Consti 2

CONTITUTIONAL LAW II - BILL OF RIGHTS
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
(BILL OF RIGHTS)
BASIC PRINCIPLES:
We consider the Bill of Rights as Limitations on State Power (intended to limit what the government can do-
not only the legislature but also on the executive and the courts)
* Provisions of the bill of rights are self-executing; (no need of implementing law; can be invoked by persons
in court)
* They can only be invoked against the State (not against private individuals)
* Basic human rights are superior to property rights (in the hierarchy of rights, some rights are superior than
the others)
* Its provisions have no retroactive application. ( even if favorable to the accused, it is not given retroactive
application; because this is not criminal law)
CASES-
1. Yrasugue v. PAL [equal protection ] (involved an employee of PAL who was overweight and dismissed by PAL; he
raised the issue of violating the equal protection clause because they are also other ee’s who are very heavy; why
did PAL single him out?; Accdg to SC, you cannot invoke the Bill of Rights against a private entity, only against the
state)
2. Bell Air. V. Dionesio [right to associate] (this involved a subdivision rules that if you are an owner of a property in
Bel Air, you have to be a member of the assn; one owner don’t want to be a member, that it violates his right not to
join; Bel Air is a private entity, you cannot invoke the Bill of Rights against it )
3. People v. Bongcarawan [search by private individuals] (there is a Maranao on board a ferry; somebody
complained that he lost his wristwatch; guards of the vessel searched everybody including the briefcase of
Bongcarawan, which was found to be full of shabu; he was charged in court; he tried to raise the issue of illegal
search, no warrant ; SC: the security guards of the vessel are private individuals; you cannot invoke the Bill of
Rights; admissible in evidence)
4. Atienza v. Comelec (2010) – procedure for expulsion (Atienza used to be a member of the liberal party; shortly
before the 2010 elections, he was expelled; accdg to Atienza, the LP did not observe due to process-notice and
hearing as laid down in the AngTibay decision; SC: due process in the AngTibay case cannot be invoked against a
private entity; the LP is n not a gov’t entity, you cannot use it)
5. PBLMO v. PBMCI [human rights v. property] (involved workers dismissed by their employers because they joined
a rally and left the factory unmanned; accdg to the owners, every time you come back and restart the machines, SC:
the er’s are invoking property rights/ profit money; the ee’s are invoking right to attend a rally-petition and
assembly; the rights of ee’s are superior because they are basic human rights and it is superior to property rights)
OVER THE YRS, the SC has told us what rights are fundamental and therefore superior. They are
* Petition and assembly
* Freedom of speech
* Freedom of religion
* Right to privacy
* Right to information on matters of public concern
Bar Questions:
1. 1992, No.1
2. 2005, No.8
3. 2000, No.11
4. 2007, No.5
1|Page
2005, No. 11: (2.) Emilio had long suspected that Alvin, his employee, had been passing trade secrets to
his competitor, Randy, but he had no proof. One day, Emilio broke open the desk of Alvin and discovered a letter
wherein Randy thanked Alvin for having passed on to him vital trade secrets of P50,000.00 drawn against the
account of Randy and payable to Alvin. Emilio then dismissed Alvin from his employment. Emilio’s proof of Alvin’s
perfidy are the said letter and check which are objected to as inadmissible for having been obtained through an
illegal search. Alvin filled a suit assailing his dismissal. Rule on the admissibility of the letter and check. (5%) [Are
they admissible ?]YES. TAKEN BY A PRIVATE PERSON. BILL OF RIGHTS CAN ONLY BE INVOKED
AGAINST THE STATE.
2007, V. The Destilleria Felipe Segundo is famous for its 15-year old rum, which it has produced and
marketed successfully for the past 70 years. Its latest commercial advertisement uses the line: “Nakatikim kana
banangkinseanyos?” Very soon, activist groups promoting women’s and children’s rights were up in arms against
the advertisement.
* All advertising companies in the Philippines have formed an association, the Philippine Advertising Council,
and have agreed to abide by all the ethical guidelines and decisions by the council orders the pull-out of
the “kinseanyos” advertising campaign. Can Destilleria Felipe Segundo claim that its constitutional rights
are thus infringed? PAC IS A PRIVATE ENTITY; CANNOT INVOKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST
A PRIVATE ENTITY
(b) One of the militant groups, the Amazing Amazonas, call on all the government-ownedandcontrolled corporations
(GOCC) to boycott any newspaper, radio or TV station that carries the “kinseanyos” advertisements. They call on all
government nominees in sequestered corporations to block any advertising funds allocated for any such
newspaper, radio or TV station. Can the GOCCs and sequestered corporations validly comply? YES, CAN BE
INVOKED AGAINST THE STATE.
2000, 11. On Oct. 1, 1985, Ramos was arrested by a security guard because he appeared to be
“suspicions” and brought to a police precinct where in the course of the investigation he admitted a week earlier.
The proceedings of his investigation were putting writing and dated Oct. 1, 1985 and the only participation of
counsel assigned him was his mere presence and signature on the statement. The admissibility of the statement of
Ramos was placed in issue but the prosecution claims that the confession was taken on Oct. 1, 1985 and the 1987
Constitution providing the tight to counsel of choice took effect on feb. 2, 1987 so it will not apply to Ramos. Is that
correct?
* Yes, because Art. III of the Constitution has no retroactive effect
* No, because being favorable to Ramos, the provision must be given retroactive effect
* No, since the constitution does not distinguish to which confession it applies, the courts should not also
distinguish
* No, since the trial proceedings were conducted while the 1987 Constitution was in effect, its provisions
should apply
1992, No. 2: Sheila, an actress, signed a 2-year contract with SolidaridadFilms. The film company
undertook to promote her career and to feature her as the leading lady in at least 4 movies. In turn, Sheila promised
that, for the duration of the contracts, she shall not get married or have a baby; otherwise she shall be liable to
refund the Film company a portion of its promotion expenses. Is Solidaridad Films tries to enforce this contract
judicially, will Sheila’s constitutionally protected right prevail? THE PRINCIPLE HERE IS BASIC HUMAN
RIGHTS PREVAIL OVER PROPERTY RIGHTS. SHE IS INVOKING HER RIGHT TO MARRY AND
PROCREATE, A BASIC HR; THE FILM CO. IS INVOKING PROPERTY RIGHT.
Sec.1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall any
person be deprived the equal protection of laws.
Not covered as “ property”: while the constitution protects property, the SC told us that certain items are
not regarded as a property and therefore do not come under the due process clause
2|Page
1. Permits and licenses [CM Timber] permits are privileges and can be revoked upon the will of the issuing
authority; cannot invoke due process clause- example : permit to operate a cockpit is not protected by due process
clause
2. Private employment [ Serrano] is not considered property; cannot invoke the due process clause; if entitled to
due process because he is dismissed, it is because of the labor code, not the bill of rights
1. Public office is also not protected by the due process clause because public employment is a public trust. The
statement is used by the SC in the context of abolition of an office. For instance, if an office is abolished by law, you
cannot claim that you are not previously informed or given proper notice and hearing. But cases in comelec, when
two persons are contesting an office, right to due process actually applies. In this case, public office is some kind of
property right; given opportunity to present your side.
2006,-VI – Does a Permit to carry Firearm outside Residence (PTCFOR) constitute a property right protected by the
constitution? 2.5% NO
Outline of Sec. 1:
A. Due Process
Procedural (procedures)
Substantive (content of the law itself)
B. Equal Protection
Due Process and equal protection
Due Process: Procedural vs. Substantive
Procedural due process relates to the mode of procedure which government agencies must follow in the
enforcement and application of laws.
Substantive due process pertains to the intrinsic validity of the law interfering with life liberty and property.
Exempted from procedural due process:
* Rule-making/quasi-legislative power (quasi judicial and quasi- legislative power: many admin bodies
exercise both; they issue rules and at the same time decide cases for violating the rules; accdg. To SC: in
the issuance of rules, they need not observe due process. In the exercise of QJ function, observe due
process.)
*
b. Abatement of nuisance per se (exempt from the requirement of due process danger to life, health,
property-example: mad dog, falling tree)
Section 1: Procedural Due Process
Due Process in Administrative Proceedings:(as laid down in ANG TIBAY DECISION)MEMORIZE!!
1. The right to hearing which includes the right of a party interested or affected to present his case and
submit evidence in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial,
5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained on the records
and disclosed to the party affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own independent consideration of the law
and facts of the controversy and not simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision,
7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision n such a manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and the reason for the decision. (equivalent to
consti provision on the judiciary decision to state the law and the facts)
CASES:
3|Page
1. Doruelo v. MND involved a ship captain who figured in a maritime accident and was suspended by marina for 6
months because of negligence. He appealed. While the case is on appeal, he continued sailing. Eventually, the DND
affirmed the decision, “we affirmed the decision of the MARINA to suspend you for 6 months. However, we learned
from the news yesterday that you also collided with another ship. For this reason, we dismiss you.” SC: you violated
one of the requirement in AngTibay. Decision must be based on the evidence contained in the records.
2. Go v. NAPLOCOM there was a law passed by congress allowing summary dismissal of police officers. The
question decided by SC: can we still have summary without violating due process? SC: Yes we allow it for police
officers. However, this will be the procedure. The police officer charged should be informed of the complainant
against him and the evidence. He should be given opportunity to submit his answer in writing. After that, the
investigator can dismiss him. Why summary? It is shortcut. No need to appear. Due process is not sacrificed.
Applies to police officers only.
3. Executive v. Southwingthe president issued an E.O. banning the importation of second hand vehicle. This was
challenged as violation to due process because importers were not informed. It is in exercise of quasi-legislative
power/ rule making, no need of notice and hearing.
4. Rivera v. CSC. The person was dismissed by the merit system and protection board. The person appealed to
CSC. The person who dismissed him was already promoted to the commission and affirmed the decision. He cannot
be impartial; expected to affirm his own decision; he should inhibit himself.
5. Mollaneda v. Umacob. Involves a DECS superintendent in Dvo. City. He was dismissed by CSC. The investigation
was done by the provincial legal officer of CSC. The record was forwarded to the commission. All investigation were
done that way. Entrust investigation to legal officers. SC: no violation of due process. Not one of the guarantee in
AngTibay. No guarantee that the one who receive the evidence will be the one to make the decision.
Bar Questions: Procedural

1. 2000, No. 3
2. 1994, No. 9
1994, No.9: A complaint was filled by intelligence agents of the BID against Stevie, a German, for his
deportation. The commissioner directed the board of inquiry to conduct an investigation. At the said investigation, a
lawyer of the Legal Department of the BID presented as witness the 3 intelligence agents who filed the complaint.
On the basis of the findings, report and recommendation of the Board of Special Inquiry, the BID unanimously voted
to deport Stevie. Stevie’s lawyer questioned the deportation order:
1. On the ground that Stevie was denied due process because the BID Commissioners who rendered the decision
were not the ones who received the evidence, in violation of the “he who decides must hear” rule. Is he correct?
NO SUCH RULE
2. On the ground that there was a violation of due process because the complainants, the prosecutor and the
hearing officers were all subordinates of the BID Commissioners who rendered the deportation. Is he correct? ANG
TIBAY DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE PERSONS ACTIVELY INVOLVED MUST CAME FROM
DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE JUDGE MADE THE DECISION ON HIS
OWN INDEPENDENT CONSIDERAT ION.
Which of the following violates procedural due process?
1. A decision rendered by a tribunal based on the transcript of the hearing conducted by a subordinate officer
authorized to receive evidence
2. A decision rendered by a judge, who took over after the judge who actually tried the case retired
3. A decision of an agency after hearing where the prosecutor, the witnesses and the officer deciding are all
belonging to said agency
4. Unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals where the 3rd member who concurred was the one who penned the
RTC decision before he was promoted
ANSWER: D (BASED ON RIVERA V. CSC)
2000, No. 3: the MARINA issued new rules and regulations governing pilotage services and fees, and the
conduct of pilots in the Philippine ports. This it did without notice, hearing nor consultation with harbor pilots or
their association whose rights and activities are to be substantially affected. The harbor pilots then filed suit to have
the new MARINA rules declared unconstitutional for having been issued without due process. Decide the case.
4|Page
a. Unconstitutional, for failure to comply with notice and hearing
b. Constitutional, since MARINA was exercising a quasi-legislative power
c. Constitutional, for no life, liberty or property is involve so that no due process is needed
d. Constitutional, since once cannot invoke the constitution against MARINA
ANSWER: B
2010, XIVABC operates an industrial waste processing plant within Laoag City. Occasionally, whenever
fluid substances are released through a nearby creek, obnoxious odor is emitted causing dizziness among residents
in Barangay La Paz. On compliant of the Punong Barangay, the City Mayor wrote ABC demanding that it abate the
nuisance. This was ignored. An invitation to attend a hearing called by the SangguniangPanlungsod was also
declined by the president of ABC. The city government thereupon issued a cease and desist order to stop the
operations of the plant, prompting ABC to file a petition for injunction before the Regional Trial Court, arguing that
the city government did not have any power to abate the alleged nuisance. Decide with reasons. (3%)
2011 Bar Exam 77. Procedural due process in administrative proceedings
a. Requires the tribunal to consider the evidence presented

b. Allows the losing party to file a motion for reconsideration
c. Requires hearing the parties on oral argument
d. Permits the parties to file memoranda
ANSWER: A
2011 Bar Exam: 48. An ordinance prohibits “notorious street gang members” from loitering in public
places. The police are to disperse them or, if they refuse, place them under arrest. The ordinance enumerates which
police officers can make arrest and defines street gangs, membership in them, and public areas. The ordinance was
challenged for being vague regarding the meaning of “notorious street gang members.” Is the ordinance valid?
a. No, it leaves the public uncertain as to what conduct it prohibits.

b. No, since it discriminates between loitering in public places and loitering in private places.
c. Yes, it provides fair warning to gang members prior to arrest regarding their unlawful conduct.
d. Yes, it is sufficiently clear for the public to know what acts it prohibits.
ANSWER: A (LAWS WHICH ARE VAGUE ALSO VIOLATE DUE PROCESS; DOES NOT GIVE FAIR
WARNING TO THE PUBLIC OF WHAT CONDUCT MUST BE AVOIDED; GIVE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
UNBRIDLED DISCRETION IN ENFORCING THE LAW) STANDARD FOR SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
* Is the law reasonable or is it an undue interference on life, liberty or property?

* Is it a valid exercise of police power?
For example: violation of substantive due process if a law is passed declaring illegal to smoke in public
places; anybody caught will be sentenced to death; too burdensome …..shot to death all students caught cheating;
undue burden on life; something is wrong with the law
POLICE POWER: The power of the government to prescribe regulations to promote health, morals, education,
good order or safety and the general welfare of the people.
Test for valid Exercise of Police Power:

1. That the interest of the public generally as distinguished from those of a particular class require such
interference.
2. That the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive
upon individuals. (US VS. TORIBIO)
Example: requiring all citizens to wear yellow; no lawful subject; will not promote health, morals, safety, etc.
5|Page
Outline:
1. Lawful subject [it is lawful if related to the exercise of police power](covered are health, morals, education,
goodorder, safety, general welfare)
2. Lawful method [divided in two aspects
a. Rational relation between method and purpose [Ynot], Laguio] to preserve and protect the carabao, it is
unlawful to transport carabao from one province to another. SC: there is no rational method between the method
and the purpose. Law does not serve its purpose. Carabaos can be killed without moving them.
b. Means chosen not unduly oppressive of another right
Cases:
1. Lupangco
2. Ermita-Malate and laguio and white light
1. ERMIT A-MALATE Required registration in lobby, inspection and prohibition an renting twice in 24 hours (to
protect morals, Mayor Lim prohibited the operations of motels in Ermita, Malate. To protect morals, prohibit in the
entire city, not only in Malate. No logic. Moral here, not moral there.)
2. LAGUIO prohibition of sauna, cabarets, motels, inns and dance halls in the Ermita-Malate district. [no
reasonable relation because it will not promote per se protect morals [too restrictive? Immorality can be committed
anywhere, even in churches]
3. WHITE LIGHT Renting for less than 12hours [‘restrains business and patrons without justification”] attitude of
SC towards morals are rather permissive now: ordinances prohibiting short time are now unconstitutional; too
burdensome on business
4. Beltran v. Secretary prohibition of private blood banks, one of the cases that goes against the general way;
ordinarily, police power sustained by the SC if it limit a right because business for instance are not harmful per se,
you can regulate, but you cannot abolish them; however, in this case, in the interest of health , it allowed the
abolition
5. Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD 20% discount to senior citizens; a valid exercise of police power; how did the owners
argue it as unconstitutional? That it is unduly oppressive of their property rights; our profits will be diminished, we
will go bankrupt; SC: not all customers are senior citizens, minimal, not unduly oppressive
5. MMDA v. Viron Transportation MMDA put up an ordinance --- no private terminals; SC: no, prohibiting private
terminals is unconstitutional because that is undue restrain of private property.
6. SJS v. Atienza, Jr., ordinance of the city of Manila prohibiting oil companies having their refineries in Pandacan
Area. Get out. Move somewhere else. Is too burdensome to oil companies? SC sustained it. There is a valid
purpose- public safety –these are foreign corporations; target of terrorist attacks; not unduly oppressive; we are not
telling you to stop your business; just move somewhere else; not a total restriction, only regulate it
7. Planters v. Fertiphil decree of Marcos collecting 10 pesos of tax for every sack of fertilizer sold. What is the
purpose? To give it to planters so that it can rehabilitate sold. SC: no longer a valid purpose for the interest of one
individual/ entity
Bar Questions:
2003, No. 12
1994, No. 12, 2000, No. 4
2001, No. 13
1987, V: is an ordinance prohibiting barbershop operators from rendering massage service to their
customers in a separate room valid? YES. VALID PURPOSE- MORALS. LAWFUL METHOD. NOT
PROHIBITING THE BUSINESS, JUST REGULATING IT.
2003, No. 12 : The Municipal council of the municipality of Guagua, Pampanga, passed an ordinance
penalizing any person or entity engaged in the business of selling tickets or movies or other public exhibitions which
would charge children between 7-12 years of age the full price of admission tickets instead of only ½ of the amount.
Would you hold the ordinance a valid exercise of legislative power? NO VALID PURPOSE DOES NOT
PROMOTE HEALTH, MORALS, ETC. TICKETS ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
2001,No.13: The PPA issued an administrative order to the effect that all existing regular appointment to harbor
pilot positions shall remain valid only up to Dec. 31 of the current ever and that henceforth all appointments to
harbor pilots positions shall be only for a term of one year. Pilotage as a profession may be practiced only by duly
6|Page
licensed individuals, who have to pass five government professional examinations. The harbor pilots association
challenged the validity of said admin order on the argument that it violated their right to exercise their profession
and their right to due process of law and that the said order was without prior notice and hearing. Are they correct?
DOES THE VIOLATE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS? NO. APPLIES TO ALL. IT IS QUASI
LEEGESLATIVE.
DOES IT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE DEU PROCESS? YES. PILOTAGE IS A PROFESSION. IT IS

PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. IT IS UNDULY BURDENSOME.
2000, No.4: Undaunted by his 3 failures in the NMAT, Cruz applied to take it again but he was refused because of
an order of the DECS disallowing flunkers from taking the test for the 4th time. Cruz filed suit assailing this rule
raising the constitutional grounds of accessible quality education, academic freedom and equal protection. The
government opposes this, upholding the constitutionality of the rule on the case discussing the grounds raised. A
VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER. PURPOSE-HEALTH WE CANNOT HAVE DOCTORS WHO ARE
REALLY DUMB. IS THE METHOD CHOSEN VALID? YES. NOT UNDULY OPPRESIVE. 3X. RIGHT TO
CHOOSE PROFESSION IS NOT ABSOLUTE. REASONABLE REGULATION.
2008, - VI – the Philippine National Police (PNP) issued a circular to all its members directed at the style and length
of male police officer’s hair, sideburns and moustaches, as well as the size of their waistlines. It prohibits beards,
goatees and waistlines over 38 inches, except for medical reason. Some police officers questioned the validity of
the circular, claiming that it violated their right to liberty under the Constitution. Resolve the controversy. (6%) A
PERTICULAR PROFESSION CAN LAY DOWN STANDARDS
V, 2009 to address the pervasive problem of gambling, Congress is considering the following options: (1)
prohibit all forms of gambling; (2) allow gambling only on Sundays; (3) allow gambling only in government-owned
casinos; and (4) remove all prohibitions against gambling but impose a tax equivalent to 30% on all winnings.
* [a] if congress chooses the first option and passes the corresponding law absolutely prohibiting all forms of
gambling; can the law be validly attacked on the ground that it is an invalid exercise of police power? Explain
your answer. (2%) IF 1, VALID. PURPOSE IS MORALS.NOTHING IN THE CONSTI THAT PROTECTS
GAMBLING.
* IF 2, INVALID. MORAL TO GAMBLE ON SUNDAYS BUT IMMORAL ON OTHER DAYS? NO
RELATION TO PROTECT IOIN OF MORALS.
If Congress chooses the second option, would the law be valid?
a. Yes, it would be a valid exercise of police power since Congress aims to protect morals
b. No, the ordinance does not protect any legitimate public interest
c. No, it is unduly oppressive of other constitutional right
d. No, there is no rational relation between the method chosen and the purpose of the law
ANSWER: D
2010,XXI. The SangguniangPanlungsod of Pasay City passed an ordinance requiring all disco pub owners
to have all their hospitality girls tested for the AIDS virus. Both disco pub owners and the hospitality girls assailed
the validity of the ordinance for being violative of their constitutional rights to privacy and to freely choose a calling
or business. Is the ordinance valid? Explain. (5%)
a. No, the ordinance is unduly oppressive of the right to privacy

b. No, the ordinance will not promote any public interest
c. No, the method chosen has no rational relation to the purpose of the ordinance
d. Yes, it is a valid exercise of police power
ANSWER: D
2011 Bar Exam: 83. A law interfering with the rights of the person meets the requirements of substantive
due process when
7|Page
a. The means employed is not against public policy.
b. It is in accord with the prescribed manner of enforcement as to time, place, and person.
c. All affected parties are given the chance to be heard.
d. The interest of the general public, as distinguished from those of a particular case, requires such interference.
ANSWER: D
2011 Bar Exam. 87. In the valid exercise of management prerogative consistent with the company’s right to
protect its economic interest, it may prohibit its employees from
a. Joining rallies during their work shift.

b. Marrying employees of competitor companies.
C. Publicly converging with patrons of competitors companies.
d. Patronizing the product of competitor companies.
ANSWER: B (GLAXO CASE)
2011 Bar Exam: 67. The price of staple goods like rice may be regulated for the protection of the
consuming public through the exercise of
a. Power of subordinate legislation.

b. Emergency power.
c. Police power.
d. Residual power.
ANSWER: C
Section 1: due Process and Equal Protection
Equal protection pertains to the requirement that laws must treat all persons or things similarity situated alike, both
as to similarities conferred and liabilities imposed. A law cannot create a class and give it favors and also a group
and subject it to disadvantages. Treat people equally.
Two ways of violating:
1. Classifying without basis [jalosjos]
2. Failure to classify when distinction exist
[Bar Q, 1989, No.18: Villegas case] An ordinance of the City of Manila requires every alien desiring to
obtain employment of whatever kind, including casual and part-time employment permit from the city and to pay a
work permit fee of P500. Is the ordinance valid?
If you try to look at it, it seems to be treating equally, but not all aliens are similarly situated. Some have high paying
job, some have low paying job. To pay 500 will violate the EPC-failure to classify when substantial distinction exists.
When is classification permissible?
Two ways of justifying:
1. When the Constitution allows it; or [Nunez and Almonte] Cruz v. COMELEC]
Procedure in the ombudsman allowing an officer to be charged even if your complaint is anonymous; in other
tribunals, the complaint must make a statement under oath and disclose his identity. That was a challenge for the
violation of EPC SC: consti allows it. The ombudsman shall entertain complaints in any form of manner. Whenever
there is a conflict between the provision of the constitution and the equal protection clause, the EPC shall be
considered the general provision and the consti the exception. In the declaration of principles and state policies,
many are favored--- icc, landless farmers, labor. You cannot complain. The consti permits it.
2. When it passes the 4 test for a valid classification
Test for valid classification: (must concur; memorize)
1. It must rest on a substantial distinction;(women are different from men; some laws favoring women can be valid;
ex. Grant of 60day maternity leave cannot be challenged by men; but if women cannot be lawyers, EPC is violated)
8|Page
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law; (relevant to the purpose of the law)
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only: applicable not just today or tomorrow
4. It must apply equally to members of the same class.
Parreno v. COA the law stated that if you are a military officer, went abroad, naturalized, GSIS will withdrew
his retirement in accordance with the provision of law; why am I not given retirement when I served the military for
so many years? SC: there is a difference between you and the many retirees-you cannot be required to serve in
times of war, you are an alien, there is substantial description.
Abakada v. Purismainvolves an incentive to those who are working with the BIR and Com of Customs. If they make
good collection or meet certain targets, they are given bonuses. Some employees complain. SC: there is substantial
distinction. They are engaged in collection of revenue, others are not. The purpose of the law is to increase revenue
collection. Germane to the purpose of the law.
Quinto v. COMELEC filing of COC; if appointive, deemed resigned: if elective, not deemed resigned; valid
distinction
Beltran there is substantial distinction between private blood banks; the farmer operate for profit
Gutierrez v. DBM COLA which is removed except to the police/military. Challenged. SC: these people are different
because they can be transferred from one place to another; living conditions can be different depending on where
they are assigned.
Lagiou [sauna parlors, beerhouses, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns vs. hotels, lodging houses,
pension houses] prohibit motels … however it allowed within ermita/malate hotels and pension houses. This
violated EPC. The court could not say the distinction between motels and hotels. Just change the name from motel
to hotel and it will be allowed. No substantial distinction.
Duncan v. Glaxoyou cannot invoke EPC against a private entity- a basic principle of bill of rights; this is a policy that
you cannot marry an ee of another competitor company
League of Cites aside from quarrel of plenary power of congress, there is an issue of EPC. Why? The SC keep in
seesawing about the issues because last decision now is saying that there is substantial distinction between the 16
cites given a status of city without having met the income of 1M compared to other cities. The quarrel is how to
apply the 4 tests.
Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, 637 SCRA 78 (2010)
The President on July 30, 2010, signed Executive order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth Commission of
2010. The ad hoc body formed under the office of the President with the primary task to investigate reports of graft
and corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their co-principals, accomplices and
accessories during the previous administration, and thereafter to submit its finding and recommendation to the
President, Congress and the Ombudsman. Since the EO was tasked mainly to investigate corruption under the
administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, does it violate the equal protection clause? YES, IT DOES. IT
CANNOT MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION OF PGMA AND OTHER PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATIONS. SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY.
Bar Questions:
1987, No.6
Bar Q, No. 12, 1994
No. 2, 2007
1987,No. 6: Marina Neptunia, daughter of a sea captain wanted to become a full fledged marine officer but she was
not allowed to take the examination for marine officers because the law regulating the Practice of the Marine
Profession prescribes that: “No person shall be qualified for examination as marine officer unless he is:” Is the law
valid? [Equal Protection?]
a. No, because it discriminates against women
b. Yes, because there is a substantial distinction between men and women
9|Page
c. Yes, because the classification is germane to the purpose of the law which is to protect women
d. Yes, because the Constitution permits discrimination against women
ANSWER: A (VIOLATE ST ATE POLICY OF EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN)
1994, No. 12: The DECS issued a circular disqualifying anyone who fails for the 4th time in the National
Entrance Test from admission to a College of Dentistry. X who was thus disqualified, questions the constitutionality
of the circular. (2) Did the circular violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
a. Valid, because there is a substantial distinction between dentistry and other profession
b. Valid, because laws and circulars issued by government agencies are superior to the equal protection clause
c. Void, because all profession are the same and should be treated similarly
d. Void, because it discriminates against mentally deficient students
ANSWER: A
2007, No. 2. The city Mayor issues an executive order declaring that the city promotes responsible
parenthood and upholds family planning. He prohibits all hospitals operated by the city from prescribing the use of
artificial methods of contraception, including condoms, pills, intrauterine devices and surgical sterilization. As a
result, poor women in his city lost their access to affordable family planning programs. Private clinics, however,
continue to render family planning counsel and devices to paying clients. Is Executive Order in any way
constitutionally infirm? Explain [Equal Protection?] APPARENTLY IT CAN BE CHALLENGED UNDER THE
EPC. MAKE CONTRACEPTIVES UNAVAILABLE TO THEPOOR AND AVAILABLE TO THE RICH.
2011 Bar Exam 23. The equal protection clause allows valid classification of subjects that applies
a. Only to present conditions.
b. So long as it remains relevant to the government.
c. For a limited period only.
d. For as long as the problem to be corrected exists.
ANSWER: D
2011 Bar Exam 100. X, a Filipino and Y, an American, both teach at the International Institute in Manila. The
institute gave X a salary rate of P1,000 per hour and Y, P1,250 per hour plus housing, transportation, shipping cost,
and leave travel allowance.
The school cited the dislocation factor and limited tenure of Y to justify his high salary rate and additional benefits.
The same package was given to the other
Foreign teachers. The Filipino teachers assailed such differential treatment, claiming it is discriminatory and violates
the equal protection clause. Decide.
a. The classification is based on superficial differences.

b. The classification undermines the “Filipino First” policy.
c. The distinction is fair considering the burden of teaching abroad.
d. The distinction is substantial and uniformly applied to each class.
ANSWER: A (NO SUBST ANTIAL DISTINCTION; NO SHOWING THAT ALIENS TEACH BETTER THAN
FILIPINO TEACHERS; SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE, YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS
AGAINTS A PRIVATE ENTITY; SC FORGET THE PRINCIPLE?
All sugar produced by Ormoc Central be subject to tax. Limited to existing conditions only; if somebody
put up a central, he will not subj to tax because it specifically mentioned Ormoc Central. Right now, pending before
the SC is the prohibition on aerial spray. Only on banana? How about others?
(By justice Moran) A law passed by congress prohibiting members of the cultural communities from drinking foreign
wine. If they do, they will be sent to jail. SC: valid. There is a substantial distinction between natives and non-
natives. Purpose is to create peace among natives. They are not used to imported wines; if they got drunk, they
cause trouble. Germane to the purpose of the law. if you render this kind of decision now, you will be killed by
sparrow unit J .
10 | P a g e
Sec 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath of affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produced, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. (this is the warrant clause or search and
seizure clause. Here, questions on political law can also come out in remedial law. In the process we are also
reviewing remedial law, evidence and criminal law)
Arrest, search and Seizure

1. Search Warrant
2. Arrest Warrant
3. Warrantless Searches
4. Warrantless Arrest
5. Exclusionary Rule
Section 2: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Requisities for a Valid Search Warrant:

1. It must be based upon probable cause; means that the judge believe more likely than not that the objects to be
seized are there. It is only probable cause, very low degree of evidence
2. The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge ; cannot be delegated to another
3. The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce; taking of deposition of witnesses
4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be searched.
Section 2: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Probable Cause: (in the context of search warrant)

Probable cause are such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched.
Questions on Probable Cause:
1. When the crime consist of possession of objects without a permit or license what evidence is necessary to
establish probable cause? [PICOP and Estrada Cases] illegal possession of firearm/ illegal drugs: The court simply
stated that if you are applying for a search warrant on the ground that there is no permit, secure a certification from
appropriate agency and attach it to your application to establish probable cause what happens when a warrant is
issued for the seizures of 2 items but there is only probable cause for the issuance of one of them? [Salangguit: the
judge questioned the deponent, the witness mentioned about the presence of lots of shabu. When the judge issued
the warrant, he included paraphernalia for the use of shabu, so definitely, there is no probable cause for the search
warrant of paraphernalia but only for shabu. SC: the warrant is servable. It can be valid in so far as there is probable
cause and invalid as to the portion where there is no probable cause. If shabu and paraphernalia are taken,
paraphernalia is inadmissible in evidence ---to save warrant from total unconstitutionality]
Specific Description:
A search warrant must specifically describe: if it violates any of these, a general warrant-null and void
1. The place to be searched;
2. The objects to be seized; and
3. Issue only for one specific offense
Rules on description of place illustrated:
1. If the place is under the control of one person, a general description may be sufficient (Yao, Sr:
MasaganaCompuond; it turned out to be one hectare SC validated the warrant. Anyway it is under the control of
one entity. The warrant is valid.
PICOP: 155 hectare. Warrant for search of picop compound---300 buildings inside, airport, wharf. Not valid.
If a compound is occupied by Various persons, the warrant must indicate the place to be searched.
11 | P a g e
2. If the place is a compound occupied by various persons, the warrant must specifically indicate the unit to be
searched [Estrada -5T-] [apartment units, rooms in a house] ½ hectare, 1 warrant-invalid. There were several units
there controlled by different persons. You are violating the privacy of different individuals. Whose privacy do you
want to violate by virtue of the warrant.
3. The police can only search the place described in the warrant, not an adjoining one. [Pp. v. CA] warrant says
search apt. A; they searched Apt. B because that was they really applied for. The judge put A when they said it to be
B. Null and void. You can only search what is described in the warrant not the place in your mind.
4. Once the place is specifically described, there is no need to name the occupant or owner. [Uy v. BIR, Quelnan v.
People] you cannot claim that there is no name.
Bar Questions: 2001,No. 9, 1990, No. 9 2001: A rmed with a search and seizure warrant, a team of
policemen led by instructor Trial entered a compound and searched the house described therein as No. 17 Speaker
Perez St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon city, owned by Mr. ErnaniPelets, for reported cache of firearms and ammo.
However, upon through search of the house, the police found nothing.
Then, acting on a hunch, the policemen proceeded to a smaller house inside the same compound with the address
at No. 17-A Speaker Perez St. entered it and conducted a search therein over the objection of Mr. Pelets who
happened to be the same owner of the first house. There, the e police found the unlicensed firearms and
ammunitions they were looking for.
As a result, Mr. ErnaniPelets was criminally charged in court with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as
penalized under PD 1866. At the trail, he vehemently objected to the presentation of the same in evidence for
being inadmissible. Is Mr. Pelet’s contention valid or not? [Are the firearms admissible?]
a. Yes, because the police officers were armed with a search warrant
b. Yes, because the objects were seized in plain view
c. No, because the objects were not specifically described in the warrant
d. No, because they were seized from a place not described in the warrant
ANSWER: D
1990: Some police operatives, acting under a lawfully issued warrant for the purpose of searching of firearms in the
house of X located at No. 10 Shaw Blvd. Pasig metro manila, found instead of firearms, ten kilograms of cocaine.
(3) suppose the peace officers were able to find unlicensed firearms in the house in an adjacent lot, that is, No. 12
Shaw Blvd, which is also owned by X. May they lawfully seize the said unlicensed firearms?
Explain your answer. NO.
Rules on Description of Objects
1. Object need not be described in precise details [kho: firearms of various calibers, chop chop vehicles,
undetermined quantity of marijuana], unlicensed radio com. Equipment – but Microsoft – “computer hardware
including central processing units and hard disks, CD Rom drives, key boards, monitor, screens and diskettes
(SUFFICIENT GUIDE FOR OFFICERS NOT TO EXERCISE UNBRIDLED DISCRETION IN THE
ENFORCEMENT OF THE WARRANT.) … Vallejo: Undetermined number of fake land titles, blank form of land
titles, official receipts, undetermined number if land transfer transactions… to require- what caliber, serial
number---will render the search impossible
2. Minor discrepancies in between the objects described in the warrant from those actually taken do not nullify the
warrant for as long as they are of the same kind and nature- Al Ghoul
Where a warrant contains a specific description of some objects and a general description of others, the entire
warrant is not voided. [Uy vs. BIR] preserve the constitutionality of the warrant. Valid as to specific, in valid as to the
general ones.
Where a warrant contains a specific description of some objects and a general description of others, the entire
warrant is not voided. [Uy vs. BIR] preserve the constitutionality of the warrant. Valid as to specific, in valid as to the
general ones.
Bar Question: 1990, No. 9 Specific doctrines on “one offense” rule:
12 | P a g e
When related offenses are punished by different provisions of the same law, issuance of a single warrant is justified
[Dischoso: marijuana, shabu and paraphernalia, prudente:
Search warrant for firearms and shabu is null and void. A general warrant. Entire warrant is Void. Search warrant for
marijuana and shabu valid- punishable in different provisions of the same law.
Where there are several counts of one specific offense, issuance of one search warrant is sufficient
[Columbia]
Sy Tan v. SyTiongGue, Dec. 15, 2010: after the Supreme Court sustained the quashal of the Search Warrant for
Robbery, the trial judge granted the motion of the prosecution to withdraw the information charging accused of the
offense. The dismissal was without prejudice. Should the prosecution opt to file an information against the accused
for qualified theft may the objects taken under the quashed warrant be used in evidence? A warrant can be issued
only for one offense. You cannot use it for another offense.
Territorial Validity: (when the court issues a warrant, where it will be effective? If issued by the
MTC judge of Tagum, valid in Tagum only. If issued by RTC judge, place where judge has
jurisdiction)
1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was committed; [Sony Computer]
2. For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial region where the crime was
committed or where the warrant shall be served. [Chui] may allow to obtain in another place ex. All judges are on
seminar – for compelling reasons
Others:
3. Any court, subject to the requirement of territorial jurisdiction, can issue any warrant for any offense. Kenneth
Roy: regardless of nature or imposable penalty any judge can issue a search warrant for any offense, cannot say that
I am family court judge, I cannot issue SW for drugs
In issuing a search warrant, the judge must: [5%]
a. Notify the person to be searched of the application
b. Personally study only the records to determine probable cause
c. See to it that the person to be searched is at home
d. Ensure that the order to search is in writing
ANSWER: D
Arrest Warrants: Questions
(Procedure is different from securing a search warrant. File a case in the fiscal’s office. The fiscal will
Conduct a preliminary investigation. If there is probable cause, he will file a case in court and the judge will
determine wheter there is probable cause to issue an arrest warrant. Normally, it takes weeks or months to secure
an arrest warrant. What must the judge do? He can call the witnesses but the consti does not mandate him to call
the witnesses. How does you satisfy the requirement that the judge must be personally determine probable cause?
By going over the records of the case)
1. Must the judge personally examine complainant and his witnesses? People v. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010) no
need ----may go over the records coming from the fiscal’s office.
2. Can the judge rely on the certification of the prosecutor that there is probable cause for the offense? NO
3. Is the person subject to arrest entitled to notice and hearing before the judge issues …? No need. But in a way,
he is entitled to notice and hearing because at the fiscal’s office, the accused submits his counter affidavit.
Warrantless Searches
Generally Void:
1. Failure to object to evidence during trial results to waiver (if we got an evidence from you illegally and during trial
your lawyer did not object to the formal offer of evidence- deemed waived)
2. Only the person whose right was invaded can invoke illegal search [Stonehill]
Valid warrantless searches:
1. Incident to lawful arrest
13 | P a g e
2. Consented search
3. Plain view
4. Stop and frisk
5. Moving vehicles
6. Custom laws
7. Exigency
8. Airport security
9. Prison search
10. Private individuals
Bar questions 2000, No. 14: what are the instances when warrantless searches may be effected?
2001, No. 4: A is an alien. State whether, in the Philippines, he is entitled to the right against illegal searches and
seizures and against illegal arrest. YES. UNDER THE CONSTITUTION … NO PERSON—DOES NOT MAKE
ANY DISTINCTION. ONLY ONE RIGHT IN THE BOR IS NOT AVAILABLE TO FOREIGNERS.
1. Incident to Arrest
Rules:
1. Contemporaneous to arrest
2. Place is under immediate control of the person arrested
Leangsiri. They conducted the search in a hotel room. It seems that the person is occupying 2 rooms. After
they arrested him in one room, they went to the other room in another floor in the hotel. Not anymore under his
immediate control. Search is not valid with regard to the other room.
Che Chun Ting [inside house] they conducted a buy bust outside the condo unit of the accused. They arrested him
outside. After, they entered his apartment. SC: no more, not a valid search. Not under his immediate control.
Tiu Won Chua [car] they had a search warrant and served it at the house of the accused. Since they were
able to get the shabu, they arrested him inside the house. After, they saw the car parked outside the house. They
searched the car and found shabu. SC: shabu found inside the car is not admissible.
Valeroso- locked cabinets within the room? Valeroso is a police officer and there is an arrest warrant for him. He
was arrested in his room. There were cabinets there which are locked. Arresting officers opened the locked cabinets
and found guns. Not admissible. Drawers, yes; but locked cabinets, NO.
2 .Consented Search
Principles-
1. Only the person whose right has been invaded can give consent [Asis, Damaso] damaso was out of the house
when the police served the warrant. The housemaid allowed the police to come in and found armalite riffles inside.
SC: the one who gave the consent is the housemaid. Therefore, cannot be used in evidence. Only the person whose
right has been invaded can give consent.
Asis: asis was deaf and dumb. He was suspected of robbery with homicide. When he was arrested, he was brought
to his house. The purpose of the police is to recover the items stolen. When they searched the house, the wife gave
the bag bloodied shirt and money inside. Admissible? No, only the person whose right has been violated can gave
consent. The one who gave the consent here is the wife. Inadmissible.
2. Consent has to be given expressly
3. The search cannot extend beyond the purpose for which consent was given [Layague] silence does not mean yes.
Consent must be given expressly
Layague: house in skyline subdivision is owned by a couple working in SSS. They were in Manila. There were reports
that RAM soldiers are hiding in the house. They called the couple in Manila asking for permission to search the
house. The couple agreed. Once inside, they open aparadors and they got firearm. SC: The purpose is to search for
rebels. You cannot extend it. Find Rebels inside the aparador and drawes? Inadmissible
3.Plain View
Section 2: SEARCHES AND SIEZURES
14 | P a g e
Requisites for search in plain view:
1. There must be a prior justification for the intrusion; right to be there ---ex. With search or arrest warrant---not
intruders
2. The police inadvertently came across the evidence; accidentally—not purposely looking for it
3. The illegality must be immediately apparent (PEOPLE VS. MUSA) valdez – kaingin /[people v. del Rosario-. 45/.22
MUSA: police conducted a buy bust in the sala of Musa. The marijuana for some reason disappeared. They
went to the kitchen; found a plastic bag and opened it; they found marijuana wrapped in paper. Valid intrusion?
They did not come across the object inadvertently. The illegality is not immediately apparent. Inside a plastic bag,
wrapped in paper, the moment one element is missing, search is illegal.
Go: Assorted documents, passports, blank books, check, typewriter, dry seals, stamp pads, and Chinese and
Philippine currency/Elamparo—packing marijuana in the table. Admissible? Yes, no problem
People v. Nunez, (2009)
The search warrant commanded the police to search for and sieze “shabu” and paraphernalia foud in the house of
the accused. In the course of the search, believing that certain objects were bartered for “shabu” they also seized a
lady’s wallet, cash, grinder, camera, component, speakers, electric planner, jigsaw, electric tester, saws, hammer,
drill, and bolo. Is the seizure valid? NO. ILLEGALITY IS NOT READILLY APPARENT
1990, No. 9: some police operatives acting under a lawfully issued warrant for the purpose of searching for firearms
in the house of X located at No. 10 Shaw Blvd, pasig, MM, found instead of firearms, 10 kilos of cocaine.
May the said police operatives acting under a lawfully seized the cocaine? [is the cocaine admissible in evidence?]
IF IN PLAIN VIEW, YES.
4. Stop and Frisk
It must be based on probable cause, that is the person is acting suspiciously, which must not be based on the
subjective perception of the police. His unusual behavior must suggest a crime. Reports do not constitute probable
cause. [Mengote/Posadas]
POSADAS: it happened in RMC Davao. They saw Posadas carrying a buri bag. He looked suspicious. When the
police approached him, he ran away. When they caught him, inside his bag is a revolver. Valid stop and frisk? Yes,
there was probable cause. He was acting suspiciously.
MENGOTE: this happened in tondo, Mla. The police got a call that there was a suspicious individual down the
street. Mengote was holding his stomach and looking from side to side. The police was suspicious and they found a
gun somewhere else in his waistline. He was charged with illegal possession of firearms. SC : there is no valid stop
and frisk. Mengote was not acting suspiciously.
PRINCIPLE: WHEN YOU ARE ACTING SUSPICIOUSLY, THERE IS VALID REASON TO SEARCH YOU. BUT WHAT IS
ACTING SUSPICIOUSLY? POSADAS DECISION: THE LAWYER DID NOT ACT FURTHER WHAT DID THE PERSON DO.
IN MENGOTE: THE LAWYER WAS SMARTER. HE ASKED WHAT DID MENGOTE DO? THE ANSWER DID NOT SATISFY
THE COURT.
Lacerna- slouched ( the policemen were in a patrol car; they were followed by a taxi. At the front seat of
the taxi, there was a person sitting and every time they glance at the person in the taxi, the latter will not look at
them. They went after the man--- has bag full of marijuana. Valid search? No, not looking at the police eye to eye is
not a valid ground to conduct a search. The quarrel is --- what is acting suspiciously.)
Esquillo v. People, Aug. 25, 2010

