic Act No. 500 for operating the assailed dismissal of the case place the accused in double
taxicab unit subject of the information in the first case. The jeopardy? (3%)
accused moved to dismiss the second case against him invoking
double Jeopardy. How would you rule on A's motion if you were
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
b) Since the postponement of the case would not violate the right of
the Judge?
the accused to speedy trial, the precipitate dismissal of the case is
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: void. The reversal of the dismissal will not place the accused in
If I were the judge, I would grant the motion. The dismissal of the double Jeopardy.
first case for failure of the witnesses to appear terminated the first
jeopardy. As held in Caes vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 179
SCRA 54, the dismissal of a case for failure of the witnesses for the
prosecution to appear constitutes an acquittal. The acquittal of A
⟴ Double Jeopardy (2001)
No X - For the death of Joey, Erning was charged with the crime of
for violation of Ordinance No. 1000 bars his prosecution for
homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Valenzuela. He was
violation of Republic Act No. 500. Under Section 21, Article in of the
arraigned. Due to numerous postponements of the scheduled
Constitution, if an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
hearings at the instance of the prosecution, particularly based on
conviction or acquittal under either bars another prosecution for
the ground of unavailability of prosecution witnesses who could
the same act.
not be found or located, the criminal case was pending trial for a
period of seven years. Upon motion of accused Erning who
invoked his right to speedy trial, the court dismissed the case.
⟴ Double Jeopardy (1999) Eventually, the prosecution witnesses surfaced, and a criminal
A. Discuss the right of every accused against double jeopardy? case for homicide, involving the same incident was filed anew
against Erning. Accused Erning moved for dismissal of the case on
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: the ground of double jeopardy. The prosecution objected,
According to Melo v. People, 85 Phil. 766, the rule of double
submitting the reason that it was not able to present the said
jeopardy means that when a person was charged with an offense
witnesses earlier because the latter went into hiding out of fear.
and the case was terminated by acquittal or conviction or in any
Resolve the motion. (5%)
other manner without his consent, he cannot again be charged
with the same or identical offense. ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The motion should be granted. As held in Caes us. Intermediate
Appellate Court, 179 SCRA 54 (1989), the dismissal of a criminal
⟴ Double Jeopardy (1999) case predicatend on the right of the accused to a speedy trial
B. On October 21, 1986, 17 year old Virginia Sagrado brought a
amounts to an acquittal for failure of the prosecution to prove his
complaint against Martin Geralde for consented abduction.
guilt and bars his subsequent prosecution for the same offense.
With the accused pleading not guilty upon arraignment, trial
ensued. After trial, a judgment of conviction was rendered
against Geralde. When the case was appealed to it, the Court
of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Trial Court,
PAGE 61
of the offense in order to convict the defendant. [Mekin v. Wolfe
⟴ Double Jeopardy (2002) (1903)]
No IX. A Tamaraw FX driven by Asiong Cascasero, who was drunk,
(5) Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only but in effect
sideswiped a pedestrian along EDSA in Makati City, resulting in
imposes a penalty or deprivation of a right which when done
physical injuries to the latter. The public prosecutor filed two
was lawful.
separate informations against Cascasero, the first for reckless
(6) Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful
imprudence resulting in physical injuries under the Revised Penal
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
Code, and the second for violation of an ordinance of Makati City
proclamation of amnesty. [In re Kay Villegas Kami
prohibiting and penalizing driving under the influence of liquor.
(1970)]
Cascasero was arraigned, tried and convicted for reckless
imprudence resulting in physical injuries under the Revised Penal
The prohibition applies only to criminal legislation which affects
Code. With regard to the second case (i.e., violation of the city
the substantial rights of the accused. [Phil. National
ordinance), upon being arraigned, he filed a motion to quash the
Bank v. Ruperto (1960)]
information invoking his right against double jeopardy. He
contended that, under Art. III, Section 21 of the Constitution, if an
It applies to criminal procedural law prejudicial to the accused.
act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
[US v. Gomez (1908)]
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act He argued that the two criminal charges against him
It is improper to apply the prohibition to an executive
stemmed from the same act of driving allegedly under the
proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas
influence of liquor which caused the accident. Was there double
corpus. [Montenegro v. Castañeda (1952)]
jeopardy? Explain your answer (5%)
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
Yes, there is double jeopardy. Under the second sentence of Article
III, Section 21 of the Constitution, if an act is punished by a law and
⟴ An ex post facto law has been defined as one:
an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
bar to another prosecution for the same act. In this case, the same which aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was
act is involved in the two cases. The reckless imprudence which committed; (Republic vs. Eugenio, 545 SCRA 384)
resulted in physical injuries arose from the same act of driving
under the influence of liquor. In Yap v. Lutero, G.R. No. L-12669,
April 30, 1959, the Supreme Court held that an accused who was BILLS OF ATTAINDER
acquitted of driving recklessly in violation of an ordinance could A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment
not be prosecuted for damage to property through reckless without judicial trial. If the punishment be less than death, the act
imprudence because the two charges were based on the same act. is termed a bill of pains and penalties. Within the meaning of the
In People v, Relova, 148 SCRA 292 (1987), it was held that when Constitution, bills of attainder include bills of pains and penalties.
there is identity in the act punished by a law and an ordinance, [Cummings v. Missouri
conviction or acquittal under either shall bar prosecution under (1867)]
the other.
