Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Prepared by
BAR REVIEWER
(Political Law & Constitutional Law)
C.P.R.S. BAR REVIEW CENTER
Cagayan de Oro City, Zamboanga City, Davao City, Iligan City, Ozamis City, Iloilo
City, Baguio City,and Tacloban City,
POWERHAWS BAR REVIEW CENTER
Baguio City, Santiago City, Isabela, San Fernando City, La Union, Manila, Naga City,
Tacloban City, Dipolog City and Tagbilaran City
COSMOPOLITAN REVIEW CENTER (CRC)
University of the Cordilleras, Baguio City
EXCELLENT BAR REVIEW CENTER
Baguio City, Cebu City and Tacloban City
HOLY TRINITY COLLEGE PRE-BAR REVIEW CENTER
General Santos City
UNIVERSITY OF PANGASINAN BAR REVIEW CENTER
Dagupan City
3.
4.
5.
6.
e. ICHONG VS. HERNANDEZ, 101 Phil. 1155 (Retail Trade Nationalization Act
prohibiting foreigners from engaging in retail trade is a valid exercise of
police power tyo promote the economic stability of the Filipino people)
f. AGUSTIN VS. EDU, 88 SCRA 195 [Early warning device promotes public
safety to the motoring public and requiring every motor vehicle owner to
have one is a valid exercise of police power]
g. TAXICAB OPERATORS VS. BOT, 119 SCRA 597 (Phasing out of taxicabs
over 6 years old in Metro Manila is a valid exercise of police power to
promote public safety on the part of the riding public. However, even
taxicabs more than 6 years are still allowed outside MM because they are
not as dilapidated as those operating in Metro manila which are being used
24 hours daily)
h. ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS VS. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, 175 SCRA 343 (CARP Law is a valid exercise of police power and
power of eminent domain. It promotes general welfare on the part of the
people.)
i.
j.
PRC vs. De Guzman, et al., June 21, 2004 (Fatima College of Medicine
graduates had unusually and exceptionally high grades in the 2 most
difficult subjects of the exam, i.e., Biochemistry and Obstetrics and
Gynecology during the Medical Board Examination. The NBI investigation
revealed that they had early access to test questions. They cant compel
the PRC to give them their licenses. Valid exercise of police power by PRC
in not giving said licenses to practice medicine to safeguard the heath and
general welfare of the people)
Maliksi insists: (a) that he had the right to be notified of every incident of the
proceedings and to be present at every stage thereof; (b) that he was deprived of such
rights when he was not informed of the decryption, printing, and examination of the ballot
images by the First Division; (c) that the March 28, 2012 and April 17, 2012 orders of the
First Division did not sufficiently give him notice inasmuch as the orders did not state the
date, time, and venue of the decryption and printing of the ballot images; and (d) that he
was thus completely deprived of the opportunity to participate in the decryption
proceedings.
The Court grants Maliksis Extremely Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, and
reverses the decision promulgated on March 12, 2013 on the ground that the First Division
of the COMELEC denied to him the right to due process by failing to give due notice on the
decryption and printing of the ballot images. Consequently, the Court annuls the recount
proceedings conducted by the First Division with the use of the printouts of the ballot
images.
4
It bears stressing at the outset that the First Division should not have conducted the
assailed recount proceedings because it was then exercising appellate jurisdiction as to
which no existing rule of procedure allowed it to conduct a recount in the first instance. The
recount proceedings authorized under Section 6, Rule 15 of COMELEC Resolution No.
8804, as amended, are to be conducted by the COMELEC Divisions only in the exercise of
their exclusive original jurisdiction over all election protests involving elective regional (the
autonomous regions), provincial and city officials.
The Court, by this resolution, does not intend to validate the victory of any of the
parties in the 2010 Elections. That is not the concern of the Court as yet. The Court simply
does not want to countenance a denial of the fundamental right to due process, a
cornerstone of our legal system.
a. BANCO ESPANOL VS. PALANCA, 37 Phil. 92 (Four (4) Requisites of
judicial due process)
b. IMELDA MARCOS VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, October 6, 1998 (The
Sandiganbayan violated Imeldas right to due process of law when
Presiding Justice Garchitorena of the Sandiganbayan asked 179 crossexamination questions to the witness of Ms. Marcos. It is no longer a case
of asking clarificatory questions but cross-examination. Obviously, he has
allied himself to the cause of the prosecution. There is no more cold
neutrality of an impartial judge.
c. PEOPLE VS. OPIDA, June 13, 1986 (When the judge took over the crossexamination before the Prosecutor could start asking questions, asks
immaterial questions, order the accused to remove his shirt and describe
the tattoos in his body for the record and after asking insulting questions
tells the accused Do you want me to dictate the decision now? clearly
shows his bias against the accused. No more impartial trial. He has clearly
prejudged the case.
d. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. BENANCIO MORTERA, G.R. No.