A police officer doing surveillance against a certain “Ryan” saw a woman who was standing three meters away and
seen placing inside a yellow cigarette case what appeared to be small heat- sealed transparent plastic sachet
containing white substance. Not sure what the plastic sachet contained, he became suspicious when the woman
started acting strangely and he began to approach her. He then introduced himself as a police officer and inquired
about the plastic sachet she was placing inside her cigarette case. Instead of replying, however, she attempted to
flee to her house nearby but was timely restrained by the policeman who then requested her to take out the
15 | P a g e
transparent plastic sachet from the cigarette case. It turned out to be “shabu”. Is the evidence admissible? YES,
ACTING SUSPICIOUSLY .
Bar Question: 2000, 14: Crack units of the Anti-narcotics Unit where assigned on surveillance of the
environs of the cemetery where the sale and the use of dangerous drugs are rampant. A man with reddish and
glassy eyes was walking unsteadily moving towards them but veered 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.
The police pried it open and found marijuana. Is it admissible in evidence? [2009, No. 7]
a. No, because there was no probable cause for the search

b. yes, because there was probable cause for the search
c. yes , because the evidence was seized in plain view
d. yes, by failing to object to the search, accused is deemed to have waived his right,
ANSWER : B
Bar Question, 1995: Remedial- What is Terry Search? “ A search whose object this to determine the
identity of a suspicions individual or to maintain the status qou while the police seek to obtain more information.”
TERRY V. STATE OF OHIO-EQUIVALENT TO STOP AND FRISK 2011 Bar Exam 82. Using the description of the
supplier of shabu given by persons who had been arrested earlier for selling it, the police conducted a surveillance
of the area indicated. When they saw a man who fitted the description walking from the apartment to his car, they
approached and frisked him and he did not object. The search yielded an unlicensed gun tucked on his waist and
shabu in his car. Is the search valid?
a. No, the man did not manifest any suspicious behavior that would give the police sufficient reason to search him.
b. Yes, the police acted on reliable information which proved correct when they searched the man and his car.
c. Yes, the man should be deemed to have waived his right to challenge the search when he failed to object to the
frisking.
d. No, reliable information alone, absent any proof beyond reasonable doubt that the man was actually committing
an offense, will not validate the search. (REQUIRMENT IS ONLY PROBABLE CAUSE)
ANSWER: A
5. Moving Vehicles
1. Vehicles may be stopped at check points and subjected to visual search only not allowed to open compartments
of car
2. Extensive search is permissible only if there is probable cause; they can now open compartments
3. Probable cause can be a report that a contraband is being transported [Bagista], or it can be that the person is
acting suspiciously [Exala] Malmstead: there was a report that a Manila carrying marijuana. In one bus, the foreigner
fits the description. Police asked for his passport, he refused. He was searched. The pouch in his stomach is full of
marijuana. With probable cause Fits the description and acting suspiciously. Bagista : police got an info that a
woman with short hair,….. Police stopped jeepney, buses and in one of these, they saw this woman sitting quietly
doing nothing, not acting suspiciously. They opened the bag-marijuana inside, SC: search is valid. There was a
report that she was carrying marijuana although she is not acting suspiciously. RELAXED VERY BAD DECISION.
4. Failure to object is equivalent to consent, unless under the circumstances we cannot expect the person
to object.[Exala & Aniag]
Exala: failure to object is equivalent to consent to be searched. There is an black bag which appeared to be bulging
in the bus. Everybody turned quiet. Police got suspicious. They searched it and found marijuana. In Exala, silence
means you agreed to be searched---vary dangerous. You keep quiet, you agreed to be searched. If you complain,
you are acting suspiciously. Either way, you get convicted J J
Aniag: search of a driver of a congressman. In front of batasan. There are many policemen in uniform. He did not
object. SC: we cannot really expect Aniag to object. He is only grade six, a lowly driver and there are many
policemen with guns. Under the circumstances, silence cannot mean yes.
IN SEARCES OF RESIDENCE, SILENCE MEANS NO. OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE, SILENCE MEANS YES
EXCEPT IN ANIAG.
16 | P a g e
[Valdez: “thin Ilocano with Green bag”. Gonzales :”woman with long hair , maong pants, jacket, ran ban and black
travelling bag.” Reports alone can be sufficient for probable cause
1992/5: During the recent electrons, checkpoints were set up to enforce the election period ban on firearms.
During one such routine search one night, while looking through an open window with a flashlight, the police saw
firearms at the backseat of the car, partially covered by papers and clothes.
A. Antonio, owner and driver of the car in question, was charged with violation of the firearms ban. Are the
firearms admissible in evidence against him.
Explain.
a. Yes, because there was a valid search in plain view
b. Yes, because no search warrant is required in search of moving vehicles
c. Yes, Antonio’s failure to object amounts to consent to the search
d. No, because the police should have obtained a warrant
ANSWER:A
B. If upon further inspection by the police, prohibited drugs were found inside the various compartments of
the car, can the drugs be used in evidence against him?
A. Yes, because there was a valid search in plain view

b. Yes, because no search warrant is required in search of moving vehicles
c. Yes, Antonio’s failure to object amounts to consent to the search
d. Yes, because it would now amount to search incident to a valid arrest
ANSWER: D
1989, No. 7: Pursuing reports that great quantities of prohibited drugs are being smuggled at nighttime
through the shore of Cavite, the Southern Luzon command set up checkpoints at the end of the Cavite coastal road
to search for passing motor vehicles. A 19-year old boy, who finished fifth grade, while driving, was stopped by the
authorities at the checkpoint. Without any objection from him , his car was inspected and the search yielded
marijuana leaves hidden in the compartment of the car. Was the search valid?
a. Yes, because there was a valid search in plain view

b. Yes, because there was a valid search of a moving vehicle
c. Yes, because there was a valid search in the enforcement of custom laws
d. No, because there was no valid search of moving vehicle
ANSWER: D
BAR QUESTION 2011 Exam 36. In what scenario is an extensive search of moving vehicles without warrant valid?
a. The police became suspicious on seeing something on the car’s back seat covered with blanket.
b. The police suspected an unfenced lot covered by rocks and bushes was planted to marijuana.
c. The police became suspicious when they saw a car believed to be of the same model used by the killers of a city
major.
d. The driver sped away in his car when the police flagged him down at a checkpoint.
ANSWER: D
2011 Bar Exam 40. An informer told the police that a Toyota car with plate ABC 134 would deliver an
unspecified quantity of ecstacy in Forbes Park, Makati City. The officers whom the police sent to watch the Forbes
Park gates saw the described car and flagged it down. When the driver stopped and lowered his window, an officer
saw a gun tucked on the driver’s waist. The officer asked the driver to step out and he did. When an officer looked
inside the car, he saw many tablets strewn on the driver’s seat. The driver admitted they were ecstacy. Is the search
17 | P a g e
valid?
a. No, the rule on warrantless search of moving vehicle does not allow arbitrariness on the part of the police.
b. Yes, the police officers had the duty to verify the truth of the information they got and pursue it to the end.
c. Yes, the police acted based on reliable information and the fact that an officer saw the driver carrying a gun.
d. No, police officers do not have unbridled discretion to conduct a warrantless search of moving vehicles.
Answer: c (usual search; fit description)
6. Custom Law Enforcement
Requisites for Search under Customs Laws:

1. It must be conducted by persons exercising police authority under the custom laws; not ordinary policemen
2. There must be probable cause; in custom law, reports are sufficient
3. It is limited to persons vehicles, vessels, aircrafts, and enclosure, warehouse, stores, but not dwelling houses; if
dwelling house, needs a judicially issued warrant
4. Only dutiable or prohibited goods can be sized.
(PAPA VS. MAGO)
Bar Question: 1991, No. 8 Ogario: A regular court (RTC) has no jurisdiction to quash a Warrant of Seizure and
Detention issued by the customs collector, it has Exclusive jurisdiction. Remedy? Collector of customs ->
commissioner of customs -> court of tax appeals -> SC
Imported rice without payment of customs dues; searched by collector of customs; issued warrant of customs was
quashed by RTC. SC: no, RTC cannot review a warrant issued by customs authorities in enforcement of custom
laws.
Custom laws- do not go to regular courts; regular courts have no authority
Achacoso: an old case in labor law. Illegal recruitment. There is a provision in the labor code that the
secretary of labor can issue search order. Unconstitutional. 1973 constitution---congress can authorize by law
anybody from issuing search and arrest warrants. 1987 constitution--- only judges after determination of probable
cause can do it. The provision in the labor code has been superseded. The sec of labor can no longer issue warrants
in the enforcement of illegal recruitment in labor code.
Harvey v. Santiago: the president can issued an arrest order in order to carry out a final order of deportation. The
constitution has judicialized the issuance of arrest warrants. What are the instances when administrative issuances
of arrest warrant is valid?
1. Warrant issued by custom authorities

2. Arrest warrant by the president to exercise his power to deport aliens
7.Exigency – De Gracia during coup d’ etat, they searched the establishment of a businessman without
warrant and they found bombs. SC justified the search. During coup d’ etat, most courts are closed. Life of state is
at stake. Allowed the exception.
Martial law- military courts have no jurisdiction over civilians except when civil courts are no longer functioning
Ampatuan massacre- conducted search in the residences of Ampatuan without a warrant- because there is exigency
or
martial law there. Problem is --- apply in the place where search is to be conducted. Kidapawan is at peace. Why
not
apply in kidapawan- same judicial region.
8. Airport Search
Johnson:
-“Reduced expectation of privacy” when taking a flight
-minimum intrusiveness (x ray machines)
18 | P a g e
-gravity of safety interest involved (by taking the flight. You consented to be searched; if you don’t want to be
searched, don’t take the flight)
Canton: RA 6235: Ticket -… holder thereof is subject to search for a seizure… Holder refusing to be searched shall
not be allowed to board aircraft.”
9. Jail Security: (standard operating procedure; cannot complain; restricted rights)
Conde-seizure of knives from visiting wife—there was killing inside the jail. The wife of Conde visited him. Smuggled
out knife used in the killing; Wife’s bag was inspected.
10.Private Persons Bongcarawan case-search by private individuals, cannot invoke bill of rights
2002, No. 8: 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 calling card with the owner’s name (Dante Galang)and address and a
small plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. He brought the substance to the NBI for laboratory
examination and it turned out to be “shabu”. Galang was charged and convicted. On appeal, he contends that the
plastic bag and its contents are in admissible in evidence being the product of an illegal search and seizure. Is he
correct? NO. IT IS ADMISSIBLE. DONE BY A PRIVATE PERSON.
1987, No. 3: X, a Constabulary officer, was arrested pursuant to a lawful court order in Baguio City for murder. He
was brought to manila where a warrantless Crame. The search team found and sized the murder and seizure was
illegal and move for exclusion from evidence of the weapon sized?
a. No, because the search was incident to valid arrest

b. No, because the law does not require a search warrant when officers of law are the subject of the search
c. Yes, because there was no valid search incident to a lawful arrest
d. Yes, because the arrest was illegal so that the search is also illegal
ANSWER: C
2010, XII A witnessed two hooded men with baseball bats enter the house of their next door neighbor B.
After a few seconds, he heard B shouting, “Huwag Pilo babayran kita agad.” Then A saw the two hooded men
hitting B until the latter fell lifeless. The assailants escaped using a yellow motorcycle with a fireball sticker on it
toward the direction of an exclusive village nearby. A reported the incident to PO1 Nuval. The following day, PO1
Nuval saw the motorcycle parked in the garage of a house at Sta. Ines Street inside the exclusive village. He inquired
with the caretaker as to who owned the motorcycle. The caretaker named the brothers Pilo and Ramond Maradona
who were then outside the country. PO1 Nuval insisted on getting inside the garage. Out of fear , the caretaker
allowed him. PO1 Nuval took 2 masks and 2 bats beside the motorcycle. Was the search valid? What about the
seizure? Decide with reasons. NOT VALID. SEARCH OF A RESIDENCE; SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED A
SEARCH WARRANT.
2008. IX, Remedial Law: The search warrant authorized the seizure of the search warrant, the raiding team
also recovered a kilo of dried marijuana leaves wrapped in newsprint. The accused moved to suppress section 11 of
the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they were not covered by search warrant. The state justified
the seizure of the marijuana leaves under the “plain view” doctrine. ?There was no indications of whether the
marijuana leaves were discovered and sized before or after the seizure of the shabu. if you are the judge, how would
you rule on he motion to suppress? (4%) WHEN WAS THE MARIJUANA FOUND? BEFORE OR AFTER? IF
BEFORE SHABU WAS FOUND, OK, IN PLAIN VIEW. IF AFTER SHABU WAS FOUND, NO MORE
REASON TO LOOK FOR OTHER ITEMS,
6. [A] The warrant ordered the police to search and seized a . 45 caliber firearms with serial NO. 35287-A in the
house of “M” located at No. 17, Mayon St., Davao City. After finding the firearms on top the table im M’s” bedroom,
the police went on searching and found and seized a hand grenade kept by “M” in a discarded shoe box in the
attic.
Based on the above facts, which statement is legally correct? [5%]
[a] Both the firearm and the grenade are admissible in evidence
[b] Both the firearm and the grenade are inadmissible in evidence
[c]Only the firearm is admissible in evidence
[d]Only the grenade is admissible in evidence
ANSWER: C
19 | P a g e
6. The police had a search warrant to search the residence of G for illegal possession of “shabu”. As soon
as they entered the house, they saw on top of the kitchen table peso bills in various denominations amounting to
about P10,000.00, which they promptly seized. Proceeding further by opening drawers, lockers and cabinets, the
police managed to seize about one kilo of “shabu” stowed in various location. After G was charged in court for
illegal possession of Dangerous Drugs, he filed a motion to retrieve the P10,000.00 on the ground that the search
warrant did not authorize the police to seize money. The police countered that the amount was seized in plain view
being proceeds of the sale of “shabu.”
As judge, how would you resolve the motion?
a. I will not order the return because it was seized in plain view
b. I will order the return because the police had no prior justification for the intrusion
c. I will order the return because the police did not come upon the money inadvertently
d. I will order the return because the illegality of the object is not readily apparent
ANSWER: D
4.While PO1 Garcia was drinking coffee at a terminal one morning, he saw accused dressed in patched and
faded clothes boarding a bus. Slung over the shoulder of accused was a new Highland back pack. His suspicion
aroused by the contrast between the old clothes and the new bag, PO1 Garcia hurriedly gulped the steaming
contents of his cup, accosted the accused and opened the bag over the protests of the accused. True enough, PO1
Garcia’s suspicion was confirmed for in one of the pockets of the bag, he found a bundle of marijuana leaves.
Is the marijuana admissible in evidence?
a. Yes, because their was a valid stop and frisk