It is a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial
⟴ Double Jeopardy; Requisites (1999) function, or trial by legislature. [US v. Brown (1965)]
B. What are the requisites of double jeopardy?
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: ⟴ Bill of Attainder (1987)
As held in Cuison v. Court of Appeals, 289 SCRA 159, for a claim of
No. XI: Congress passed a law relating to officials and employees
double jeopardy to prosper, the following requisites must concur:
who had served in the Government for the period from September
(1) a first jeopardy has attached;
21, 1972 up to February 25, 1986.
(2) the first jeopardy was validly terminated; and
(3) the second is for the same offense.
(a) One provision of the law declared all officials from the rank of
assistant head of a department, bureau, office or agency "Unfit" for
A first jeopardy attaches:
continued service in the government and declared their respective
1 upon a valid complaint or information;
positions vacant.
2 before a competent court;
(b) Another provision required all the other officials and
3 after arraignment;
employees to take an oath of loyalty to the flag and government as
4 a valid entry of plea; and
a condition for their continued employment. Are the two
5 the dismissal or termination of the case without the express
provisions valid? Why?
consent of the accused
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
(a) The law is a bill of attainder by which Congress, by assuming
SECTION 22, ARTICLE III judicial magistracy, in effect declares all officials and employees
Ex Post Facto and Bills Of Attainder during martial law (September 21, 1972February 25, 1986) as
No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted. disloyal and, on this basis, removes some while subjecting others
to a loyalty test. With respect to the provision declaring positions
vacant, even the power to reorganize can not be invoked because
RA 1700 which declared the Communist Party of the Philippines
under the Freedom Constitution such power can be exercised
a clear and present danger to Philippine security, and thus
only by the President and only up to February 25, 1987. Since the
prohibited membership in such organization, was contended to
law under question was presumably passed after February 25,
be a bill of attainder. Although the law mentions the CPP in
1987 and by Congress, it is unconstitutional.
particular, its purpose is not to define a crime but only to lay a
basis or to justify the legislative determination that membership
(b) With respect to the provision requiring the loyalty test,
in such organization is a crime because of the clear and present
loyalty as a general rule is a relevant consideration in assessing
danger to national security. [People v. Ferrer (1972)]
employees' fitness. However, the requirement in this case is not a
general requirement but singles out "martial law" employees and
EX POST FACTO LAWS
therefore is administered in a discriminatory manner. Loyalty,
(1) Makes an action done before the passing of the law and which
therefore, while a relevant consideration in other circumstances,
was innocent when done criminal, and punishes such action.
is being employed in this case for an unconstitutional purpose.
(2) Aggravates a crime or makes it greater than when it was
committed.
(3) Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when it was committed.
(4) Alters the legal rules of evidence and receives less or different ⟴ Bill of Attainder (1990)
testimony than the law required at the time of the commission
PAGE 62
No. 1; Executive Orders Nos. 1 and 2 issued by President Corazon groups which held peaceful rallies in front of the Presidential
C. Aquino created the Presidential Commission on Good Palace to express their grievances.
Government (PCGG) and empowered it to sequester any property
shown prima facie to be ill-gotten wealth of the late President On the eve of the assassination attempt, John's men were caught
Marcos, his relatives and cronies. Executive Order No. 14 vests on by members of the Presidential Security Group. President Harry
the Sandiganbayan jurisdiction to try hidden wealth cases. On went on air threatening to prosecute plotters and dissidents of his
April 14, 1986, after an investigation, the PCGG sequestered the administration. The next day, the government charged John with
assets of X Corporation, Inc. assassination attempt and William with inciting to sedition.
John fled to Republic A. William, who was in Republic B attending
(1) X Corporation, Inc. claimed that President Aquino, as a lecture on democracy, was advised by his friends to stay in
President, could not lawfully issue Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and Republic B. Both Republic A and Republic B have conventional
14, which have the force of law, on the ground that legislation is a extradition treaties with Republic X.
function of Congress. Decide.