188104, April 23, 2010 [There is no violation of the right to due process
and impartial trial as a result of the comment of the Judge that if you are
not telling the truth to your own lawyer, how would I know that you
are telling the truth now as a result of his change of defense from a
negative defense to self-defense in a murder case.
e. DELGADO VS. CA, November 10, 1986 (The accused was represented
by a non-lawyer during the trial of her case for estafa. She was not
aware that Atty. Ico is not a member of the bar. She is entitled to a new
trial since her right to due process was violated. Even if a real lawyer
appeared for her on appeal, such defect was not cured since on
appeal, the evidence presented by the non-lawyer will still be the
basis in deciding said appeal)
f.Consulta vs. People, February 12, 2009 (He was represented during the
presentation of prosecutions evidence by one Atty. Jocelyn P. Reyes who
turned out to be a non-lawyer. He was represented by a PAO Lawyer
5
PLDT VS. TIAMZON, 474 SCRA 761. A party like the PLDT could not present
an evidence to justify its act of dismissing the private respondent for the first time
on appeal without violating the right of the employee to due process of law. This
is so because the employee waqs dismissed based on a different ground which
he was able to prove to be false and unsubstantiated.
b. ATTY. ROMEO ERECE VS. MACALINGAY, ET AL., G.R. No. 166809, April 22,
2008 (No right to cross-examine the complainant and witnesses in an
administrative case nor a formal hearing required as long as the parties were
already given the opportunity to present evidence, i.e., counter-affidavit and
affidavit of witnesses)
c. DATUFAX MANGUDADATU VS. HRET, December 18, 2008 (Summons by
registered mail is not valid since it is not one of the modes of service of summons
under the Rules of the HRET or the Rules of Court. Violation of the right to due
process)
d. DEP ED VS. CUANAN, December 16, 2008 (Not furnished a copy of the Motion
for Reconsideration of DepED before the Civil Service Commission even though
the private complainants did not question the Decision of the CSC anymore. The
right to due process of Cuanan was violated when the CSC reversed its decision
based on the Motion for Reconsideration where no notice was given to Cuanan)
4. Procedural due process in disciplinary actions against students
6
There is no violation of the right to due process when the group of Drilon expelled
Atienza and company without notice and hearing because administrative due process in
accordance with Ang Tibay could be invoked only in bodies created by the State
through which governmental acts or functions are performed. In this case, it was
purely private matter among members of the Liberal Party.
CHAPTER III
Section 1
THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
ELEAZAR QUINTO VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 189698, February 22, 2010,
reversing the Decision dated December 1, 2009, Per CJ Puno. There is no
violation of the right to equal protection if appointed government employees
arfe deemed automatically resigned from their work if they file their certificates
of candidacy while elected officials may continue discharging their duties even
if they have filed their certificates of candidacy. This is so because there is real
and substantial distinction. That is, their term of office is mandated by the
Constitution to be 3 or 6 years ending up to noon of June 30 following their
assumption of office. This cannot be amended or repealed by mere legislation
(Mancuso vs. Taft was abandoned and reversed in US Civil Service
Commission vs. National Association of Letter Carriers, AFL-CIO and
Broadrick vs. State of Oklahoma)
7
VICTORIA GUTTIERREZ VS. DBM, G.R. No.153266, March 18, 2010. [Inclusion of
allowances and other fringe benefits for government workers in the national
government, state universities and colleges, including those in the local government
under the Compensation and Position classification Act of 1989 while those in the
AFP and PNP did not, does not violate the equal protection clause because there is
real and substantial distinction. Being charged of the actual defense of the country,
uniformed personnel of the government are expected to be stationed virtually
anywhere in the country. They are likely to be assigned to a variety of low, moderate
and high cost areas. Since their basic pay does not vary on location, the continued
grant of COLA is intended to help them offset the effects of living in higher cost
areas.
Gumabon vs. Director of Prisons, 37 SCRA 420 (Later decision of the SC stating
that there is no such thing as rebellion complexed with murder and therefore, the
convicts shall serve only 6 years shall also apply to those earlier convicted of
rebellion complexed with murder. Otherwise, there will be violation of the equal
protection clause.
Taxicab Operators vs. BOT, September 30,l982 [Theres a valid distinction when
taxicabs in Baguio City may be allowed to be used even after 6 years while Manila
taxicabs should be phased out after 6 years. The real and substantial distinction
being that the latter are used 24 hours daily while the former are used only for few
hours and as such, after 6 years, their taxicabs are already dilapidated and
dangerous to the riding public]
CHAPTER IV
Section 2
THE SEARCH
AND SEIZURE PROVISION
10
PEOPLE VS. CA, 291 SCRA 400 The search warrant says the [4-door apartment
at the rear of Abigail Variety Store in QC, not Abigail Variety store]
NOTE: In TAMBASEN VS. PEOPLE, July 14, 1995 and People vs. CA, 216 SCRA 101,
the Supreme Court described a search warrant for estafa, robbery, theft and qualified theft
as SCATTER-SHOT WARRANT
2. Bache vs. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 [The clerk of court received the evidence of the
applicant for a search warrant while the judge was hearing a case. The fact that the judge
later on asked the complainant and his witnesses whether their testimony is true and they
said yes did not validate the issuance of the search warrant]
2-a. Pendon vs. CA, Nov. 16, 1990 [When the questions asked by the judge to the
applicant are pre-typed, the search warrant is not valid since there could have been no
searching questions]
1-b. Quintero vs. NBI, 162 SCRA 467 [Searching parties searched different rooms
simultaneously thereby resulting in no witnesses in the other rooms when searched
because the witnesses are in another room. Clearly, the search is not valid for lack of one
requisite]
1-d. SOLIVEN & BELTRAN VS. MAKASIAR, NOVEMBER 18, 1988 (There is no
need for the complainant and her witnesses to be personally examined by a judge before he
10
11
issues a warrant of arrest provided he has their affidavits infront of him and upon reading it,
he is convinced of the presence of probable cause)
2-a. P. vs. Villanueva, 110 SCRA 465 (The judge may validly refuse to issue
warrants of arrest if he believes that there is no probable cause for their issuance
despite the findings of probable cause by the filing Prosecutor since that was for
purposes of filing only. The two (2) probable causes are different from one another
(Please see Leviste vs. People, supra))
7.JUAN PONCE ENRILE VS. JUDGE JAIME SALAZAR, ET AL., G.R.NO. 92163,
June 5, 1990 [Warrant of arrest issued against Senator Enrile after 1 hour and 20 minutes
from receipt of the records of the case consisting of several thousands of pages is valid.