b. Yes, because there was a valid search of a moving vehicle
c. Yes, because accused is presumed to have consented to the search
d. No, because there was no probable cause for the conduct of the search
ANSWER: D
While a CAFGU member was urinating at a fence behind a bamboo school, he saw a garden of about 70
square meters with corn and camote tops. Concealed by the corn, however, were marijuana plants. The CAFGU
asked from a storekeeper nearby as to who owned the garden and was told that it was accused. He reported to the
detachment officer who dispatched a team of CAFGUs an hour later. Going straight to his house, they asked
accused, who was too scared to object, to bring th team to the backyard garden which was just five (5) meters away.
The CAFGUs uprooted the marijuana and arrested accused.
The best way to justify the search and seizure is to argue that it is: [5%]
a. With the consent of accused
b. Done by a private person
c. A case of stop-and-risk search
d. Made in plain view.
ANSWER: D
COMELEC Resolution on checkpoint.- Any search at any COMELEC checkpoint must be made only by
members of the unit designated to man the same. It should be done ina a manner which will impose minimum
inconvenience upon the person or persons so searched, to the end that civil, political and human rights of the
persons are not violated.
As a rule, a valid search must be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by an appropriate authority. However, a
warrantless search can be in the following cases:
a. Moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain view;
20 | P a g e
b. As long as the vehicle is neither searched not its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the
vehicle is merely limited to a visual search;
c. When the occupant(s) of the vehicle appear to be nervous or suspicious or exhibit unnatural reaction;
d. If the officer conducting the search has reasonable or probable cause to believe that either the occupant(s) is a
law offender or that the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission of a crime can be found in the
vehicle to be searched; or
e. On the basis of prior confidential information which are reasonably corroborated by other attendant matters.
Abad Sample: A warrantless search is valid when the search is made by:
a. A customs officer at the home of a known smuggler

b. Anti-drug enforcers
c. Policemen at the COMELEC checkpoint
d. NBI agents looking for a bomb at a mall
ANSWER: C
4. Valid warrant less Arrests:
* When is his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense; [Flagranti Delicto Rule]
2. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed it; and [Freshly Committed Rule] OLD RULE
Amendment: When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. NEW RULE
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another. (RULES OF COURT)
REBELLION-EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT IN THE ACT OF CARRYING ARMS, YOU CAN BE ARRESTED. IT IS A
CONTINUING CRIME. IN FLARANTE DELICTO AT ALL TIMES. A CRIME OF THE MIND. ONCE A REBEL, ALWAYS A
REBEL. CAN BE ARRESTED EVEN WHEN SLEEPING.
Requisites: Has just been committed]
1. Time element [Sinoc allowed 12, while Manlulu disallowed 19 it is up to lawyers to argue] Continuing Offense?
SC EXPANDED THE MEANING IN NATIONAL SECURITY OFFENSES
2. Probable cause/ [personal knowledge?]
Jayson –a person was shot and killed. When police arrived, somebody told police that the accused shot the victim
SC: there is probable cause to arrest- pointed to by the witness.
Alavario – the house helper called her sister and told her that she was a victim of rape by her employer.
The sister called the police. Police went to the house and knocked. When the house helper opened the door she
pointed to the employer as the man who raped her. Was there probable cause to arrest hi,> yes, the victim herself
pointed to the person to be arrested.
Vinalon – robbery aboard a bus; shooting-many are wounded; wounded passengers pointed to the police the
robbers. SC: valid. Has just been committed and there is probable cause.
Posadas-4 days- hazing incident in UP. Based on the investigation, Posadas was responsible for the
killing the police arrested him. SC: no, they were not personally present when the crime was committed.
Kimura- 2 days ---buy bust operation. Kimura was able to run away. The following day, how was seen by
some policemen eating in a restaurant. Kimura was arrested. The police who arrested was not present in the buy
bust. Not a valid arrest.
21 | P a g e
RULE: THE REPORT OF VICTIM/WITNESS IS SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE PROVIDED THAT YOU
SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CRIME HAS JUST BEEN COMMITTED.
Test: Report of victim and witness generally sufficient
But Cubcubin ( somebody was killed; one person said that they saw the victim with cubcubin before the
killing, waitress on the beerhouse said that cubcubin was drinking with the victim; because of that, they arrested
cubcubin; SC: that is not probable cause .
What is the testimony? Saw victim with cubcubin not cubcubin killing the victim), Sequino (there were
three people who withdrew money from the bank; they boarded a motorcycle; after passing a certain place, they
were shot; one dead, one wounded, one managed to go to the police; police went to the crime scene; they saw a
piece of paper there with biodata af Sequino somebody used it as a toilet paper; they arrested Sequino; he was
jalled for many years ; SC: no probable cause-biodata in the crime scene used as a toilet paper .
People v. Uyboco , Jan. 21, 2011
The police officers present in Magallanes Commercial Center were able to witness the pay-off which
consummated the crime of kidnapping. They saw accused take the money from the car trunk of the father of the
kidnap victims. Such knowledge was then relayed to the other police officers stationed in front Bonifacio where
appellant was expected to pass by. The police officers in fort Bonifacio tailed the car of the accused, later blocked it
and arrested him. Was the arrest valid? HAS JUST BEEN COMMITTED? YES. PROBABLE CAUSE? YES. VALIDATED
People v. Marinez, Dec, 19, 2010
An Informant told the police that he had information that accused inside a house. Without a warrant, the
police raided the place and seized 155 plastic sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49
pieces of used aluminum foil all of which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride. Was the arrest valid?
ILLEGAL THIRD HAND KNOWLEDGE
1993, 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 the desk sergeant [to clear
his name]. Coincidentally, the rape victim was in the premises executing an extra-judicial statement. The victim
pointed to him as the rapist and he was arrested. Valid?
a. Yes, because the victim pinpointed to him so that the police had probable cause to arrest him
b. Yes, because the offense has just been committed as only one week lapsed from its commission
c. Yes, because going to the police station amounts to waiver of his right against illegal arrest
d. No, because with the lapse of one week, the police should have secured a warrant
ANSWER: D Teenhankee case –even if pointed by accused, no longer has just been committed
Question, 10, 1997: A, while on board a passenger jeep one night, was held up by a groupd of 3 teenagers
who forcibly divested her of her watch, necklace and wallet containing P11. That done, the trio field. B, the jeepney
driver, and A complained to the police to whom they gave description of the culprits. According to the jeep driver
he would be able to identify the culprits if presented to him. Next morning, A and B were called to arrest of C and D
valid?
a. Yes, because the information given by the victim constitutes probable cause
b. No, the rules required that the police officers should have been personally present during the commission of the
crime
c. No, because at the time of the arrest the offense was no longer freshly committed
d. No, because the Constitution provides that an arrest can only be effected by virtue of an arrest warrant
ANSWER: A
Exclusionary Rule: Meaning – evidence cannot be used in court

Q
1. Illegal warrantless searches
22 | P a g e
2. Void warrants
. Consequence – return the objects, unless they are contraband. In most cases, accused will have to be acquitted.
(The state does not guarantee return) murder case: gun was recovered illegally; can still be convicted of murder
without the gun. The gun is merely a corroborating evidence. Acquitted.
. Stonehill – A personal right who can invoke exclusionary rule? Only the person whose right is violated. Search
warrant for violation of RPC- a general warrant. Several warrants were issued. Search was directed against the house
of Stonehill and others directed to the corporation, illegal search. During trial, stonehill moved for the exclusion of
all evidence. Those taken from the house cannot be used against him, but those taken from the corporation can be
used against him.
A and B were illegally searched. Evidence taken from B can be used against A and those taken from A can be used
against B.
. Provisions with exclusionary rule: 2, 3, 12 & 17 WHO CAN INVOKE EXCLUSIONARY RULE? ONLY THE PERSON
WHOSE RIGHT IS VIOLATED
2-searches
3 privacy of communication
12-custodial investigation
17-self incrimination
Which of the following constitutes the meaning of the “fruit of the poisonous tree” rule?
[a] All objects not described in the warrant should not be seized
[b] All objects obtained through illegal search should be returned to the owner
[c] All objects obtained through illegal search are inadmissible in evidence
[d]the officer making the illegal search may be criminally liable
ANSWER: C
No exclusionary rule in illegal arrest. Apply only to searches. Should those illegally arrested be acquitted? NO.
Charge again – if evidence is sufficient, can still be convicted even if illegally arrested.
VICTIM: he raped me last month. No longer as just been committed. File the case. Conduct preliminary
investigation. Obtain an arrest warrant.
AN INFORMANT WENT TO THE POLICE STATION.SOMEBODY WAS PACKING DRUGS INSIDE HIS HOUSE. POLICE
WENT THERE AND SEIZED. NOT A VALID ARREST. BASED ON INFO. BEFORE YOU ARREST SOMEBODY BECAUSE
HE COMMITTED A CRIME, YOU MUST KNOW THAT THERE IS A CRIME GOING ON.
BURGOS: plowing his fields. Cafgus told military that this guy have guns- a rebel. They arrested Burgos and dug the
field and they found guns. Arrest was illegal. No probable cause. You cannot make an arrest based on information
alone. There must be probable cause.
* Sec. 3
* The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court,
or when public safety or order requires as prescribed by law.
2011 Bar Exam:
* 7. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
court or when
* A. public safety or public health requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
* B. dictated by the need to maintain public peace and order.
* C. public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
23 | P a g e
* D. public safety or order requires otherwise as determined by the President.
* Sec. 3. Privacy of Communications
* May be restricted:
* Upon lawful order of the court (court)

* Court can order it in the manner in Sec. 2… apply before the judge for the tapping and prove that there is
probable cause and the judge can order the conduct of wiretapping
* When prescribed by law as public order and safety requires (congress has to pass a law)
* It applies new of modes of communications such as text messages as it is also a form of communication
* RA 4200 – punishes interception and recording of conversation without the consent of both
parties . [Anti-Wire Tapping Law]
It is similar to Sec. 3 in the sense that they are both exclusionary rules, but it goes further because it punishes
(violation becomes a crime). It is narrower in the sense that it covers only oral communication (it is about
oral communications only not written or letters). Text messages are not covered with this.. Call definitely
included
* Alejano – Can letters of detainees or convicts be opened and read? Is Sec. 3 available to them? Exception?
Yes… as a general rule, all letters can be opened.. People in jail do not enjoy privacy to communications
except letters written between detainees/convicts and their lawyers in view of the lawyer-client privilege
* This can be done as part of the Standard Operating Procedure in Jails…
* The letter between lawyer and client may be opened but cannot be read… IT IS SUBJECT TO OPENING BUT
CANNOT BE READ!!!!
* Ople: Does the Constitution protect the right to privacy? When may it be curtailed?/Sabio (the constitution
only provided the privacy of communication-which
communication-which is very limited…) However, it is a constitutional right even
if not specifically provided or listed in the constitution as the PROVISIONS OF bill of rights is really intended
to protect person’s privacy… SUCH as due process, against unreasonable seizures, against self
incrimination….
* Character: Right to Privacy is a fundamental right.. It is superior to property rights… it is fundamental like
right to freedom of religion, speech and expression….
* Can it be curtailed? Before you can have it curtailed, it must be shown that there is a compelling state
interest (same in freedom of religion) as compared to requirement of substantial state interest in the exercise
of police power.
* Salcedo-Ortanez – taped recorded conversation
* Zulueta – pictures [Marti rule?]
* Bar Questions:
* 1998, No. 7: The police had suspicions that Juan Samson, member of the subversive New Proletarian Army,
was using the mail for propaganda purposes in gaining new adherents to its cause, The Chief of Police of
Bantolan, Lanao del sur ordered the Postmaster of the town to intercept and open all mail addressed to and
coming from Juan Samson in the interest of national security. Was the order of the Chief of Police valid?
24 | P a g e
a. yes, because the order was premised on national security
b. yes, because a Chief of Police is authorized by law to open the correspondence of any person
c. yes, because as a police officer, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official function applies
d. no, because the order violates the privacy of communication and correspondence it can be had
only through court order or a law passed by congress
* No. 8, 1989: While serving sentence in Muntinglupa for the crime of theft, X stabbed dead one of his guards.
X was charged with murder. During his trial, the prosecution introduced as evidence a letter written in prison
by X to his wife tending to establish that the crime of murder was the result of premeditation.
premeditation. The letter was
written voluntarily. In the course of inspection, it was opened and read by a warden pursuant to the rules of
discipline of the Bureau of Prisons and considering its contents, the letter was turned over to the prosecutor.
The lawyer of X objected to the presentation of the letter and moved for its return on the ground that it
violates the right of X against unlawful search and seizure. Decide.
* a. no, because jail authorities cannot restrict the privacy of communication unless there is a court order
* b. no, because while a rule the letters of detainees may be openned, a letter to one’s spouse is
covered by marital privilege (
* c. yes, because detainees and prisoners have a limited claim to privacy and all their letters may be read
without a court order
* d. yes, the letter may be opened and read by the warden because it was not addressed
to nor was it from his lawyer (letter between lawyer and client/detainees is the only exception to the
general rule)
* No. 12, 2001: A has a telephone line with an extension. One day, A was talking to B over the telephone. A
conspired with his friend C, who was at the end of the extension line listening to A’s telephone conversation
with B, to overhear and tape-record the conversation wherein B confidentially admitted that with evident
premeditation, he killed D for having cheated him in their business partnership. B was not aware that the
telephone conversation was being tape-recorded.
* In the criminal case against B for murder, is the tape recorded conversation containing his admission
admissible in evidence?
(this is prohibited under the Anti-wiretapping law…the tape was recorded without the consent of other party…
unauthorized recording of conversation!!!!!
* [Assume that C only listened through the extension line and he was later called to testify on what he heard.
Would his testimony be admissible?] (note that phone extension is not prohibited by law… C may testify…)
* A filed an annulment case against her husband based on psychological incapacity of the latter. While the
case was pending, she broke open the drawers and cabinets in her husband’s office and took away the
pictures, letters and cards sent to her husband by his paramour. Her husband objected to the admission into
evidence of the documents on the ground of illegal search and seizure. Are they admissible?
* yes, because one cannot invoke the Bill of Rights against a private person, in this case one’s spouse
* yes, because by entering into a contract of marriage, one waives his right to privacy with respect to his
spouse
* no, because there was no court order or a law authorizing the seizure of the documents
ZULUETA CASE!!! NOTE THAT YOU CANNOT INVOKE BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST PRIVATE
PERSON… STRANGE PROBLEM… BUT THE EMPHASIS IS THAT 1. by entering into a contract
of marriage, one DOES NOT waive his right to privAcy with respect to his spouse 2. THIS DOCTRINE
APPLIES ONLY IF THE SUIT IS BETWEEN SPOUSE in view of the fact that bill of rights can be invoke only
25 | P a g e
against state.. SEC. 3 IS STILL COVERED BY EXCLUSIONARY RULE..
* no, because the seizure violated the Anti-Wire Tapping Act
* 2009, VI
* In a criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution presented, as witness, an employee of the Manila Hotel
who produced in court a videotape recording showing the heated exchange between the accused and the
victim that took place at the lobby of the hotel barely 30 minutes before the killing.
killing. The accused objects to
the admission of the videotape recording on the ground that it was taken without his knowledge or consent,
in violation of his right to privacy and the Anti-Wire Tapping law. Resolve the objection with reasons. (3%) [Is
the evidence admissible?]
* YES! (NOTEWORTHY IS THE FACT THAT THE ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW APPLIES EVEN TO PRIVATE PERSONS
NOT ONLY STATES)…. IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ANTI WIRETAPPING LAW BECAUSE HIS PRIVACY WAS
NOT VIOLATED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INCIDENT HAPPENED IN THE LOBBY… PRIVACY CANNOT
BE EXPECTED IN A PLACE LIKE LOBBY OR STREETS.. YOU CANNOT EXPECT YOUR RIGHT TO BE
RESPECTED IN SUCH PLACES… HENCE INSTALLATION OF CCTV IS ALLOWABLE IN SUCH PLACES..
MOREOVER, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE CONVERSATION AS THE ACCUSED WAS SHOWN IN
THE TAPE TO BE SHOUTING AT THE VICTIM.. IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE CONVERSATION..
HENCE, LECTURES ARE NOT COVERED BY PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS.. IT CAN BE RECORDED
* RA No. 9372
Please take note that the right to privacy to communications may be limited by law..
* Anti-wiretapping law
* Anti-terrorism law
SEC. 7 . Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications. – The provisions of Republic
Act No. 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official
and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals , listen to, intercept and
record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or
intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a
judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or
of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism .
NOTE: IF YOU ARE NON TERRORIST.. YOU CAN APPLY WITH THE RTC, MTC MTC (BECAUSE THEY ARE
AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SEARCH WARRANTS) TO TAP THEIR PRIVATE CONVERSATION!
Sec. 27. Judicial Authorization Required to Examine Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records . - The
provisions of Republic Act No. 1405,
1405, as amended, to the contrary notwithstanding, the justices of the Court
of Appeals designated as a special court to handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of the
existence of probable cause in a hearing called for that purpose [may authorize law enforcement officers to]:
(a) examine, or cause the examination of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records in a
bank or financial institution; and
(b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such deposits, placements, trust
accounts, assets, and records from a bank or financial institution. The bank or financial institution concerned,
shall not refuse to allow such examination or to provide the desired information, when so, ordered by and
served with the written order of the Court of Appeals.
Question! HOW IS THIS LIMITATION BALANCED? IT IS NOW BALANCED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF HABEAS
DATA
26 | P a g e
SECTION 1. Habeas Data.â€”The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose right to
privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public
official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing of data
or information regarding the person, family, home and correspondence of the aggrieved party. party.
So if abovementioned persons violate your right to PRIVACY as when they got information about you without court
order, YOU FILE petition FOR THE ISSUANCE OF HABEAS DATA to protect you right to PRIVACY
* MERALCO v. Lim, Oct. 5, 2010
* May an employee invoke the remedies available under such writ of habeas data where an employer
decides to transfer her workplace on the basis of copies of an anonymous letter posted therein ─ imputing
to her disloyalty to the company and calling for her to leave, which imputation it investigated but fails to
inform her of the details thereof?
What happened here is that letters were posted in the working places attaking against a meralco employee.. The
employer decided to transfer her to another unit.. She asked copies of the same which had been the basis of her
transfer but the company did not assented to her request.. So she filed a petition for the issuance for habeas data
on the ground that it covers Private persons.. Held: PETITION DENIED!!!! THIS MATTER HAS REFERENCE WITH
EMPLOYMENT…. UNDER SEC. 1, EMPLOYMENT IS A PROPERTY RIGHT.. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE,
LIBERTY AND SECURITY !!!! HABEAS DATA WAS CREATED TO ADDRESS EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS, salvaging!
YOU GO TO THE NLRC AS HER CAUSE OF ACTION HAS REFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT!!!!
Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.
5 RIGHTS PROTECTED!!!
* SPEECH
* EXPRESSION
* PRESS
* ASSEMBLY
* PETITION
THESE ARE POLITICAL RIGHTS AS THEY ARE EJOYED INORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN AFFAIRS OF THE
GOVERNMENT!!!
* Freedom of speech, expression and of the press is the liberty to discuss publicly and
truthfully any matter of public interest without censorship or punishment.
* Outline
* Forms of restriction
* Tests on Restriction
* Petition and Assembly
* Restraints on Expression:
* 1. Prior Restraint
* Prior restraint is government restriction on forms of expression in advance of actual

publication or dissemination.
27 | P a g e
* 2. Subsequent Punishment
* Subsequent punishment is the restraint on freedom of speech, expression and of the press
that comes after the exercise of said rights in the form of criminal prosecutions, citations for contempt or
suits for damages.
* Chavez v. Gonzales, 555 SCRA 441 (2008): Do press statements of high officials threatening the press with
prosecution (IF THEY WILL KEEP ON AIRING GARCILLIANO TAPES), even fi not reduced to formal orders or
directives, forms of prior restraint? YES! EVEN PRESS STATEMENTS OF HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CAN
BE CONSIDERD AS FORM OF PRIOR RESTRAINT SINCE IT RELATES TO THEIR EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS BECAUSE IT THREATEN PEOPLE WITH PUNISHMENT OR CLOSURE OF ESTABLISMENT
* The exercise of prior restraint bears a presumption of unconstitutionality (IT IS BECAUSE

FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS IMPORTANT TO THE VITALITY OF THE SOCIETY…. THERE
SHOULD BE PUBLIC DEBATE ON ISSUES.. HENCE, ANY RESTRICITON TO THE SAME, IS
PRESUMED ILLEGAL , except: (WHEN THE PRESUMPTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY DOES NOT
APPLY)
* In times of war
* When the COMELEC exercises its power under Sec. 4, Art. XI ©. (REGULATION OF FRANCHISE OF
MASS MEDIA DURING ELECTION PERIOD AS WHEN IT PROHIBITED THE SALE OF TIME IN RADIO AND
TV)… NOTE THAT SUCH POWER IS VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE COMELEC.. HENCE
PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONAL!!
* When the restriction is content neutral
* Content-Neutral v. Content-Based
* Content-Neutral – One that is imposed not on the content of the speech but on the time mode or
manner of place of the exercise of the right . [No presumption of unconstitutionality, and a deferential
standard of review is required. (intermediate review)] – IS THE RESTRICITON REASONABLE? MILD FORM OF
REVIEW!
* DO NOT WRITE GRAFITTI ON THE WALL.. YOU ARE NOT RESTRICTING THE RIGHT TO MAKE GRAFITTI BUT
ONLY THE MANNER.. YOU ARE NOT BEING PROHIBITED FROM EXPRESSING YOURSELF.. EXPRESS IT SOME
OTHER MANNER! YOU WRITE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE IT CANNOT MAKE DIRTY BUT NOT ON THE
WALL !!
* Content-based- imposed on conten t, suffers from presumption of unconstitutionality and should be subject
to the clear and present danger rule (TO JUSTIFY IT, THE GOVERNMENT MUST SHOW THE CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER WHY IT IS MAKING SUCH RESTRICTION!!
* EX. PROHIBITION ON AIR INTERVIEWS INVOLVING ABU SAYAF.. YOU ARE ACTUALLY PROHIBITING THE
EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!!!
Which restriction is content-based:

a. prohibition on the writing of graffiti on walls
b. prohibition to conduct rallies within 200 meters of any court house
c. prohibition on mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space or air time for campaign purposes
d. prohibition on newspaper columnists from discussing plebiscite issues in their columns
* The prohibition on mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space or air time
* for campaign purposes is:
* (a) content-neutral it regulates only the time, manner,
28 | P a g e
* (b) needs to be subjected to the clear and present danger test (APPLIES ONLY IF IT IS CONTENT
NEUTRAL)
* © is presumed unconstitutional
* (d) can be justified if there is a compelling state interest
Bar Question 2011:
* 11. An example of a content based restraint on free speech is a regulation prescribing
* A. maximum tolerance of pro-government demonstrations.
* B. a no rally-no permit policy. CONTENT NEUTRAL
* C. when, where, and how lawful assemblies are to be conducted. CONTENT NEUTRAL
* D. calibrated response to rallies that have become violent.
* Challenges to restriction on free speech :
* Overbreath – a law is overbroad which sweeps unnecessarily broadly and invade an area of protected
freedom
* Vagueness – a law which lacks comprehensive standard so that people would differ as to its meaning
* Southern Hemispere v. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 5 (2010)
* How is the doctrine of vagueness differentiated from the doctrine of overbreadth?
* Answer: A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards
that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its
application. It is repugnant to the Constitution in two respects : (1) it violates due process for
failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to
avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and
becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle . The overbreadth doctrine, meanwhile,
decrees that a governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state
regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area
of protected freedoms.
* IF THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, IT MUST THAT WHICH IN SUCH A
MANNER THAT NO OTHER RIGHTS WILL BE VIOLATED OR AFFECTED OR BURDENED!
* Example of an overbroad restriction:
* 2003, No. 9: May the COMELEC prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on mobile places, public or
private, such as on a private vehicle and limit theor location only to the authorized posting areas that the
COMELEC itself fixes. NO! WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE REGULATION WILL PROMOTE ORDERLY ELECTIONS,
IT AFFECTS THE RIGHT OF A PERSON TO PRIVATE PROPERTY….. HENCE, OVERBROAD RESTRICTIONS!!!
* Also ABS-CBN – prohibiting exit polls- COMELEC ISSUED RESOLUTION PROHIBITING EXIT POLLS ON THE
PREMISE THAT IT WILL AFFECT THE CANVASSING CREDIBILITY OF THE COMELEC… HELD: IT IS
UNCONSTITTIONAL FOR BEING OVERBROAD… COMELEC CANNOT PROHIBIT THE SAME BUT MAY ONLY
REGULATE SUCH (FREEDOM OF SPEECH).. IT IS UNDULY OPPRESSIVE TO THE RIGHT OF RIGHT OF
EXPRESSSION…. IT MAY REGULATE THAT ONLY CREDIBLE POLLSTERS WILL CONDUCT EXIT POLLS
* Example of vague law:
29 | P a g e
* Ople Case- NATIONAL ID SYSTEM WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE FREE SPEECH.. HOWEVER, SC RULED
THAT IT WAS VAGUE BECAUSE IT PUT NO PARAMETERS IN THE CONDUCT OF STORING INFORMATION OF
A PERSON… AS TO WHAT DATA SHOULD BE STORED IN THE SYSTEM… THE ADMIN CODE DID NOT ALSO
SPECIFY AS TO WHO ARE GIVEN ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION.. POLICE MAY ENDUP USING THE
INFORMATION TO BLACK MAIL PEOPLE
2011 Bar Exam:
48. An ordinance prohibits “notorious street gang members” from loitering in public places . The police
are to disperse them or, if they refuse, place them under arrest. The ordinance enumerates which police
officers can make arrest and defines street gangs, membership in them, and public areas.
areas. The ordinance was
challenged for being vague regarding the meaning of “notorious street gang members.” Is the ordinance
valid?
* A. No, it leaves the public uncertain as to what conduct it prohibits .

LOITERING- WHAT DOES IT MEAN.. WHAT IS LOITERING! HENCE LEAVING AUTHORITIES UNBRIDDLED
DISCRETION!
* B. No, since it discriminates between loitering in public places and loitering in private places.
* C. Yes, it provides fair warning to gang members prior to arrest regarding their unlawful conduct.
* D. Yes, it is sufficiently clear for the public to know what acts it prohibits.
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE HAS IT THAT LAW AUTHORIZING THE ARREST OF “3 OR MORE PEOPLE TO
GATHERING IN A SIDEWALK IN AN ANNOYING MANNER”- HELD- IT IS VAGUE BECAUSE “ANNOYING MANNER” IS
NOT CLEAR.. AN ACT MAY BE ANNOYING TO ME BUT NOT TO OTHER..
ALSO CSC CIRCULAR PROHIBITING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FROM WEARING TOO MUCH JEWELRIES- DEAN
OBSERVED THE SAME TO BE VAGUE AS IT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINE WHAT IS “TOO MUCH” JEWELRY..
Also PROHIBITION FROM WEARING MINI SKIRTS- IT IS VAGUE AS IT CANNOT BE DETERMINED WHAT IS MINI
SKITS.. HOW SHORT? HHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
* Southern Hemishphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council, Oct. 5, 2010
* Under Sec. 3 of RA 9372, the crime of terrorism has the following elements: (1) the offender commits an
act punishable under any of the cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or under any of the enumerated
special penal laws; (2) the commission of the predicate crime sows and creates a condition of widespread
and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace; and (3) the offender is actuated by the desire to
coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.
demand. Considering that an “unlawful demand” has to be
transmitted through some form of expression, does the law violate the free speech clause?
* HELD: no! WHAT THE LAW PUNISHES IS THE CONDUCT AND NOT THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH… THE
SPEECH IS ONLY INCIDENTAL TO THE CRIME.
This was premised on an american jurisprudence wherein a man was prosecuted for criminal offense for wearing
tshirt with a tag “FUCK YOU”.. The law was impugned for being violative to the right of freedom of expression..
Held.. IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE AS THE LAW DOES NOT PUNISHES YOU FOR EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF
EXPRESSSION BUT BASED ON YOUR CONDUCT
* Note distinction of conduct and expression!
* BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* Tests on Restrictions (ON EXPRESSION to determine w/n it is valid:
* 1. Dangerous Tendency
* If the words spoken create a dangerous tendency which the state has a right to prevent, then
such words are punishable. (what is being punished here is the tendency of the speech)
* 2. Clear and Present Danger.
* Whether the words are used in such circumstances and are such nature as to create a clear
and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evil that the legislature has a right to prevent.
30 | P a g e
(the danger is about to happen or is happen and the problem is very serious) ex. “ shouting fire or a
bombscare in a theater)
* (GONZALES VS. COMELEC)
*
* 3. Balancing of Interest
* Courts will weigh or balance the conflicting social interests that will be affected by legislation and
uphold what should be considered as the most important interest.
* - Lagunsad- this involved the filmaking of the life of MOISES PADILLA, the family asked for Royalty fees but
the producer refused the same that Moises Padilla is a public figure, hence it only exercises the right of
expression by portraying the life of a public figure.. RIGHT OF PRIVACY VS. FREE OF EXPRESSION
* -Contempt/SC- CRITICIZING THE SC AND THE LATTER HOLDS A PERSON IN CONTEMPT USING THE
BALANCING OF INTEREST.. USUALLY SC USES THIS TEST IN PUNISHING PEOPLE FOR CONTEMPT IN MOST
CRITICIMS LEVELED AGAINST FORMER IN THAT- WHILE A PERSON HAS THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION, THE SC HAS ALSO RIGHT TO PROPER ADMINSTRATION OF JUSTICE.. HENCE, THE LATTER
WOULD ALWAYS PREVAIL THAT SC WOULD EASILY HOLD PEOPLE IN CONTEMPT FOR CRITICISMS
LEVELED AGAINST SC.
* HOWEVER, SC USES THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE TO DETERMINE W/N CONTEMPT SHOULD
BE HAD IN LOWER COURTS.. OTHERWISE STATED, IT IS VERY HARD TO HOLD A PERSON IN CONTEMPT
FOR CRITICIZING A LOWER COURT AS IT USES CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST!!
* NORMALLY, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE IS APPLIED IN OUR JURISDICTION… THESE ARE THE
ONLY 2 INSTANCES WHERE SC USES BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST
* Libel: Vasquez Rule ( this INVOLVES USUALLY LIBEL AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS,.. NOTE THAT IF IT IS
AGAINST PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WOULD ARISE- BECAUSE THERE IS NO PUBLIC
INTEREST INVOLVED IN MALIGNING PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL)
* NOTE THAT WHEN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE BEING CRITICIZED OR LIBELED IN THE EXERCISE
OF HIS FUNCTION, CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WOULD ARISE AS EVERY PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO
EXPRESS MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND IN VIEW OF THE ACCOUNTABLITY OF GOVERNMENT
OFFICERS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS!
* If the libelous statement relates to official functions (OR IT RELATES TO A CRIME), truth is a defense. EX.
WHEN YOUR ARE BEING LIBELED TO HAVE BEEN REPORTING ONLY DURING RELEASE OF SALARIES,
SINCE IT IS RELATED TO YOUR FUNCTIONS, TRUTH IS A DEFENSE. HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE BEING
MALIGNED FOR BEING CRAZY, TRUTH IS NOT A DEFENSE. It is the public official who must prove that
the statement is false, and
* It was made with knowledge of its falsity, or
* There was reckless disregard whether it is true or not. (WHEN THE PERSON LIBELING DID NOT BOTHER
TO VERIFY THE SOURCE)
* Borjal-
* The reverse presumption applies not only to public officials but to a “public figure” (ACTRESSES,
PACQUIAO, CHURCH LEADERS WHO CRITIZES OF GOVERNMENT-BECAUSE PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE
INTEREST IN HIS EVERY ACTIVITIES):
* PUBLIC FIGURE- any person who, by his accomplishment, fame, mode of living, or by adopting a profession
or calling which gives the public interest in his doings, affair or character.
Also take note of:
31 | P a g e
Re: Letter of UP Law…, 644 SCRA 543 (2011) (VINUYA CASE)
LAWYERS HAVE LIMITED FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AS THEY ARE GOVERNMENT BY THE CODE OF JUDICIAL
ETHICS …. NARROWER RIGHTS
* Question 5, 2004: The STAR, a national daily newspaper, carried an exclusive report stating that Senator XX
received a house and lot located at YY St., Makati, in consideration for his vote cutting cigarette by 50%. The
Senator sued the Star for libel claiming the report was completely false and malicious. According to the
Senator, there is no YY St. in Makati, and the tax cut was only 20%.
* The defendants denied actual malice, claiming privilege communication and absolute freedom of the press to
report on public officials and matters of public concern. If there was any error, the Star said it would publish
the correction promptly.
* Is thee actual malice in Star’s report. How is actual malice defined? Are the defendants liable for
damages?
* THE BURDENED BELONG TO THE SENATOR… HE must prove that the statement is false, and
* It was made with knowledge of its falsity, or
* There was reckless disregard whether it is true or not.
AS LONG AS THERE EXIST NO MALICE, LIBEL CASE IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE
* If a newspaperman accuses a Sangguniang Bayan member of being corrupt, and the latter sues the newsman
for libel:
* (a) the accused has the burden of proving his accusation to be true to get acquitted
* (b) the government official has the burden of proving that it is false
* © the accused has the burden of proving that it was made without malice
* (d) the right to free expression cannot be invoked by the accused
* 2007, No. V. The Destilleria Felipe Segundo is famous for its 15-year old rum, which it has produced and
marketed successfully for the past 70 years. Its latest commercial advertisement uses the line:
“Nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse anyos ?” Very soon, activist groups promoting women’s and
children’s rights were up in arms against the advertisement.
* (b) One of the militant groups, the Amazing Amazonas, call on all the government-owned and
controlled corporations (GOCC) to boycott any newspaper, radio or TV station that carries the “kinse
anyos” advertisements. They call on all government nominees in sequestered corporations to block any
advertising funds allocated for any such newspaper, radio or TV station. Can the GOCCs and
sequestered corporations validly comply?
* YES
* ASSUMING IT CAN COMPLY, IT CANNOT NOT PASS THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE… NOTE
THAT ADVERTISEMENT IS COVERED BY THE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.. WHILE THERE IS A DANGER
TO MORALS, IT IS NOT IMMEDIATE AND CLEAR…
* CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
* Petition and Assembly
* Freedom of assembly is the right of the people to meet peaceably for consultation and discussion
of matters of public concern.
* Test: Clear and Present Danger to Public Safety, Order, Morals, etc. (PURPOSES OF POLICE POWER)
32 | P a g e
* Bayan v. Ermita:
* 1. Is BP 880 constitutional? PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACT: REQUIREMENT OF SECURING PERMIT BEFORE

HOLDING PROTEST/DEMONSTRATIONS-HELD-CONSTITUTIONAL! IT IS CONTENT NEUTRAL- IT ONLY
RESTRICTS THE MANNER, AND MODE OF THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO HOLD DEMONSTRATION
* 2. Is CPR constitutional? CALIBRATED PRE-EMPTIVE RESPONSE- UNCONSTITUTIONAL! NOTE THAT