If Republic X requests the extradition of John and William, can
(2) Said corporation also questioned the validity of the three Republic A deny the request? Why? State your reason fully. (5%)
executive orders on the ground that they are bills of attainder and,
therefore, unconstitutional. Decide.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: Republic A can refuse to extradite John, because his offense is a
(1) Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 were issued in 1986. At political offense. John was plotting to take over the government
that time President Corazon Aquino exercised legislative power . and the plan of John to assassinate President Harry was part of
(2) Executive Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 14 are not bills of attainder. A such plan. However, if the extradition treaty contains an attentat
bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment clause, Republic A can extradite John, because under the attentat
without judicial trial. Accordingly, it was held in Bataan clause, the taking of the life or attempt against the life of a head of
Shipyards and Engineering company. Inc. v. Presidential state or that of the members of his family does not constitute a
Commission on Good Government, that Executive Orders Nos. 1, political offense and is therefore extraditable.
2 and 14 are not bills of attainder, because they do not inflict any
punishment. On the contrary, they expressly provide that any
judgment that the property sequestered is ill-gotten wealth is to
be made by a court (the Sandiganbayan) only after trial.
⟴ Extradition: Double Criminality (2007)
No. III. Lawrence is a Filipino computer expert based in Manila
who invented a virus that destroys all the files stored in a
computer. Assume that in May 2005, this virus spread all over the
⟴ Extradition; Effectivity of treaty (1996) world and caused $50 million in damage to property in the United
No. 6; 1) The Extradition Treaty between France and the States, and that in June 2005, he was criminally charged before
Philippines is silent as to its applicability with respect to crimes United States courts under their anti-hacker law. Assume that in
committed prior to its effectivity. July 2005, the Philippines adopted its own anti-hacker law, to
a) Can France demand the extradition of A, a French national strengthen existing sanctions already provided against damage to
residing in the Philippines, for an offense committed in France property. The United States has requested the Philippines to
prior to the effectivity of the treaty? Explain. extradite him to US courts under the RP-US Extradition Treaty.
b) Can A contest his extradition on the ground that it violates the a. Is the Philippines under an obligation to extradite Lawrence?
ex post facto provision of the Philippine Constitution? Explain. State the applicable rule and its rationale.
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS: ⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
1. a) Yes, France can ask for the extradition of A for an offense The Philippine is under no obligation to extradite Lawrence.
committed in France before the effectivity of the Extradition Under the principle of dual or double criminality, the crime must
Treaty between France and the Philippines. In Cleugh vs. Strakosh. be punishable in both the requesting and requested states to make
109 F2d 330, it was held that an extradition treaty applies to it extraditable. In this case, only the United States had anti-hacker
crimes committed before its effectivity unless the extradition law at the time of the commission of the crime in May 2005. The
treaty expressly exempts them. As Whiteman points out, rational for the principle of dual criminality rests “in part on the
extradition does not define crimes but merely provides a means basic principle of reciprocity” and “in part of the maxim nulla
by which a State may obtain the return and punishment of persons poena sine lege.” (LA Shearer, 1971 Extradition in International
charged with or convicted of having committed a crime who fled Law, Manchester University Press, Manchester, p. 137.)
the jurisdiction of the State whose law has been violated. It is
therefore immaterial whether at the time of the commission of the
crime for which extradition is sought no treaty was in existence. If b. Assume that the extradition request was made after the
at the time extradition is requested there is in force between the Philippines adopted its antihacker legislation. Will that change
requesting and "the requested States a treaty covering the offense your answer?
on which the request is based, the treaty is applicable. (Whiteman,
Digest of International Law, Vol. 6, pp. 753-754.)
⟴ SUGGESTED ANSWERS:
The Philippines is under no obligation to extradite Lawrence. The rule
is that the crime must be punishable in both countries at the time of
b) No, A cannot contest his extradition on the ground that it
the commission of the offense. Since there was yet no such crime in
violates the ex post facto provision of the Constitution. As held in
Wright vs. Court of Appeals, 235 SCRA 341, the prohibition against the Philippines at the time when the acts complained of were done,
ex post facto laws in Section 22, Article III of the Constitution in so far as the Philippines is concerned, Lawrence did not commit any
applies to penal laws only and does not apply to extradition crime; hence, an extradition of Lawrence is tantamount to an ex post
treaties. facto application of the Philippine anti-hacker law, prohibited by
section 22, Article III of the 1987 Constitution.
PAGE 63
(B) The State shall give priority to education, science and
technology, arts, culture, and sports to foster patriotism and
nationalism, accelerate social progress, and promote total human
liberation and development.
(C) The natural and primary right and duty of parents in the
rearing of the youth for civic efficiency and the development of
moral character shall receive the support of the Government.
PAGE 64
PAGE 65