There is no need to read all the affidavits or evidence in the record of a criminal case before
the Judge could issue a warrant of arrest. It is sufficient that he is convinced of the
existence of probable cause upon reading several affidavits]
d. Warrantless searches and seizures--when valid or not. Is "Operation Kapkap" valid?
Warrantless search of alleged obscene magazines.
Read:
PEOPLE VS. MENGOTE, G.R. No. 87059, June, 1992 [Arrest or search
without warrant because of a bulging tummy which looks like a gun tucked therein is not
valid. There was no personal knowledge nor probable cause on the part of the police]
PEOPLE VS. GO, 354 SCRA 338 [Search of a gun which could be seen
tucked in the waist of the accused in a nightclub is valid based on the plain view
doctrine. Likewise, the sachets of shabu seen by a policeman who arrested the
accused on the front seat of his car when he opened it is admissible under the plain
view doctrine]
MANALILI VS. PEOPLE, October 9, 1997 [The policemen saw several suspiciouslooking men at dawn and when they approached said persons, they ran but were caught.
The unlicensed firearm confiscated after the policemen searched them is admissible]
PITA VS. CA, 178 SCRA 362 [Requisites before the Mayor could confiscate
magazines which are allegedly obscene]
1. He must apply for a search warrant with the court;
2. Convince the court that the magazine is indeed obscene.
3. He can make seizures only after a search warrant is issued.
Note: The Mayor could not justify warrantless search based on police power. This is so
because he will be the complainant, prosecutor and judge rolled into one if that is allowed.
Also, only a judge could declare that the publication is obscene, not the mayor or any
other public official.
Warrantless Search and seizure by a private person is valid.
12
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ANDRE MARTI, G.R. NO. 81561, January 18,
1991
13
b.
PEOPLE VS. DAMASO, 212 SCRA 547 (The police saw the
M14 Rifle on top of a table inside he rented apartment of the
accused AFTER THE OWNER OF SAID APARTMENT OPENED
IT WITH HER OWN KEY. Seizure of the gun cannot be
justified under the plain view doctrine because they were
looking for evidence at that time and something was done
before they saw it. It was not inadvertently found.
Search of Hot Logs under the Forestry Code may be seized without warrant
MUSTANG LUMBER VS. CA, 257 SCRA 430
If the judge finds that there's probable cause, must he issue a warrant of arrest as a
matter of course?
1. Samulde vs. Salvani, September 26, 1988 (Not necessarily if it involves a
minor offense provided he is sure that the accused will appear in court
whenever his case is scheduled for trial)
2. GOZO VS. TAC-AN, 300 SCRA 265 (Yes, he must because the case is for
Murder and as such, the accused must be in jail for a non-bailable offense
Searching questions
13
14
1. Century Fox vs. CA, 164 SCRA 655 (The master tape must be presented if one
alleges that the tapes to be seized are illegal and pirated]; otherwise, the search
warrant is not valid)
2. COLUMBIA PICTURES VS. CA, 261 SCRA 144
CHAPTER IV-A
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY
14
15
1. OPLE VS. TORRES, July 23, 1998 [National ID System (Admin. Order No. 308,
December 12, 1996 of President Ramos) through biometrics technology where
the people will have to furnish the government with their fingerprints, retinal
scan, hand geometry, facial features and others to be stored in a super
computer. Held: Since there is no safeguard that these informations will not be
used illegally, the EO is unconstitutional. It falls short of assuring that personal
information gathered from the people will be used for the specified purposes
without violating the citizens right to privacy.
2. ZULUETA VS. CA, February 10, 1996 [The intimacies of husband and wife
does not justify the latter from breaking cabinets in the clinic of the
physician-husband and take the diaries, checks, greeting cards, pictures of his
alleged paramours]
3. KMU VS. ERMITA, & BAYAN MUNA VS. ERMITA, April 19, 2006 & June 20,
2006 [Proclamation No. 420 of GMA requiring mandatory ID system is valid
because it applies only to national government employees and within her power
of control under Section 17, Art. VII of the Constitution]
4. SABIO VS. GORDON, October 17, 2006 [Limited right to privacy of government
officials]
CHAPTER V
FREEDOM OF SPEECH,
PRESS, EXPRESSION, etc.
15
16
Baguio Midland Courier vs. CA & Ramon Labo, Jr., 444 SCRA 28 (A private
individual running for public office may be the subject of criticism like a public official
in order for the electorates to see his merits and demerits under the public figure
doctrine.
PABLITO V. SANIDAD VS. COMELEC, G.R. NO. 90878, January 29, 1990 [The
State could not dictate the time and place for a citizen to exercise his freedom of
speech, expression or of the press UNLESS there is clear and present danger]
De la Cruz vs. Ela, 99 Phil. 346 (The mayor could validly transfer the place where
members of the Jehovah witnesses will conduct their prayer-rally if there is clear
and present danger as a result of the previous violence that took place before
involving said religious sect and the members of the Roman Catholic Church.)