UNDER BP 880, POLICE ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE MAXIMUM TOLERANCE IN RESPONDING
DEMONSTRATIONS! DO NOT DESTRUCT RALLIES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
* 3. What if there is no freedom park? SC OBSERVED THAT LGUS WERE NOT COMPLYING THE MANDATE
TO PUT UP FREEDOM PARKS.. HENCE, IN DECISION, IT MANDATED ALL LGUS TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN
WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM COURT DECISION.. OTHERWISE, ALL GOVERNMENT PLAZAS WILL BE CONSIDERED
FREEDOM PARKS IN THAT PEOPLE CAN HOLD RALLIES IN SUCH PLACES WITHOUT THE NEED OF
SECURING PERMIT FOR THE SAME... WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THERE IS NO PERMIT TO
HOLD A RALLY?- FOR AS LONG AS THE APPLICANT/DEMONSTRATORS CAN SHOW THAT THEY MADE
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT 3 DAYS BEFORE THE INTENDED RALLY, THERE IS PRESUMPTION THAT IT HAS
BEEN GRANTED! SO THE BURDEN THAT IT WAS NOT GRANTED BELONG TO THE AUTHORITIES
* 4. Who has the burden of proving that there is no permit? THE BURDEN THAT IT WAS NOT GRANTED
BELONG TO THE AUTHORITIES/POLICE
* 5. When may freedom Of assembly be restricted or denied? ONLY WHEN THERE IS CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER! IBP v. Atienza, 2010- THIS HAPPENED WHEN MAYOR ATIENZA ISSUED A PERMIT ALLOWING
HOLING RALLY ONLY IN LUNETA AND NOT IN MENDIOLA AS APPLIED.. HELD: THAT IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! YOU CAN ONLY RESTRICT THE RIGHT OR THE CHANGE TERMS OF THE PERMIT OR
PLACEOF HOLDING IF YOU ARE ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER – IT
IS THE STANDARD THAT SHALL BE USED TO RESTRICT, CHANGE THE TERMS OF PERMIT
* he can only modify terms of the of the application on the ground of clear and present danger
which must be indicated in his approval
The IBP applied for a permit to hold a rally at Magsaysay Park at 2-5:00 PM of April10. The Mayor, without any
explanation, granted the application for them to hold a rally at Rizal Park . Is the act of the Mayor
proper?
* yes, because as chief executive he has discretion whether or not to grant the application
* yes, because the right to assembly is not an absolute constitutional right but is subject to restriction
* no, because he can only modify terms of the of the application on the ground of clear
and present danger which must be indicated in his approval RELATE THIS WITH
PREVIOUS SLIDE
* no, because the constitutional right is not subject to any limitation by local authorities
* Bar question!
* 2002, No. 10: 10 public school teachers of Caloocan left their classrooms to join a strike, which lasted for
one month, to ask for teachers’ benefits. They were dismissed by the DECS Secretary. They argue that their
strike was an exercise of their Constitutional right to peaceful assembly and to petition the government for
redress of grievances. Resolve. [Also 2000, No. 12] WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO
PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY…. THE STUDENTS HAVE ALSO THEIR RIGHT TO EDUCATION.. THE SC BALANCED
THE CLASH BETWEEN 2 CONFILICTING RIGHTS. IT SAID THAT YOU EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT IN SUCH A WAY
THAT IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF THE STUDENT OR CLASS HOURS… HENCE, SC VALIDATED THE
DISMISSAL OF THE TEACHERS!
* 2006, No. II, The SM filed with the Office of the City Mayor of Manila an application for permit to hold a rally
on Mendiola St . on Sept. 5, 2006 fro 10:00 to 3:00pm to protest the political killings of journalist.
However, the City Mayor denied their application on the ground that a rally at the time and place applied for
will block traffic in the San Miguel and Quiapo districts. He suggested the Liwasang Bonifacio, which has
been designated a Freedom Park, as venue for the rally.
33 | P a g e
* 1. Does the SM have a remedy to contest the denial of its application for a permit?
* 2. Does the availability of the Freedom Park justify the denial of SM’s application for a permit?
* 3. Is the requirement to apply for a permit to hold a rally a prior restraint on freedom of speech and
assembly?
* 4. Assuming that despite the denial of the application for a permit,its membes held a rally prompting the
police to arrest them. Are the arrests without judicial warrants lawful?
* 1. Does the SM have a remedy to contest the denial of its application for a permit?
* YOU GO TO COURT AND FILE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTION OR MANDAMUS!
* 2. Does the availability of the Freedom Park justify the denial of SM’s application for a permit? NO! IT IS
NOT CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER! TRAFFIC IS NOT CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
* 3. Is the requirement to apply for a permit to hold a rally a prior restraint on freedom of speech and
assembly?
* 4. Assuming that despite the denial of the application for a permit,its membes held a rally prompting the
police to arrest them. Are the arrests without judicial warrants lawful?
* 2007, VII. Batas Pambansa 880, the Public Assembly Law of 1985, regulates the conduct of all protest
rallies in the Philippines.
* Salakay, Bayan! held a protest rally and planned to march from Quezon City to Luneta in Manila. They
received a permit from the Mayor of Quezon City, but not from the Mayor of Manila. They were able to
March in Quezon City and up to the boundary separating it from the City of Manila. Three meters after
crossing the boundary, the Manila Police stopped them for posing a danger to public safety. Was this a
valid exercise of police power? YOU CAN ANSWER IT BOTH WAYS! 1. IT IS WITHOUT PERMIT SO THAT
THE POLICE CAN STOP THEM ONCE THEY ENTERED MANILA 2. MANILA POLICE AUTHORITIES MAY
EXERCISE MAXIMUM TOLERANCE… ANYWAYS THEY WERE ABLE TO SECURE PERMIT IN QUEZON
CITY.. NO CLEAR ANSWER!
* (b) The security police of the Southern Luzon Expressway spotted a caravan of 20 vehicles, with paper
banners taped on their sides and protesting graft and corruption in government. They were driving at 50
kilometers per hour in a 40-90 kilometers per hour zone. Some banners had been blown off by the
wind, and posed a hazard to other motorists. They were stopped by the security police. The protesters
then proceeded to march instead, sandwiched between the caravan vehicles. They were also stopped
by the security force. May the security police validly stop the vehicles and the marchers?
* UNDER THE BP 880, CARAVAN IS COVERED AS EXERCISE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY
2008, No. 15. Nationwide protests have erupted over rising gas prices, including disruptive demonstrations in
many universities throughout the country. The Metro Manila State University, a public university, adopted a
university-wide circular prohibiting mass demonstrations and rallies within the campus. Offended by the
circular, militant students spread word that on the following Friday, all students were to wear black T-shirts as
a symbol of their protest both against high gas prices and the university ban on demonstrations.
demonstrations. The effort
was only moderately successful. Nonetheless, university officials were outraged and compelled the student
leaders to explain why they should not be expelled for violating the circular against demonstrations.
The student leaders approached you for legal advice. They contended that they should not be expelled since
they did not violate the circular, their protest action being neither a demonstration nor a rally since all they
did was wear black T-shirts. What would you advise the students?
WEARING BLACK TSHIRTS IS ONLY AN EXERCISE OF FREE EXPRESSION.. IT IS NOT COVERED BY THIS SECTION!!!
NOT ASSEMBLY!
Which one is an example of a Heckler’s Veto?
* Veto by the mayor of an ordinance penalizing the writing of graffiti on the wall
* Veto by the mayor of an ordinance designating a “freedom park” where rallies without permit may be
held
* Refusal by the mayor to issue a rally permit on the ground that the applicant advocates views contrary to
34 | P a g e
that of the government
* Refusal by the mayor to issue a permit on the ground that views to be expressed in the
rally might outrage other people and violence will result- VIOLATIVE AS YOU ALLOW IT
TO BE A GROUND OF NOT GRANTING PERMIT! ONLY CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER IS A
VALID GROUND
* A heckler's veto occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of speech is curtailed or restricted by the
government in order to prevent a reacting party's behavior. The common example is that of demonstrators
(reacting party) causing a speech (given by the acting party) to be terminated in order to preserve the peace.
* A heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the possibility of] a violent
reaction by hecklers.
* Sec. 5
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion , or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship , without discrimination or
preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
rights.
* Manosca owns a small lot which turned out to be the birth place of the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo and
this was sought to be expropriated by the National Historical Society . The owner challenges the
expropriation on the ground that it favors one religion.
religion. The issue that was raised in Manosca pertains to:
* (a) the free exercise of religion [“free exercise clause”]
* (b) the establishment of religion [“non-establishment clause] (favoring one religion)
* © requirement of religious test [“religious test clause”
* (d) intramural religious dispute
* A DECS circular requiring elementary students to sing the national anthem and salute the flag regardless
of religion raises an issue about:
* (a) the free exercise clause
* (b) the non-establishment clause
* © the religious test clause
* (d) intramural religious dispute
* Section 5: Freedom of Religion
* 1. Non- Establishment Clause
* The non-establishment clause prohibits legislation which aid one religion, aid all religions, or
prefers one over another. (IDEA IS THAT THE STATE SHALL BE NEUTRAL WITH RESPECT TO ALL RELIGIONS)
IT APPLIES TO ALL GOVERNMENTAL ACT THAT SEEMS TO FAVOR ONE RELIGION OVER THE ANOTHER.. IT
SHOULD ALLOW RELIGION TO GROW IN ITS OWN MERITS
35 | P a g e
* 2. Free-exercise clause (
* Tests for Allowable Aid to Religion: W/N IT VIOLATES THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (ALL MUST
CONCUR)
* 1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose ; IT HAS NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE
* 2. The principal or primary effect is neither one that advances or inhibits religion; WHILE OTHER
GOVERNMENTAL ACT MAY HAVE THE INCIDENTAL EFFECT OF ADVANCING OR INHIBITING ONE RELIGION,
THE PRIMARY AND PRINCIPAL PURPOSE SHOULD NOT..
* 3. It must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion. (LEMON TEST)-
* ( LEMON VS. KURTZMAN )
* 1. Manosca – 2000, No. 8

Madlangbayan is the owner of a 500 square meter lot which was the birthplace of a religious sect who admittedly
played an important role in Philippine history and culture. The National Historical Commission passed a
resolution declaring it a national landmark and on its recommendation the lot was subjected to expropriation
proceedings. This was opposed by Madlangbayan on the following grounds ….(b) that those to be benefited
by the expropriation would only be the members of the religious sect of its founder. Resolve the opposition.
opposition.
HELD: IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
* THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE IS TO PROMOTE CULTURE, HONOR THE CONTRIBUTION OF MANALO TO
OUR CULTURE
* THE PRINCIPAL EFFECT IS TO ENRICH OUR CULTURE WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION..
THOUGH THE INCIDENTAL EFFECT MIGHT FAVOR THE IGLESIA.
* THERE IS NO EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE
PROPERTY WILL BE MANAGED BY THE NATIONAL HISTORICAL INSTITUTE.
It pass the 3 test!!
* 2. In re: Iglesia.. Iglesias tv program kept on attacking catholic church.. MTRCB ordered for the halt of the
program: HELD: Issuance of TRO will amount to favoring the Catholics which will violate the
NONESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE… DO NOT INTERFERE THE ISSUES BETWEEN RELIGIONS!!!
* 3. Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, 2010- THE COMELEC DISALLOWED THE REGISTRATION OF ANG LADLAD AS
PARTY LIST PREMISING THE SAME ON THE KORAN PROVISIONS WHICH CONDEMNED HOMOSEXUALITY..
IT WAS IMPUGNED: HELD: SC SAID IT VIOLATED THE NON ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.. BY APPLYING THE
KORAN PROVISIONS, YOU ARE FAVORING SAID RELIGION OR ITS MORALS!!!!
* 3. Question 10, 1992 (LEMON TEST): Recognizing the value of education in making
making the Philippine labor
market attractive to foreign investment,
investment, the DECS offers subsidies to accredited colleges and universities in
order to promote quality education. The DECS grants subsidy to a Catholic school which requires its
students to take at least 3 hours a week of religious instruction.
* 1. Is the subsidy permissible?
* yes, because the subsidy does not violate any law
* no, because the subsidy has no secular legislative purpose (making

(making the Philippine labor market
attractive to foreign investment)
* no, because the principal effect of the subsidy promotes religion (THE EFFECT IS THE PROMOTE
QUALITY EDUCATION AND PHILIPPINE ECONOMY)
* no, because it can create entanglement between state and religion (IT IS BECAUSE
36 | P a g e
ONCE IT IS SUBSIDIZED TO STUDENTS, IT MIGHT END UP AS PAYMENT TO TEACHERS
WITH THE END VIEW OF HAVING THE GOVERNMENT AUDITING SCHOOLS TO FIND OUT
WHERE THE SUBSIDY IS PAID) HENCE NULL AND VOID
* 2. Presuming that you answer in the negative, would it make a difference if the subsidy were given solely in
the form of laboratory equipment in chemistry and physics? NO PROBLEM HERE.. ONCE THE SUBSIDY IS IN
THE FORM OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS, IT CANNOT CREATE EXCESSIVE GOVERNMENT
ENTANGLEMENT SINCE SUCH EQUIPMENTS CANNOT BE USED FOR RELIGIOIUS PURPOSES
* 3. Presume, on the other hand, that the subsidy is given in the form of scholarship vouchers given directly to
the student and which the student can use for paying tuition in any accredited school of his choice, whether
religious or non-sectarian. Will your answer be different?
* THE LAW WILL BE OVERBROAD AND VAGUE… THERE ARE NO STANDARDS…. THE LAW SHOULD
SPECIFICALLY SET STANDARDS THAT WILL ENSURE THE SUBSIDY WILL NOT BE PAID FOR RELIGIOUS
PURPOSES… LISTEN TO DEAN DISCUSSIONS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* BUT REMEMBER THAT THE TEST WHETHER A LAW IS VAGUE OR OVERBROAD SHOULD BE APPLED OBLY IN
FREE SPEECH STATUTES ONLY! THIS IS THE ANSWER OF UP WHICH MAY NO LONGER HOLD WATER NOW!
* Free Exercise Clause
* Free exercise of religion is the freedom to believe,

believe, which is absolute, and the freedom to act,
act, which may be
restricted, in accordance with one’s beliefs.
* Test: Clear and Present Danger
* Freedom to believe-subject to no restriction because it is in the mind only.. Hence you can cause no harm to
anybody… hence the state cannot investigate you on matters of your belief (so long as it is only in the mind)
* Freedom to act- subject to the limitation by the congress by means of a law… because the moment we act,
we are likely to harm others.. Exercise of police power is a valid limitation to the freedom to act… hence no
law can be PASSED PUNISHING ONE WHO BELIEVES IN THE DEVIL!
* -ONCE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR BELIEVING IN MURDER, RAPING OTHER PEOPLE!!!! BUT ONCE YOU
START TO CONVERT YOUR BELIEF INTO ACT, IN THAT YOU ARE STARTING TO MURDER OR RAPING
PEOPLE , (FREEDOM TO ACT!)- YOU CAN NOW BE PROSECUTED!!
* 1998, No. 15 – A religious organization has a weekly television program. The program presents and
propagates its religious doctrines and compares their practices with those of of other religions.
As the MTRCB found offensive several episodes of the program which attacked other religions, the MTRCB
required the organization to submit its tapes for review prior to airing.
* The group brought the case to court on the ground that the action of the MTRCB suppresses its freedom of
speech and interferes with its right to free exercise of religion. Decide. [MTRCB’s act is:
* proper, because freedom to believe is subject to the police power of the state
* proper, because freedom to act may be restricted by the state-AIRING PROGRAMS IS
37 | P a g e
ALREADY AN ACTION!! FREEDOM TO ACT! IT CAN BE RESTRICTED!!
* improper, because freedom to believe is absolute
* improper, because of separation of church and state
* 1. Ebralinag, 1997, No. 12, 2003, No. 12- WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE DECS ISSUED A CIRCULAR
REQUIRING ALL STUDENTS TO SING AND SALUTE THE NATIONAL FLAG! THIS WAS IMPUGNED BY
JEHOVA’S WITNESS FOR BEING VIOLATIVE TO THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AS THEY ARE PROHITED TO
ADORE SYMBOLS(SALUTING FLAG)– SC HELD IN FAVOR OF JEVOVA’S WITNESSES AND EXEMPTED THEM
FROM THE MANDATE OF THE CIRCULAR in view OF THEIR INVOCATION OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION
* Clear and Present Danger- DECS MAINTAINED THAT IF WE ALLOW THEM TO BE EXEMPTED, THERE IS A
DANGER THAT IT MAY ALLOW OR PRODUCE PEOPLE TO BE DISLOYAL TO THE REPUBLIC.. BUT THE SC
SAID THAT SINGING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM AND RECITING AND AMONG TOHERS ARE NOT ONLY THE
WAYS OF PROMOTING LOYALTY TO THE GOVERNMENT.. IT CAN BE TAUGHT THROUGH HISTORY,
CULTURAL AND GOVERNMENT COURSES/SUBJECTS… HENCE, THERE IS NO CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER IF THEY BE EXEMPTED SO LONG AS THEY WILL NOT DISTURB THE FLAG CEREMONY…. ONCE
THEY DISTUB OTHERS, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER MAY NOW ATTACHED
* 2. Ang mga Kaanib- THIS INVOLVE ELI SORIANO’S RELIGIOUS GROUP WHICH SPLIT FOR SEVERAL TIMES
INTO ANOTHER GROUP… SORIANO USE THE SAME NAME OF THEIR GROUP WITH THE OTHER.. HENCE,
THE SEC ORDERED SORIANO TO CHANGE ITS NAME AS THERE IS ALREADY EXISTING USING THE SAME..
SORIANO OPPOSED THAT IT CANNOT BE DONE AS IT VIOLATES HIS FREEDOM OF RELIGION-FREEDOM TO
ACT ACCORDING TO HIS BELIEF- HELD- SC SAID THAT THE NAMING OF THE GROUP HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH RELIGION… SC EMPHASIZED THAT THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS THE FREEDOM TO ACT
ACCORDING TO YOUR BELIEF-.. HENCE NAMES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.. THIS IS A SIMILAR TO A
CASE WHERE FOREIGN RELIGIOUS GROUP APPLIED FOR THE REGISTRATION OF A LAND WITH ROD FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THEIR CHURCH OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES… ROD DENIED IT AS ALIENS ARE
PROHIBITED BY LAW WHICH PROMPTED THEM TO IMPUGN THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF FREEDOM
OF RELIGION… HELD- REGISTERING OR REGISTRATION OF LAND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM
OF RELIGION.. MOREOVER, YOU MAY STILL EXERCISE YOUR FREEDOM OF RELIGION WITHOUT HAVING
YOUR OWN LAND… YOU CAN WORSHIP GOD WITHOUT OWNING PROPERTY
* NOTE!!! FREEDOM OF RELIGION MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO WITH YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND
ACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR BELIEFS
* 3. Victoriano v. Elizalde- CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNION AND THE MANAGEMENT WAS
REACHED.. VICTORIANO, A WORKER, IMPUGNED THE SAME AS HE WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS RELIGION
FROM BECOMING A MEMBER OF ANOTHER GROUP (IGLESIA) –SC HELD THAT A COMPANY WORKER IS
ENTITLED TO BE A NON MEMBER IN VIEW OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION… NOTE THAT IN CASE OF
CONFLICT BETWEEN A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT (RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION) AND A PROPERTY RIGHT
(CONTRACT), THE FORMER SHOULD PREVAIL
* 4. Escritur: THIS INVOLVED A COURT A MARRIED COURT EMPLOYEE BUT WAS SEPARATED FACTUALLY…
SHE LIVED WITH A MARRIED MAN (GROUNDS FOR ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE).. HER REMOVAL FROM
OFFICE WAS INSTITUTED BUT SHE DEFENDED ON THE GROUND OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION (IN JEHOVA’S
WITNESSES, MEMBERS WHO INTEND TO LIVE EACH OTHER (EVEN IF PARTIES ARE ALREADY MARRIED TO
OTHERS) HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT OF PLEDGE OF FAITHFULNESS TO THEIR HEIRARCHY.. ONCE
THEY COMPLY THAT, A COUPLE ARE ALLOWED ALREADY TO LIVE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF CIVIL OR
RELIGIUS MARRIAGE.. CAN YOU IJNVOKE FREEDOM OF RELIGION TO LIVE A ADULTEROUS OR
CONCUBINUOUS LIFE? SC HELD ALLOWING THE SAME…. FOLLOW BELOW
* 1. What should be the state’s attitude towards religion? Benevolent neutrality- THE STATE SHOULD BE
NEUTRAL AND NOT HOSTILE TOWARDS IT BECAUSE IT IS FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION
38 | P a g e
* 2. What test should be applied? (HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN FREEDOM OF RELIGION SHOULD BE
RESPECTED?) “Compelling interest test ” ‘paramount and compelling” (NOTE THAT THE SC IS NOT
USING CLEAR AND PRESENT AND DANGER TEST… IT USED COMPELLING INTEREST TEST AS IT DID IN
CONTENT BASED (FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION) RESTRICTIONS)- THE STATE MUST SHOW COMPELLING
STATE INTEREST TO JUSTIFY STATE INTERVENTION!)
*
* 3. Has it discharged the burden? Prejudice?
* THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE SOLGEN ONLY PRESENTED ITS SIDE BASED ON THE
PROVISIONS OF FAMILY IN THE FAMILY CODE AS INVIOLABLE INSTITUTION.. SC SAID THAT IS NOT A
COMPELLING STATE INTEREST… IT HELD THAT THE STATE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW A STATE
COMPELLING INTEREST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE PROHIBITION OF THE JEHOVA’S PRACTICE IN THE
INSTANT CASE. MOREOVER, SC SAID THEY DID NOT PROSECUTE THEM FOR ADULTERY OR
CONCUBINAGE… FURTHER IT DID NOT AFFECT OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE SUPREME COURT…. HENCE,
THE SC RULED THAT THE COUPLE CAN GO ON WITH THEIR ARRANGEMENT (THE IMMORAL LIFE) IN THE
NAME OF THE RELIGION…
* NOTE! IF THE STATE CAN DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF THE COMPELLING STATE INTEREST , THEN
THE COURT CAN PROHIBIT A PRACTICE OR ARRANGEMENT (IMMORAL) WHICH MAY BE INVOKED IN THE
NAME OF RELIGION OR IN FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE… SAME WITH PRESENT AND DANGER TEST!
* OBSERVATION: ANNULMENT ISSUED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO ITS MEMBERS MIGHT BE
RECOGNIZED IN VIEW OF THE BENEVOLENT NEUTRALITY OF THE STATE TOWARDS RELIGION…
* Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
* In an episode of Ang Dating Daan, Eliseo Soriano uttered the following statement: (IN A TV PROGRAM
against THE IGLESIA NI CHRISTO)
* Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;
* Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Yung putang babae ang gumagana lang
doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan.
Sabi ng lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng mga demonyong ito.
* SO THE IGLESIA FILED BEFORE THE MTRCB TO SUSPEND SORIANO FROM HIS PROGRAM..
* HELD: THE WORDS UTTERD BY SORIANO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS BELIEF OR EXERCISE OF
RELIGION.. NOTE THAT WHAT IS ONLY PROTECTED BY THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS YOUR BELIEF AND
ACTIONS OR ACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR BELIEF
* RELIGIOUS DISPUTES-WHAT SHOULD BE THE ATTITUDE OF THE STATE WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGIOUS
QUARREL
* 1. As between religious groups- WE HAVE NO PROBLEM HERE!!!
* (Iglesia)
* 2. Among members of same group (Austria, Taruc)