The act of the mayor in denying the application for a rally permit by the IBP at the
foot of Mendiola Bridge on June 22, 2006 from 230 pm to 530 pm and instead allow them to
hold said rally at the Plaza Miranda is unconstitutional. It violates the right to freedom of
expression and public assembly. This is so because under Section 6 [e] of BP 880 or the
Public Assembly Act of 1985 which provides that if the Mayor is of the view that there is
imminent and grave danger of a substantive evil warranting the denial or modification of the
permit, HE SHALL IMMEDIATELY INFORM THE APPLICANT WHO MUST BE HEARD
ON THE MATTER. The opportunity to be heard precedes the action on the permit, since the
applicant may directly go to court after an unfavorable action on the permit.
16
17
1-a. Gesite vs. CA, 444 SCRA 28 [Concerted mass actions by government officials,
teachers in this case, like walkouts, mass leaves, and other work stoppage or absence
from work are prohibited because it is tantamount to strike which is prohibited to
government employees.
1-b. Bayan vs. Ermita, 488 SCRA 1 (Calibrated Pre-emptive Response is not
allowed. Instead, the police should observe the Maximum Tolerance Rule. As long as
there is no violence taking place during the rally, the Police may not validly disperse
the rallyists just because the police believes that their utterances are libelous or
seditious)
1-c. Randy David vs. Ermita, 489 SCRA 160
Reyes vs. Bagatsing, 125 SCRA 553; see
guidelines for rallies but note the
same was amended by the Public Assembly Act and IBP vs. Atienza
Read:
1. Newsounds Broadcasting Network vs. Hon. Ceasar Dy, April 2, 2009 [Closure of
the Bombo AM and FM stations allegedly because their building is on an agricultural land
and therefore, the Mayor did not issue a Business Permit and even ordered its closure is
tantamount to prior restrain. City of Cauayan shall pay the radio stations P10M in damages
and P1M in attorneys fees.
1-a. Bro. Eliseo Soriano vs. MTRCB, April 29, 2009 (Read also the dissenting opinion
of Justice Antonio Carpio) [Suspension for 3 months of the program Ang Dating Daan and 3
months suspension of the host Bro. Eli Soriano is not prior restraint but subsequent
punishment. The questioned utterances of Bro. Eli Soriano is quoted as follows:
August 10, 2004 at 10 p.m.
Lehitimong anak ng demonyo, sinungaling.
Gago ka talaga Michael (referring to the host of the INCs program ang
Tamang Daan) , masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba? Yung putang babae
and gumagana lang duon ay ang ibaba. Kay Michael, ang gumagana ang itaas,
o di ba? Masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga
demonyong ito.
18
Lagunzad vs. Gonzales, 92 SCRA 476 (The mother of the late Moises Padilla may
validly object to a film showing the alleged many girlfriends of her late son who was
murdered to protect the privacy or memory of her late son. The right to privacy
prevailed over the freedom of expression in this case. The producer is only after
profits while the mother is after the good reputation of her son from the eyes of the
people.)
CHAPTER VI
THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT
OF RELIGION CLAUSE
18
19
Requisites before a member of the Jehovahs Witnesses may validly excuse himself
from criminal or administrative liability for living with another person who is not his wife or
husband:
a. Must be a member of the Jehovahs Witnesses and the Watch Tower
Society;
b. The conjugal arrangement was in conformity with their religious
beliefs;
c. The conjugal arrangement was with the conformity of the
congregation;
d. Execute Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness.
PEOPLE VS. LAGMAN & ZOSA, 38 O.G. 1676, refusal to join the armed forces
on religious grounds is not tenable because of the mandatory requirement of
Section 4, Art. II of the 1987 Constitution.
INK vs. Gironella, 106 SCRA 1 [The judge described the act of members of
Iglesia ni Cristo from always present in his court during the trial of a rape
case where the complainant is an INC member as Gimmick. The
Supreme Court held that the said comment hurts the sensibilities of the
INC members and violates their freedom of religion]
American Bible Society vs. City of Manila, 101
Phil. 398
Pamil vs. Teleron, November 20, 1978
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Rope, 59 SCRA 54 [Religious belief not to join unions is
superior over the collective bargaining agreement]
German vs. Barangan, 135 SCRA 514 (The exercise of freedom of religion
must be done in good faith)
Gerona vs. Sec. of Education, 106 Phil. 11 [1959]
EBRALINAG VS. SUPT. OF CEBU, March 1, 1993 (Members of the Jehovahs
witnesses may not be forced to sing the national anthem, salute the flag
and recite the patriotic pledge during flag ceremonies if it is against their
religion. Said constitutional right prevails over the Flag Salute Law.
ANG LADLAD [LGBT---LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL and TRANSGENDER]
PARTY VS. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190582, April 8, 2010 (The fact that their
belief---same sex marriage---is allegedly not sanctioned by the Bible or the
Koran is not a valid ground to disqualify Ang Ladlad from participating in
the party-list elections.
CHAPTER VII
THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO TRAVEL
20
21
RE:
REQUEST
OF
PHILIPPINE
CENTER
FOR
INVESTIGATIVE JOURNALISM [PCIJ] FOR THE 2008
STATEMENT OF ASSETS, LIABILITIES AND NET WORTH
[SALN] AND PERSONAL DATA SHEETS OF THE COURT
OF APPEALS JUSTICES, A.M. No. 09-8-07-CA, June 13,
2012
It is within the right to information on matters of public concern or access to official
records, etc., to request for copies of SALN of justices and judges---subject to the
guidelines set forth by the Supreme Court.
PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO VS. GRP (MOA-AD Case. There is violation of the
right to information when suddenly, and without any consultation to the people of Mindanao,
the government will sign already a Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain
granting the MILF broad powers over many provinces in Mandanao to form part of the
Bangsamoro Juridical Entity )
AKBAYAN VS. THOMAS AQUINO, July 16, 2008 (The JEPEPA Case) There is no
violation of the right to information on matters of public concern if the President did not
furnish the petitioner a copy of the JPEPA for its comment and suggestions before the
President signs the same to become a treaty because the said petitioner could still voice out
its comments and suggestions before the Senate which shall still conduct hearings before
ratifying or rejecting it.
HAZEL ANTOLIN VS. ATTY. ABELARDO DOMONDON, ET AL., G.R. No. 165036, July 5,
2010 ( Petitioner may validly demand for a copy of the test questions, her answers or test
booklets, and copies of the answers by the examiners of the Accountancy Board
Examination in accordance with her right to information. The fact that she has passed the
exam on her second try does not make her request moot and academic.
3. Bantay Republika vs. COMELEC, 523 SCRA 1 (The provision of the Party-List
Law prohibiting the COMELEC from divulging to the public the nominees of the
party-list groups is unconstitutional. It violates the right of the people to
information on matters of public concern.
CHAPTER X
THE POWER
OF EMINENT DOMAIN
21
22
Procedure for the exercise of said power and when may a writ of possession be
issued in favor of the government
BIGLANG-AWA VS. JUDGE BACALLA, 354 SCRA 562 (The requisites in order
to be entitled to a writ of possession in ordinary expropriation are: [1] Filing of
a petition for expropriation sufficient in form and in substance; and [2]
Deposit 100% of the assessed value of the property based on the latest tax
declaration.
CITY OF ILOILO VS. JUDGE LEGASPI, 444 SCRA 269 (The requisites in order
to have a writ of possession in expropriation cases involving a local
government unit: [1} Filing of a petition for expropriation sufficient in form
and in substance; and [2] Deposit 15% of the market value of the property
based on the latest tax declaration.
REPUBLIC VS. JUDGE GINGOYON, 478 SCRA 474 [RA NO. 8974 APPLIES TO
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS, NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE
PROJECTS, AND BUILD OPERATE TRANSFER PROJECTS OF THE
GOVERNMEN ONLY] REQUISITES IN ORDER TO BE ENTITLED TO A WRIT OF
POSSESSION IN NATIONAL GOVERNMENT PROJECTS, ETC.
[1} Filing of a petition for expropriation sufficient in form and in
substance; and [2] Deposit 100% of the market value of the property
based on the latest tax declaration or its zonal value.
However, if the expropriated land will not be used for the purpose for which it was
intended, the landowner may ask for its reversion.
Read:
MACTAN-CEBU INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY VS. LOZADA, JR., ET
AL., G.R. No. 176625, February 25, 2010
Taking of private property through expropriation is always subject to the
condition that the property be devoted to the specific purpose for which it was taken.
Corollarily, if the particular purpose or intent was abandoned, then the former owners
if they desire, may seek the reversion of their property by:
[1] returning the amount of just compensation received
[2] plus legal interest
[3] plus necessary expenses incurred in maintaining the lot as well as the
[4] pecuniary value of their services in managing it to the extent that the landowner
will be benefited thereby.
When the Lahug Airport in Cebu City was no longer in operation, said lands
intended for its expansion can no longer be used for the purpose for which it was
intended. As such, reversion is justified.
22
23
BERKENKOTTER VS. CA, December 14, 1992 (In this case, the Supreme Court
declared that the just compensation to be paid by the government was not what the
trial court and the commissioners had found it to be but an amount much much
lower because it was found out that the landowner, in a deed of sale in favor of a
private corporation, sold an adjacent portion of the lot at a very low price. The SC
held that with more reason that the government should only pay the same lower
amount since it will be for public purposeeven if it believes that petitioner
undervalued its sale to the private corporation in order to cheat the government of
capital and documentary stamps tax. In closing, the Supreme Court held that this
should serve as a warning to taxpayers not to undervalue their property in the deed
of sale),
Manotok vs. CA, May 21,1987 (Just compensation is not what the government want
to pay the landowner, nor what the landowner wants the government to pay his
property, but it is the amount determined by the court as the just value of the
property by taking into account several factors to determine just compensation)
23
24
PEOPLE VS. MAHINAY, February 1, 1999 [11 rights of the suspect under custodial
investigation which expanded the Miranda Doctrine. It is now called the Expanded
Miranda Doctrine or the Mahinay Docxtrine.
LUMANOG VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 182555, September 7, 2010 (ROLANDO ABDILLA
CASE)
Even if the extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence if there are other
evidence sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, still, the
accused may be convicted.
1-a. Requisites of a valid extrajudicial confession:
24
25
PEOPLE VS. ANTONIO LAUGA, G.R. No. 186228, March 15, 2010
When there is no need to inform the accused/suspect of his rights nor is there
a need for the assistance of counsel, that is, if there is voluntary and
spontaneous confession or admission of the person even before he could be
informed of his rights
1. PEOPLE VS. TAMPUS, MARCH 28, 1980 [A convict in New
Bilibib confessed to the jail guards spontaneously of having
killed a member of the other gang therein]
2. P VS. TAYLARAN, 108 SCRA 373 [The accused went to
the police and said: I killed my mother-in-law since she
is a barang. The confession is admissible because he
uttered it to the police when he voluntarily surrendered. It
was voluntary and spontaneous]
26
27
3. PEOPLE VS. JEREZ, 285 SCRA 393 [However, a lawyer provided by the
investigators to the suspect during custodial investigation is deemed engaged by the
accused WHERE HE NEVER RAISED ANY OBJECTION AGAINST THE
FORMERS APPOINTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF THE INVESTIGATION
AND THE ACCUSED THEREAFTER SUBSCRIBES TO THE VERACITY OF HIS
STATEMENT BEFORE THE FISCAL.
4. PEOPLE VS. REYES, G.R. No. 178300, March 17, 2009 [PAOCTF of Col. Cesar
Mancao] [Chua Ong Ping Sim and Raymond Yao were strangled to death after they
were kidnapped though the parents agreed to the P5M ransom. When arrested, the
suspects were provided by the PAOCTF Investigator, COL. CESAR MANCAO,
ATTY. UMINGA and ATTY. ROUS to assist them. Both lawyers are lawyers of
PAOCTF or friends of the PAOCTF officials. They informed them of their rights and
assisted them during the entire time of the investigation. The SC said the
confessions are admissible. This is so because a confession is admissible
when:
a. where the accused failed to present credible evidence of compulsion or
duress or violence on their persons;
b. where they failed to complain to the officers who administered the
oaths;
c. where they did not institute any criminal or administrative action
against their alleged intimidators for maltreatment;
d. where there appeared to be no marks of violence on their bodies; and
e. where they did not have themselves examined by a reputable physician
to buttress their claim. (People vs. PIA, 229 Phil. 577 [1986]
The presence of a lawyer is not intended to stop an accused from saying
anything which might incriminate him; but rather, it was adopted in our Constitution to
preclude the slightest coercion on the accused to admit something else. THE COUNSEL
SHOULD NEVER PREVENT AN ACCUSED FROM FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY
TELLING THE TRUTH. (PEOPLE VS. BASE, 385 Phil. 803 [2000]
5. PEOPLE VS. MARCOS JIMENEZ, G.R. No. 82604, December 10, 1991 [The
lawyer who assists the suspect under custodial investigation should be the latters
choice and not merely foisted on him by the police. ALSO, THE LAWYER SHALL BE
PRESENT TO ASSIST HIM FROM THE FIRST QUESTION ASKED OF HIM]
6. PEOPLE VS. JUANERIO, 267 SCRA 608 The suspect was Assisted by a lawyer
applying at the NBI, and who was accepted as NBI Investigator several days later.
Not valid confession. There is violation of the right to counsel because said lawyer
could not be considered competent and independent counsel of his own choice]
7. Could the Fiscal also represent the accused, who is his kumpare, during
custodial investigation to satisfy the requirement of the Constitution that the accused
must be assisted by counsel? In P. vs. Matos-Viduaya, September 11, 1990, the
Supreme Court held No. The Fiscal is representing the complainant or the
People of the Philippines so as if the accusede had no lawyer during the
custodial investigation)
27
28
CHAPTER XIII
THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL
29
strong which normally, is not bailable. Yet, he was allowed bail considering
that the probability of flight is nil. He just graduated from the UP College of
Law with honors and will be reviewing and taking the Bar Examinations.
4.
Villasenor vs. Abano, 21 SCRA 312 [Please memorize the 10 Factors to consider
in granting bailwhich later on became Section 9, Rule 114 of the December 1,
2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure]
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
29
30
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until
the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and
counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him,
to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face,
and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the
production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused: Provided, that he has
been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.
1. P vs. Terrobias, 103 SCRA 321 [One week trial and conviction does not violate the
right to due process because all the requisites of due process in judicial proceedings as
enumerated in Banco Espanol vs. Palanca are all present.]
PEOPLE VS. MALBOG, October 12, 2000 , 342 SCRA 620. When the
alleged rape victim was left in the motel for 45 minutes by the accused
for him to buy her a new dress, her nursing uniform being crumpled and
stained with semen and when she did not leave nor seek help from hotel
authorities because she is ashamed of her outfit, the Supreme Court
held that such act is unbelievable and contrary to common human
experience. She gave more importance to her looks than the possibility
that the accused will rape her again when he returns. The Supreme
Court held that in consonance with the presumption of innocence on
the part of the accused, Mas vale que queden castigar diez
presuntos, que se castigue uno inocente. [It is better to acquit ten (10)
accused who are possibly guilty of the crime they are charged of than to
convict one who is innocent]
MALILLIN VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 172953, April 30, 2008 (Search of shabu
inside the room was conducted with a warrant. Several policemen with
witnesses participated. When the witnesses have left the room since no
shabu was found, one policeman who was left suddenly said he found a
shabu. Presumption of innocence applicable to support acquittal. It is
unbelievable)
31
Read:
1. Alejandro vs. Pepito, 96 SCRA 322 [Reverse Order of trial not allowed]
2. Sacay vs. Sandiganbayan, July 10, l986 [Reverse order of trial is valid if the
accused consents thereto]
3.Sec. 3(3), Rule 119 , 2000 Rules on Criminal
Procedure , as amended.
3-a. Presumption of innocence in drugs cases/Obligations of arresting officers/Chain of
Evidence Rule under Section 21 of RA No. 9165
Read:
PEOPLE VS. PAJARIN, G.R. NO. 190460, January 12, 2011
If the alleged shabu was not marked by the arresting officers after the buy-bust
operation at the place where the arrest and seizure were made but marked by
the investigator when it was turned over in the police station, there is violation
of Section 21 and the accused shall be acquitted based on his presumption of
innocence. The integrity of the shabu is now doubtful.
PEOPLE VS. LORENZO, GR NO. 184760. April 23, 2010 (Non-compliance by the
arresting officers of Section 21) of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act entitles
the accused to acquittal based on his presumption of innocence)
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SAPIA ANDONGAN, G.R. No. 184595, June
29, 2010
The presumption of regularity in the performance of
official duties could not prevail over the presumption of
innocence in favor of the accused.
For, among other things, it is incredible for an allegedly
known drug-peddler to be standing at a corner of a street at
7:50 in the evening instead of plying her trade secretly, and with
only a 0.146-gram sachet worth P500.00 of prohibited drugs in
her possession the value of which happens to be what a
poseur-buyer wants to buy.
PEOPLE VS. RONALDO DE GUZMAN, G.R. No. 186498, March 26, 2010
JULIUS CACAO VS. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 180870, January 22, 2020. Conflict of
the testimonies of prosecution witnesses on who delivered the seized
evidence to the evidence custodian entitles the accused to acquittal based on
his constitutional presumption of innocence.
31
32
In People vs. Laxa, the policemen composing the buy-bust team failed to
mark the confiscated marijuana immediately after the alleged
apprehension of the accused-appellant. One policeman admitted that he
marked the seized items only after seeing them for the first time in the
police headquarters.
PEOPLE VS. OBMIRANIS, December 16, 2008
MALLILLIN VS. PEOPLE, April 30, 2008
PEOPLE VS. MONALYN CERVANTES, March 17, 2009
PEOPLE VS. MARIAN CORECHE, August 14, 2009
PEOPLE VS. PARTOZA, May 8, 2009
PEOPLE VS. JOHN HILARIO, G.R. No. 161070, April 14, 2008
Even if the decision of conviction is already final and executory, the case may be reopened IF THERE IS GROSS NEGLIGENCE COMMITTED BY COUNSEL THEREBY
VIOLATING THE RIGHT OF THE SAID ACCUSED TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW . Two
32
33
counts of murder with conviction, he directed his PAO Lawyer to file appeal but he failed.
His Petition for Relief is granted)
Requisites:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
33
34
Promulgation of the Decision. He claimed there is a gross violation of his right to speedy
trial
Held:
THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL WAS
VIOLATED CANNOT BE BASED ON MERE MATHEMATICAL RECKONING OF TIME.
PARTICULAR REGARD TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL ALSO BE
CONSIDERED]
The delay must be VEXATIOUS, CAPRICIOUS AND OPPRESSIVE TO VALIDLY
INVOKE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL and this is so if the following
requisites are satisfied:
a. Length of the delay;
b. Reasons for the delay;
c. Assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused; and
d. Prejudiced caused by the delay.
1. Tatad vs. SB, 159 SCRA 70
2. DUTERTE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 289 SCRA 721 (On February 18, 1992, the
case was submitted for Resolution by OMB and the Information was filed only
on February 22, 1996. Violation of the right to speedy disposition of cases is
very obvious)
3. ANGCHANGCO VS. OMBUDSMAN, 269 SCRA 301 (October 22, 1999 when the
complaint was filed against him before the Ombudsman up to May 26, 2004, no
case filed whether administrative or criminal against a government employee
who long retired. There is violation of speedy disposition of cases)
4. CAPT. WILFREDO ROQUERO VS. THE CHANCELLOR OF UP MANILA, G.R. No.
181851, March 9, 2010
No formal offer of evidence by the complainant against him for 5 years is a clear
violation of his right to speedy disposition of cases. The administrative case shall be
dismissed.
34
35
1. Garcia vs. Domingo, July 25,1973 (Hearing held inside the chambers of the
Judge on Saturdays, without objection on the part of the parties do not violate the
accuseds right to public trial as long as there is no showing that people who wanted
to watch the proceedings were prevented from doing so)
1. P vs. Tampus, March 28,1980 (Trial inside New Bilibid Prison for a convict
therein instead of thetrial to be held in the premises of the CFI or RTC of
Muntinlupa did not violate the right to public trial on the part of the
accused.
accusation
36
1-a. P vs. Crisologo, 150 SCRA 653 (A deaf-mute accused is entitled to a sign
language interpreter from arraignment up to promulgation. Absence of said
interpreter violates his right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation
against him and that his conviction shall be set aside in favor of a new trial.
1-c. P vs. Resavaga, 159 SCRA 426 (While the caption of the criminal case shows
that he is being charged of Homicide, he can be convicted of Murder if the
evidence so warrant. There is no violation of the right to be informed of the cause
and accusation against him because the information read to him alleges treachery
and evident premeditation. He was therefore informed of the murder charge against
him. The material allegations prevail over the caption.
2. Ko Bu Lin vs. CA, 118 SCRA 573
right of confrontation
Trial in absentia
36
37
P vs. Salas, 143 SCRA 163 (An accused who jumped bail after he was
arraigned may be convicted for murder if the evidence so warrants. It was
grave abuse of discretion on the part of the RTC to declare in its Decision
that he shall be tried after his arrest. There is a valid trial in absentia.
evidence.
38
38
39
1. P vs. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647 [It is cruel and unusual if the penalty is
disproportionate to the crime committed and shocking to the
conscience of the community]
2. People vs. Villanueva, 128 SCRA 488;
3. VENIEGAS VS. PEOPLE, 115 SCRA 79;
4. PEOPLE VS. CAMANO, 115 SCRA 688
CHAPTER XX
THE RIGHT
AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
40
40
41
42
43
Note:
Dismissal of a criminal case based on :
1. speedy trial; or
2. Demurrer to Evidence
-is equivalent to acquittal and as such, all the requisites are present to invoke
double jeopardy.
Indeed, the dismissal was with his consent and it seems, the 4 th requisite is
not present because there was consent to the dismissal since he himself was
the one who moved for it. Such an interpretation is not correct because the
applicable one is : The accused was : a. acquitted.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. SANDIGANBAYAN,
IMELDA MARCOS, JOSE CONRADO BENITEZ and
GILBERT DULAY, G.R. No. 153304-05, February 7, 2012
As a rule, once the court grants the demurrer, the grant amounts to
an acquittal; any further prosecution of the accused would violate the constitutional
proscription on double jeopardy, PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 559 SCRA 449.
Notably, the proscription against double jeopardy only envisages appeals based on errors of
judgment, but not errors of jurisdiction. Jurisprudence recognizes two grounds where double
jeopardy will not attach, these are: (i) on the ground of grave abuse of discretion
amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction, PEOPLE VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, 491
SCRA 185, June 16, 2000; and/or (ii) where there is a denial of a partys due process
rights, PEOPLE VS. VELASCO, 340 SCRA 207, SEPTEMBER 13, 2000.
A judgment of acquittal sought to be reviewed on the basis of grave abuse of
discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction or on the ground of denial of due
process implies an invalid or otherwise void judgment. If either or both grounds are
established, the judgment of acquittal is considered void; as a void judgment, it is legally
inexistent and does not have the effect of an acquittal. Thus, the defense of double jeopardy
will not lie in such a case.
The petitioner claims that the special prosecutor failed in her duty to give effective
legal representation to enable the State to fully present its case against the respondents,
citing Merciales v. Court of Appeals where we considered the following factual
circumstances - (1) the public prosecutor rested the case knowing fully well that the
evidence adduced was insufficient; (2) the refusal of the public prosecutor to present other
witnesses available to take the stand; (3) the knowledge of the trial court of the
insufficiency of the prosecutions evidence when the demurrer to evidence was filed before
it; and (4) the trial courts failure to require the presentation of additional evidence before it
acted on the demurrer to evidence. All these circumstances effectively resulted in the
denial of the States right to due process, attributable to the inaction of the public
prosecutor and/or the trial court.
Merciales was followed by Valencia v. Sandiganbayan, 473 SCRA 279, where we
recognized the violation of the States right to due process in criminal proceedings
because of sufficient showing that the special prosecutor haphazardly handled the
43
44
prosecution. In upholding the prosecutions right to present additional evidence under the
circumstances, Valencia took into account the fact that the former special prosecutor
rested his case solely on the basis of a Joint Stipulation of Facts that was not even signed
by the accused.
Speedy trial; double jeopardy when not
applicable in petition under Rule 65
to
increase the penalty as a result of grave
abuse of discretion
ARTEMIO VILLAREAL VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,
G.R. No. 151258, February 1, 2012 AND people of the
Philippines vs. THE HOMORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, et
al., G.R. No. 154954, February 1, 2012
[THE LENNY VILLA HAZING CASE]
The rule on double jeopardy thus prohibits the state from appealing the
judgment in order to reverse the acquittal or to increase the penalty imposed either
through a regular appeal under Rule 41 of the Rules of Court or through an appeal by
certiorari on pure questions of law under Rule 45 of the same Rules.
This prohibition, however, is not absolute. The state may challenge the lower courts
acquittal of the accused or the imposition of a lower penalty on the latter in the following
recognized exceptions: (1) where the prosecution is deprived of a fair opportunity to
prosecute and prove its case, tantamount to a deprivation of due process; (2) where
there is a finding of mistrial, People vs. COURT OF APPEALS & GALICIA, 516 SCRA
383 or (3) where there has been a grave abuse of discretion.
IVLER VS. JUDGE PEDRO, Presiding Judge, METC 71 OF PASIG CITY, G.R. No.
172716, November 17, 2010
After the petitioner pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical
injuries and was sentenced to censure, he could not be tried anymore of the 2 nd case of
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and damage to property which arose from the
same act. Double jeopardy has set in. A reckless imprudence case could not be the subject
of two informations even though they are not grave or less grave felonies. They can still be
complexed as an exception to Art. 48 of the Revised Penal Code.
LEJANO VS. PEOPLE, January 18, 2011 and PEOPLE VS. HUBERT WEBB ET AL.
After the acquittal of the accused by the SC on December 14, 2010, double jeopardy
has set in and no motion for reconsideration may be entertained.
PEOPLE VS. JUDGE RELOVA, 148 SCRA 292
(Given several times already in the bar exams)
When the accused were earlier charged of theft of electricity based on a City
Ordinance and the case was dismissed due to prescription, charging them again for theft of
electricity under the Revised Penal Code violates the right of the accused against double
44
45
46
46