* AUSTRIA- THIS INVOLVED A PASTOR OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST…. HE WAS DISMISSED FOR
MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS OF HIS CHURCH.. BUT THE NLRC DISMISSED THE SAME ON THE
GROUND THAT IT IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS IS IT IS A RELIGIOIUS MATTER…. SC HELD: IT IS NOT
A RELIGIOUS MATTER.. WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED HERE IS LABOR CODE… THERE IS A NEED TO
DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A VALID GROUND FOR HIS DISMISSAL… W/N HIS
DISMISSAL WAS VALID.. HENCE, THE NLRCE SHOULD TAKE COGNIZANCE WITH THE SAME
* TARUC- TARUC WAS A PRIEST OF AGLIPAYAN CHURCH WHO WAS TRANSFERRED BY THEIR BISHOP
BECAUSE THERE WAS A QUARREL BETWEEN HIS GROUPS AND OTHER MEMBERS IN HIS PLACE.. WITH
39 | P a g e
THAT, TARUC AND HIS LOYALISTS WERE THROWN OUT FROM THE AGLIPAYAN CHURCH BY THE
BISHOP.. SO TARUC INSTITUED AN ACTION FOR HIS REINSTATEMENT TO THE CHURCH….. SC HELD
COURTS CANNOT TAKE COGNIZANCE ON THE MATTER AS THE SAME INVOLVED ECCLESIASTICAL
OR RELIGIOUS MATTER- THE QUARREL IS WHO SHOULD BE THE MEMBERS OF THE
church…. POWER OF EXLCUDING FROM SUCH ASSOCIATIONS!
* An ecclesiastical or religious affair is one that concerns doctrine, creed or form of worship of the church,
church,
or the adoption and enforcement of regulation within the religious organization for the government of
the membership and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed
unworthy of membership ” memo this !!!!
* Creed or doctrine- example is the correct day of going to church… it cannot be decided by the court!
* EMPHASIS: THE COURT CANNOT DECIDE ecclesiastical or religious affairs because no law can be
applied in resolving this matter.. REMEMBER THAT COURTS ONLY DECIDE BASED ON LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION!!!
* XVI, 2009
* Angelina, a married woman, is a Division Chief in the Department of Science and Technology. She had been
living with a married man, not her husband, for the last fifteen (15) years. Administratively charged with
immorality and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service,
service, she admits her live-in arrangement, but
maintains that this conjugal understanding is in conformity with their religious beliefs. As members of the
religious sect, Yahweh's Observers, they had executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness
which has been confirmed and blessed by their Council of Elders . At the formal investigation of
the administrative case, the Grand Elder of the sect affirmed Angelina's testimony and attested to the
sincerity of Angelina and her partner in the profession of their faith. If you were to judge this case, will you
exonerate Angelina? Reasons. (3%) YES!!! IN VIEW OF ESCRITUR CASE… THE ARRANGMENT OR THE
PRACTICE SHOULD BE ALLOWED UNLESS THE STATE CAN DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROVING
COMPELLING STATE INTEREST!!!
* Meanwhile, Jenny, also a member of Yahweh's Observers, was severely disappointed at the manner the Grand
Elder validated what she considered was an obviously immoral conjugal arrangement between Angelina and
her partner. Jenny filed suit in court, seeking the removal of the Grand Elder from the religious
sect on the ground that his act in supporting Angelina not only ruined the reputation of their religion, but
also violated the constitutional policy upholding the sanctity of marriage and the solidarity of the family. Will
Jenny's case prosper? Explain your answer. (2%)
* THE COURT CANNOT DECIDE ecclesiastical or religious affairs because no law can be applied in resolving
this matter.. REMEMBER THAT COURTS ONLY DECIDE BASED ON LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION!!!
* Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits prescribed by law shall not be
impaired except upon lawful order of the court . Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in
the interest of national security, public safety, or public health as may be provided by law.
law.
* Liberty of abode is the freedom where to live… Freedom of domicile
* Sec. 6. A: Liberty of abode:
* Restricted by:
* 1. Congress –Within the limits prescribed by law (this refers to law passed by congress and not by
ordinance) (PERSONA NON GRATA PASSED BY LOCAL SANGGUNIANG BODY IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE)
(THE CONGRESS HAS THE GREATER DISCRETION AS TO WHAT GROUNDS FOR THE RESTRICITON OF
LIBERTY OF ABODE)
* 2. Court – lawful order of the court (Yap Case)
* YAP- a person was convicted of estafa. Pending the appeal of his case, he was granted bail but was ORDERED
by the CA to inform them of his residence from time to time OR REPORT MUST BE SUBMITED BEFORE THE
CA RELATIVE TO RESIDENCE… he impugned this on the ground of liberty of abode.. HELD,,, Right to Liberty
40 | P a g e
of abode may be restricted by LAWFUL ORDER OF THE COURT!!!!
* 1996, No. 2: The military commander in charge of the operation against rebel groups directed the
inhabitants of the island which would be the target of attacks by government forces to evacuate the area and
offered the residents temporary military hamlet. Can the military commander force the residents to transfer
their places of abode without court order? Explain.
*
* yes, because of the risk to the lives of the people that might be caused by the military operation
* yes, because executive officials, including the police and the military, can restrict the liberty of abode
* yes, because forcing people to transfer their residence does not violate any law
* no, because only the courts or Congress by means of a law can restrict the liberty of
abode
* 1998, 8- Juan Casanova contracted Hansen’s disease with open lesions. A law requires that lepers be
isolated upon petition of the City health Officer . The wife of Juan Casanova wrote a letter to the City
Health Officer to have her formerly philandering husband confined in some isolated leprosarium. Juan
Casanova challenged the constitutionality of the law as violating his liberty of abode. Will the suit prosper?
* NO! IT WILL NOT PROSPER AS THERE IS A LAW REQUIRING LEPERS TO BE ISOLATED UPON PETITION OF A
CITY HEALTH OFFICER
* B. Right to travel: Who can restrict?

* Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or
public health as may be provided by law.
law.
[Silverio and Santiago cases]- IT CLARIFIED THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
OFFICIALS CAN RESTRICT THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL
THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT DESPITE THE WORDING OF THE CONSTITUTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO
TRAVEL(WHICH MAY BE RESTRICTED ONLY BY LAW), THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL MAY BE RESTRICTED BY THE
FOLLOWING:
* 1. Courts, of people out on bail- IT IS INHERENT IN THE ADMINSTRATION OF JUSTICE.. OTHERWISE IT

WOULD BE HARD FOR COURTS TO IMPOSE SENTENCES BECAUSE THEY WILL BE NOW OUT OF COURTS
JURISDICTION… BUT IT APPLIES ONLY TO CRIMINIAL CASES AND NOT IN CIVIL ONE BECAUSE THERE IS
NO BAIL HERE IN CIVIL CASE AND IF YOU RUN AWAY, YOU CAN BE DECLARED IN DEFAULT AND THE CASE
WILL PROCEED AND YOUR PROPERTY CAN BE EXECUTED…!!!!!!
* 2. Executive and administrative officials, if they do not act arbitrarily.

arbitrarily. Meaning that (THEY ACT NOT
ARBITRARILY IF) 1.THERE is a law authorizing them and
* 2.they do it on the basis of national security, public safety and public health
(SO THERE MUST BE A LAW AUTHORIZING THEM FOR THE SAME)
* 3. Congress [Silverio and Santiago cases]-

-
41 | P a g e
Marcos case- THIS INVOLVED FORMER PRESIDENT MARCOS WHO WAS IN HAWAII DURING HIS LAST DAYS
WANTED TO RETURN TO THE PHILIPPINES BUT WAS PROHIBTED BY PRESIDENT CORY AQUINO..
THEY INVOKED THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL.. HELD: SC HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL ENSHRINED IN THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE RIGHT TO RETURN.. IT COVERS ONLY THE RIGHT TO LEAVE THE
COUNTRY…… RIGHT TO RETURN IS NOT COVERED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!!!
HOWEVER THE SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZED THAT THE RIGHT TO RETURN OWNS COUNTRY IS PROTECTED
BY INTERNATIONAL LAW…
HAD THE RIGHT TO RETURN BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS COULD
NOT HAVE PREVENTED OR PROHIBITED MARCOS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LAW THAT TIME
AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT CORY TO LIMIT SUCH RIGHT WHICH MUST BE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, NATIONAL
SECURITY AND HEALTH.. HENCE, SINCE THE RIGHT TO RETURN IS PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS,
WE DON’T HAVE TO APPLY THAT PROVISIONS IN THE PRECEDING SLIDE..
IT IS ONLY PROTECTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SINCE THE CONSTITUTION IS SILENT AS TO WHO
CAN LIMIT THE RIGHT TO RETURN, THE PRESIDENT IS EMPOWERED TO LIMIT SUCH RIGHT IN VIEW OF
HER RESIDUAL, IMPLIED AND INCIDENTAL POWERS
-Mirasol- THE DPWH/MMDA ISSUED AN ORDER PROHIBITING THE USE OF MOTORCYCLES ALONG CERTAIN
ROADS IN METROMANILA… IT WAS IMPUGNED AS VIOLATIVE TO THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL… HELD: IT DOES
NOT VIOLATE… SUCH ORDER DOES NOT PROHIBIT FROM GOING FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER.. WHAT
IS BEING PROHIBITED HERE IS ONLY THE MODE OF TRANSPORTATION.. THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL
GUARANTEES YOU TO REACH IN YOUR DESTNATION… THERE IS NO GUARANTEE AS TO THE MODE OF
TRANSPORATION
-GMA v. De Lima- IT IS NOT REALLY AN ISSUE OF RIGHT TO TRAVEL!!!! IT WAS REALLY AN ISSUE ON THE VALIDITY
OF THE TRO ISSUED BY THE COURT WITHOUT HEARING.. BUT BASICALLY THIS CASE CAN BE APPLIED TO
EXECUTIVE AND ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICIALS AS THERE WAS NO LAW AT THAT TIME AUTHORIZING THEM
TO ISSUE HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER BUT ONLY CIRCULAR BY DOJ
* THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED IF A CASE HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST YOU AND YOU
INTEND TO TRAVEL ABROAD
* Conditions when court may allow travel:
* 1. Prove urgency
* 2. State duration
* 3. Obtain consent of surety/
* Bar--1991/No. 6:Mr. Esteban Krony, A Filipino citizen, is arrested for the crime of smuggling. He posts bail
for his release.
release. Subsequently, he jumps bail and is about to leave the country when the DFA cancels his
passport. He sues the DFA claiming violation of his freedom to travel citing Sec. 6 Art. III, to wit: Neither shall
the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as
may be provided by law. Decide.
* IF YOU ARE ON BAIL FOR CRIMINAL CASES LEVELLED AGAINST YOU, THE COURT MAY RESTRICT YOUR
RIGHT TO TRAVEL!!!!! EVEN IF NOT MENTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
* NOTE: THE PRACTICE NO IS THAT HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ARE ISSUED TO THOSE GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS FACING ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES
* Which statement is legally correct? [5%]
* Sec. 6 of the Bill of Rights with respect to the right to travel:
* (a) includes the right of citizens to enter another country AS OTHER COUNTRY MAY NOT ALLOW YOU
* (b) covers the right of citizens to return to the Philippines MARCOS CASE
* © guarantees the right of aliens to come to the Philippines BECAUSE THEY MUST APPLY FOR VISA
42 | P a g e
* (d) protects the right of citizens to leave the country PROVIDED THAT OTHER COUNTRY
ACCEPTS YOU
* Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall be recognized.
Access to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government research data used as basis for
policy development,
development, shall be afforded the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
*
* Sec. 7: A. Right to Information
* B. Access to official records
* A. Matters of public concern – those which the public may want to know, because
* it directly affects their lives or
* because they arouse the interest of a citizen
* 1. Bantay Republic v. COMELEC- RESOLUTION OF THE COMELEC HAD IT THAT THE NAME OF PARTY LIST
MEMBERS/NOMINEES WILL BE KEPT SECRET… THIS WAS IMPUGNED BY SALONGA.. COMELEC
CONTENDED THAT PARTY LIST ELECTION IS NOT PERSON ORIENTED: HELD: TRUE, THE PARTY LIST IS
ELECTED BUT IT IS THE NOMINEES WHO WILL BE SEATING IN THE CONGRESS.. HENCE, THIS IS A
MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN!! SO THE NAME SHOULD BE RELEASED BEFORE THE ELECTION!!!!
* 2. Legaspi – CS eligible- the CSC REFUSED TO DIVULGE INFORMATION AS TO W/N A PERSON IS ELIGIBLE..
HELD: INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS INDICATING W/N A PERSON IS A CS ELIGBLE IS A MATTERS OF
PUBLIC CONCERN BECAUSE ONLY THOSE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE CAN OCCUPY GOVT. POSITIONS!
* 3. Hilado – Are all court records pertaining to a case public records (IN SUCH A WAY THAT ANYBODY CAN
ASK FOR THEM)? IT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED!
* RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS, AND DECISIONS OF JUDGES- THESE ARE MATTERS OF PUBLIC
CONCERNS!!! EXCEPTION- CASE OF SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE- THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC
CONCERN… ONLY INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ACCESS OF INFORMATION…..
AFFIDAVITS OF RAPE CASES IS NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHT..
* PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES- (OTHER MATTERS SHALL BE DECIDED
ON CASES TO CASE BASIS IN THAT AFFIDAVITS IN RAPE CASES CANNOT BE ACCESS
*
* 4. Chaves- not only consummated contracts, but also steps leading to a contract, but not inter-agency
recommendations. Foreign affairs? THIS HAS REFERENCE WITH NEGOTITATION BETWEEN PCGG WITH THE
HEIRS OF MARCOS ON THE DIVISION OF ILL GOTTEN WEALTH.. CHAVEZ ASKED FOR THE DOCUMENTS OF
THE NEGOTIATION BUT PCGG REFUSED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS CONFIDENTIAL!!! HELD: sc said that
not only consummated contracts, but also steps leading to a contract ARE COVERED BY THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION! MEANING THAT EVEN STEPS LEADING TO THE CONTRACT (DIVISION OF ILLGOTTEN
WEALTH ARE COVERED BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION!! BUT NOT INTER-AGENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS AS IT IS NOT CONSIDERED AS STEPS LEADING TO A CONTRACT!!! IN OTHER
WORDS, THOSE INFORMATION RECOMMENDED BY OTHER AGENCY TO PCGG AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE
NEGOTIATED, IS NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION!! NO ACCESS CAN BE ALLOWED!!
HOWEVER ONCE, THE PCGG ACCEPTED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF OTHER AGENCY, IT BECOMES A
STEP LEADING TO A CONTRACT.. HENCE COVERED ALREADY BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION!!!!!
43 | P a g e
FOREIGN AFFAIR S…THIS IS NOT COVERED BY THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE..NO ACCESS CAN BE ALLOWED!!!
SO NOTES AND DOCUMENTS LEADING TO TREATY MAKING CANNOT BE ACCESSED..5. Akbayan –
diplomatic notes [presumptively privilege] EVEN AFTER TREATY HAS BEEN RATIFIED- COPIES OF
PROPOSALS AND COUNTER PROPOSALS TO TREATY NEGOTIATIONS EVEN IF IT HAS BEEN ALREADY
RATIFIED ARE PRESUMPTIVELY PRIVILEGE.. SO IT IS POSSIBLE YOU CAN BE ALLOWED TO ACCESS OR NOT
unless COVERED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE!!!
* 6. . Chavez –Bids submitted for evaluation, official recommendation? “official

“official acts and transactions”
transactions” CHAVEZ
ASKED FOR COPIES OF BIDS FOR THE SALE OF RECLAIMED LANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT!! HELD: Bids
submitted for evaluation, official recommendation ARE NOT CONSIDERED “OFFICIAL ACTS AND
TRANSACTIONS”.. BUT THE AWARDS OF THE BIDDING SHALL BE NOW CONSIDERED AS OFFICIAL ACTS
AND TRANSACTIONS!!!
* 7. Bayan v. Ermita: Legislative investigation – THE ORDER ISSUED BY GMA PROHIBITING ALL MEMEBRS OF
THE CABINET FROM APPEARING BEFORE LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATIONS IS VIOLATIVE TO RIGHT TO
INFORMATIONS!!!
* 8. Who has standing to enforce compliance in courts? Remedy-ANY CITIZEN HAS STANDING TO ENFORCE
COMPLIANCE IN COURTS BECAUSE THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION IS A PUBLIC RIGHT!!! YOU NEED NOT BE
A TAXPAYER TO ENFORCE THE SAME.. IT BELONGS TO ANYBODY!! YOU FILE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS
TO COMPELL THE DISCLOSURE OF THE INFORMATION!!
* 9. Exceptions: Cabinet sessions, court deliberations, diplomatic and military and national security matters,
trade secrets. (NOT COVERED BY THIS RIGHT!!) BEWARE!!
* XIV, 2009
* The Philippine Government is negotiating a new security treaty with the United States which could
involve engagement in joint military operations of the two countries' armed forces. A loose organization
of Filipinos, the Kabataan at Matatandang Makabansa (KMM) wrote the Department of Foreign Affairs
(DFA) and the Department of National Defense (DND) demanding disclosure of the details of the
negotiations , as well as copies of the minutes of the meetings.
meetings. The DFA and the DND refused,
contending that premature disclosure of the offers and counter-offers between the parties could
jeopardize on-going negotiations with another country. KMM filed suit to compel disclosure of the
negotiation details, and be granted access to the records of the meetings, invoking the constitutional
right of the people to information on matters of public concern.
* Decide with reasons. (3%) INFORMATIONS WHILE THE TREATY NEGOTIATIONS IS ON GOING
CANNOT BE DISCLOSED!! AFTER RATIFICATION OF THE SAME, IT MAY BE DISCLOSED UNLESS
COVERED BY THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE!!
* Will your answer be the same if the information sought by KMM pertains to contracts entered into by the
Government in its proprietary or commercial capacity?
capacity? Why or why not? (3%)
* CHAVEZ CASE SHALL BE APPLIED!! sc said that not only consummated contracts, but also steps leading
to a contract ARE COVERED BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION (CANNOT BE DISCLOSED)! MEANING
THAT EVEN STEPS LEADING TO THE CONTRACT (DIVISION OF ILLGOTTEN WEALTH ARE COVERED BY
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION!! BUT NOT INTER-AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS AS IT IS NOT
CONSIDERED AS STEPS LEADING TO A CONTRACT!!! IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE INFORMATION
RECOMMENDED BY OTHER AGENCY TO PCGG AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE NEGOTIATED, IS NOT
COVERED BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION!!
Which statement is correct:

(a) any citizen who questions in court the withholding of
information must satisfy locus standi by showing direct injury
(b) the right to information is a fundamental right and any restriction is presumed
unconstitutional- THE STATE MUST SHOW COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TO JUSTIFY ITS
RESTRICTION
© all information in the possession of the government may be accessed by citizens under Sec. 7
44 | P a g e
(d) the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act is a pre condition for the enjoyment of the right to
information
* Which statement is legally correct?
* A. Under Sec. 7, citizens can demand from government officials that they be given abstracts, summaries and
copies of official records. THE CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTEES ACCESS AND NOT BE GIVEN THOSE
DOCUMENTS.. YOU HAVE TO REPRODUCE IT IN YOUR OWN
* B. All records kept by any government agency are matters of public concern to which citizens can demand
access.NOT NECESSARILY
* C. One can demand information from the Civil Service Commission about the weight and height of an
employee when s/he entered government service. NOT OF PUBLIC CONCERN
* D. Information on foreign loans obtained by the government may be excluded from the scope of Sec. 7. IT
MUST COVERED BY SECTION 7
* NO CORRECT ANSWER!!!
Which statement is correct?
(a) all court records pertaining to a case should be made accessible

to the public
(b) all pleadings and other documents submitted by the parties
should be accessible to the public
© orders and decisions issued by the judge related to the case
should be accessible to the public
(d) access to records is a right that cannot be invoked against
courts
* Sec. 8. The right of the people , including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form
form unions,
associations or societies for
for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
* What the right to association guarantees?
* The right to join any association
* The right to refuse to join
* Exception: Close-shop agreement (YOU CANNOT REFUSED TO JOIN IF THERE IS A CLOSED SHOP
AGREEEMENT)
* Exception to the exception: freedom of religion (YOU CAN REFUSED TO JOIN EVEN IF THERE IS A
CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT IF YOU ARE PROHIBITED BY YOUR RELIGION)
* BPI v. BPI Employees, 627 SCRA 590 (2010)
* In 2000, BPI merged with FETBC.

* WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT BPI BANK CONSOLIDATED WITH FAR EAST BANK… THE BPI
EMPLOYEES HAS AN CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT. WHEN THE CONSOLIDATION WAS HAD, BPI REMAIN
AND FEBTC DISAPPEARED.. NOW EMPLOYEES OF THE FETBC DON’T WANT TO JOIN THE UNION BPI.
CAN THEY BE COMPELLED TO JOIN THE BPI UNION PURSUANT TO THE CLOSED SHOPE
AGREEEMENT? HELD: YES!!!! THEY CAN BE COMPELLED TO BECOME MEMBERS
45 | P a g e
* What does it guarantee? IT ONLY GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE (FORM ASSOCIATION!!… AFTER
ASSOCIATING, NOTHING IS PROTECTED ANYMORE
* 1. PAFLU- A LABOR UNION IS REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE BLR.. NOW BLR DENIED ITS
APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION.. THE UNION IMPUGNED THE SAME FOR BEING VIOLATIVE TO THEIR
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE.. HELD: IT WAS NOT VIOLATED AS THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO FORM THEIR
UNION… WHAT THE LAW GUARANTEES IS THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE AND TO FORM ASSOCIATION.. IT
DOES NOT GUARANTEE REGISTRATION OF UNION WITH BLR..!!!
* 2. Philippine Statehood USA- THIS ORGANIZATION WAS FORMED WITH THE AIM OF HAVING THE
PHILIPPINES PART OF THE USA.. ITS REGISTRATION WAS REFUSED.. HELD: THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF
THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE… THEY HAVE ALREADY FORM THEIR GROUP.. WHAT THE CONSTITUTION
GUARANTEE IS THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE AND FORM ASSOCIATION.. IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT IT
WILL BE GIVEN LEGAL PERSONALITY
* 3. Occena- HERE THERE IS A LAW THAT IF YOU ARE RUNNING FOR BARANGAY POSITIONS, YOU ARE
NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT YOURSELF AS A MEMBER OF A PARTY.. IT WAS IMPUGNED FOR BEING
VIOLATIVE… HELD: NO!! IT WAS NOT VIOLATIVE AS HE IS ALREADY A MEMBER OF THE PARTY.. WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE IS THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE AND FORM ASSOCIATION.. IT DOES NOT
GUARANTEE THAT YOU MAY RUN UNDER A YOUR PARTY…. LIMITED GUARANTEE
* 4. Tarnate v. Noriel- THERE WAS THIS RULES THAT ONLY EMPLOYEES/UNION MEMBERS WORKING FOR
AT LEAST 1 YEAR CAN VOTE IN THE ELECTION OF UNION OFFICERS.. HELD: THE CONSTITUTION ONLY
GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE. IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE UNION
OFFICERS.. YOU ARE ALREADY A MEMBER OF THE UNION
* But take note of Bell-Air, also (THIS HAS REFERENCE TO THE RULES OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
REQUIRING ALL HOMEOWNERS TO BE MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIAITON…- HELD: IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE TO
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE BECAUSE
* YOU ARE NOT PROHIBTED FROM NOT JOINING.. YOU CAN REFUSE TO JOIN BY NOT SELLING YOUR
PROPERTY IN THE SUBDIVISION!!
* YOU CANNOT INVOKE BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST PRIVATE ENTITIES
* PADCOM v. Ortigas [voluntary], but STA Clara?/
* Bar Q, 2000, No. 12: Are employees in the public sector allowed to form unions? To strike? Why?
* YES THEY ARE ALLOWED TO FORM BUT PROHIBITED TO STRIKE IN IN VIEW OF PD 180…
* Union A has a “close shop” agreement with company X. B a new employee refuses to join on the
ground that his religion prohibits him from doing so. Can B be forced to join the union?
a. yes, because he is bound by the close shop agreement like everyone else
b. yes, because the right to association does not include the right not to be a member of an association
b. no, because no person can be compelled to join an association against his will
D. no, because freedom of religion is superior to a close shop agreement
46 | P a g e
* Section 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
* Eminent domain is the power of the government to take over private property for public use after
payment of just compensation.
* MEMO THIS!
Who CANNOT expropriate?
a. the City of Davao LGU CAN EXPOPRIATE
b. Davao City Water District
c. Globe Telecom (IT IS A PUBLIC UTILITY INCLUDING SMART- THEY GRANTED BY LAW TO EXPROPRIATE
UNDER ITS CHARTER)
d. Commission on Elections– IT HAS NO POWER
* Principles: Inherent in the State, but exercised by Congress and those expressly authorized by
law . Can the COMELEC expropriate? PPI and Telebap
* PPI- THE COMELEC DEMANDED FREE SPACES FROM NEWSPAPERS WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION…
NOTE THAT SPACES IN NEWSPAPERS ARE CONSIDERED PROPERTY RIGHT.. HENCE JUST COMPENSATION
MUST BE HAD… HOWEVER AND SURPRISINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT COMELEC UNDER THE PROVISION OF
THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO POWER TO EXPOPRIATE.. IT IS INHERENT POWER OF CONGRESS
* TELEBAP- THE COMELEC ASKED FOR AIR SPACE FROM TELEVISION AND RADIO NETWORKS FOR ITS
ELECTIONS PURPOSES.. CAN IT BE DONE ? NOTE THAT AIR SPACE, TIME AND FREQUENCY IN RADIO AND
TELEVISION ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE OBTAINED ONLY BY FRANCHISE FROM
THE GOVERNMENT.. HENCE, IT CAN BE DONE!!!! ITS FRANCHISE IS SUBJECT TO IMPOSITION BY THE
STATE!!!!
* Outline:
* 1. Taking
* 2. Public Use
* 3. Just compensation
* I. Taking:
* 1. Physical possession- EXPROPRIATOR GETS THE LAND AND OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION IS
TRANSFERRED TO IT
* 2. Impairment of use – THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION BUT THERE IS

IMPAIRMENT OF USE OF PROPERTY
* Gutierrez – transmission lines (THIS HAPPENS WHEN NPC INSTALLED TRANSMISSION LINES IN ONE’S
PRIVATE PROPERY WITH THE IMPOSITION THAT NO PLANTS SHALL BE PLANTED UNDER IT… WHILE THERE
IS NO TRANSFER OF POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP, THE OWNER IS DEPRIVED OF THE FULL USE OF THE
SAME.. HE CANNOT PLANT TREES ANYMORE! THAT BURDENED THE PROPERTY ANYMORE
* SO THESE ARE FORMS OF TAKING!!! JUST COMPENSATION IS A MUST!!!
* Ibrahim (2007) - underground tunnels (THE NPC DIG TUNNELS UNDER ONE’S PRIVATE PROPERTY.
AFTER 13 YEARS, IT WAS DISCOVERED BY THE OWNER AND THE LATTER FILED BEFORE A COURT FOR
JUST COMPENSATION:: HELD: THIS IS A FORM OF TAKING REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF JUST
COMPENSATION!!THE SC ALSO EMPHASIZED THE EXTENT OF DEPTH UNDER ONE’S PROPERTY TO BE
47 | P a g e
CONSIDERED AS BEING TAKEN! OTHERWISE STATE, HOW HIGH OR HOW DEEP MUST IT BE … IT RULED –
TO THE EXTENT OF BENEFICIAL USE!!
*
* Andaya (2007)– flooded portion (DIKES WERE CONSTRUCTED BY DPWH FOR FLOOD CONTROL PURPOSES
AND AS A RESULT OF WHICH, SOME PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA HAVE BEEN FLOODED: HELD- SINCE
THE PROPERTY WERE ALREADY FLOODED, THERE IS AN IMPAIRMENT OF USE OF THE PROPERTY.. HENCE,
JUST COMPENSATION MUST BE HAD
* Ayala Land (2009)– free parking (AYALA MALLS IN MANILA COLLECTS PARKING FEE WITHIN THE AREA
OF ITS BUILDING.. THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FILED A CASE PROHIBITING AYALA FROM COLLECTING
PARKING FEES.. HELD: THE CASE MUST FAIL AS PROHIBITING AYALA FROM COLLECTING PARKING FEES
AMOUNTS TO TAKING A PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION!! THERE IS IMPAIRMENT OF USE OF
PROPERTY
* How much should expropriator pay? IT HAS TO BE ASCERTAINED BY THE COURTS!! THE 10% SET BY LAW
IS ILLEGAL. YOU HAVE TO PAY THE FULL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AFFECTED.
NPC v. Purefoods, 2008 – RA 6395
In expropriation for a right of way by the National Power Corporation, just compensation is equivalent to:
(a) the full market value of the property as described in the owner’s title
(b) the full market value of the portion affected by the right of way
(c) 10% of the value of the property covered by the right of way clearance
(d) the extent of the loss suffered by the owner as he may be able to prove during trial
* Elements of Taking: CAVEAT! BECAUSE THIS IS VERY CRUCIAL AS TO VALUE OF JUST COMPENSATION..
THE VALUE MAY BE SET AT THE TIME OF TAKING OR AT THE TIME OF FILING.. NOTE THAT ALL THESE
ELEMENTS MUST CONCUR TO CONSTITUTE TAKING.. OTHERWISE, THE JUST COMPENSATION MAY BE
VALUED AT THE TIME OF FILING
* 1 . Expropriator must enter the private property; BUILDING OF IMPROVEMENT OF ROADS ETC
* 2. The entrance must be for more than a limited period; MUST BE A PERMANENT PERIOD
* 3. The entrance should be under warrant or color of legal authority; GOVERNMENT MUST NOT BE A
SQUATTER OR IT MUST BE WITH PERMISSION
* 4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously affected
(BURDENED) OR IMPAIRED OF ITS USE);
* 5. The entrance must be to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment . ( REPUBLIC VS.
CASTELLVI )
* Examples – NPC v. CA, Tan v. Republic, Tiongson v. NHA
In 1980, NPC entered the property of X thinking that it belong to the City of Iligan. It built its power plants and paid
royalties to the City. In 1990, it acknowledged that the lot was owned by X and accordingly instituted
expropriation proceedings against X. The court ordered the City of Iligan to pay just compensation based on
the value in 1990. The court is correct since there was no taking in 1980 because NPC did not :
(a) enter the property for more than a momentary period
(b) enter under warrant or color of legal authority IT ENTERED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF
THE OWNER
(c) devote the property to public use
(d) did not oust the owner and deprive him of
beneficial enjoyment of the property
48 | P a g e
Since 1960, DECS rented the property of X on a yearly basis, and constructed a school thereon. In 1990, since
they could not agree on the rent, X cancelled the lease, but DECS instituted expropriation proceedings. The
court ordered compensation based on the value in 1990. The court is correct because in 1960:
* a. DECS did not enter the private property;
* b. The entrance was not under warrant or color of legal authority;
* c. The property was not devoted to public use ;
* d. The entrance did not oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial enjoyment .
RENTS AR E PAID HERE
* II. Public Use
* Use by the Public TO BUILD PUBLIC MARKET, CEMETERY, PLAZA
* Indirect advantage or benefit to the public/Sumolong/Manosca

* SUMULONG- PURPOSE IS HOUSING… THIS IS PUBLIC USE THOUGH ONLY FEW WILL BE BENEFITED, IT
WILL END UP FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF THE PUBLIC AS IT WILL MINIMIZE CRIMES, DRUG ADDICTIONS!!!
* MANOSCA- BIRTHPLACE OF MANALO WAS EXPOPRIATED BY THE GOVT… IT IS STILL PUBLIC USE AS IT IS
AIMED AT PROMOTING AND ENRICHING OUR HISTORY AND CULTURE
* Limits of second meaning: Manotoc
* See also Masikip– [Homeowners’ Association]

* MANOTOC- THIS HAPPENED WHEN THE GOVT EXPOPRIATED THE A BUILDING, SOME PORTIONS OF
WHICH WAS COMMERCIAL AND THE OTHERS ARE NOT… THE SECOND PORTION WAS MADE FOR
HOUSING WHILE THE OTHERS WAS MADE FOR RENTS INORDER TO FINANCE THE HOUSING IN THE
OTHER PORTIONS… HELD: THIS IS NO LONGER PUBLIC USE BECAUSE THE PURPOSE WOULD BE FOR
COMMERCIAL PURPOSE ALREADY
Bar Exam, 2011

10. The city government filed a complaint for expropriation of 10 lots to build a recreational complex for the
members of the homeowners' association of Sitio Sto. Tomas,
Tomas, the most populated residential compound in
the city. The lot owners challenged the purpose of the expropriation. Does the expropriation have a valid
purpose?
* A. No, because not everybody uses a recreational complex.
* B. No, because it intends to benefit a private organization.
* C. Yes, it is in accord with the general welfare clause.
* D. Yes, it serves the well-being of the local residents.
* 1. May the owner recover the property on the ground that expropriator diverted property to another public
purpose/or abandons it? Reyes v. NHA (IN EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS, THE BUYER BECOMES THE
ABSOLUTE OWNER… SO THE PROPERTY REMAINS TO BE OWNED BY THE GOVERNMENT EVEN IF IT
ABANDONS ITS PUBLIC PURPOSE.. (ABANDONED ALREADY!!!!)
* 2. As an exception, when may owner be allowed to recover? Heirs of Moreno-I (HERE, THE GOVERNMENT
AGREED WITH MORENO, THE OWNER, THAT IN THE EVENT IT WILL ABANDONED THE PURPOSE OF THE
PROPERTY FOR WHICH IT WAS EXPROPRIATED (TO BE USED AS AIRPORT), THE OWNER MAY RECOVER
THE PROPERTY..CONDITIONAL EXPROPRIATION!!!! BUT THE EXPROPRIATION JUDGEMENT DID NOT
MENTIONED EXPRESSLY THE CONDITION..
49 | P a g e
* 3. Must the condition be expressed in the decision? Heirs of Moreno-II NO NEED THAT THE CONDITION BE
EXPRESSED IN THE DECISION
* Vda. de Ouano v. Republic, 642 SCRA 384 (2011)
*
* If the expropriator does not use the property for the purpose for which it was expropriated, or abandons
it, or uses it for another public purpose, can the owner recover it?
* Held: Yes. The notion that the government, via expropriation proceedings, acquires unrestricted ownership
over or a fee simple title to the covered land [Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan], is no longer tenable. We
suggested as much in Heirs of Moreno and in Tudtud and more recently in Lozada, Sr.
* Expropriated lands should be differentiated from a piece of land, ownership of which was absolutely
transferred by way of an unconditional purchase and sale contract freely entered by two parties, one without
obligation to buy and the other without the duty to sell. In that case, the fee simple concept really comes into
conditional. The taking
play. There is really no occasion to apply the “fee simple concept” if the transfer is conditional.
of a private land in expropriation proceedings is always conditioned on its continued
devotion to its public purpose . As a necessary corollary, once the purpose is terminated or
peremptorily abandoned, then the former owner, if he so desires, may seek its reversion,
subject of course to the return, at the very least, of the just compensation received.
* Hence, ALL EXPROPRIATION ARE CONDITIONAL!!!!! ONCE THE PURPOSE OF PUBLIC USE IS
ABANDONED, THE PROPERTY MAY NOW BE RECOVERED BY THE OWNER!
Rights/Obligations of parties: Lozada, etc

Expropriator:
1. Return property
2. May give owner option to buy improvements, but if he declines, remove them
3. Keep income and fruits of the property
Owner:
1. Return just compensation, without interest
2. Pay expropriator necessary expenses for maintenance of property to the extent he got benefited
3. Pay interest only if there is delay in returning just compensation after expropriator has reconvenyed
Once the public purpose of the expropriation is abandoned, it is correct to say that:
(a) the expropriated property is restored to the previous owner
(b) property is restored only if the expropriation is made on condition that it will be returned if the purpose is
abandoned
© return is only applicable if the condition is stated in the court order allowing the expropriation
(d) return is not permitted because the decree of expropriation gives to the State a fee simple title
* 3. Just Compensation
* Must be in cash, except Santos (EXPROPRIATION UNDER THE CARP LAW, HERE THE GOVERNMENT
PAYS BY ISSUANCE OF BONDS, STOCKS,.. ETC)
* Determination is a judicial function [Purefoods and Libunao – RA 6395 only 10% for right of way?]
* Basis: Time of taking (ALL ELEMENTS HERE MUST BE COMPLETE) or time of filing, whichever comes
first, (RULES OF COURT)
* except City of Cebu case (EXPROPRIATION OF LGUS, THE BASIS OF JUST COMPENSATION IS ALWAYS AT
50 | P a g e
THE TIME OF TAKING!!!! THE RULES OF COURT IS NOT APPLIED!!...)
* 4. What is the rate of interest if expropriator fails to pay on time? Republic v. CA, Reyes v. NHA – 12%
[Libunao? 6% apparently if judgment is satisfied on time] BUT IF THIS WILL BE ASKED IN THE BAR, USE THE
12% FOREBEARANCE OF PROPERTY..
* Can the owner recover the property if expropriator fails to pay just compensation after an unreasonable
lapse of time? Republic v. Lim NO!!!! BUT YOU ARE ENTITLED TO INTEREST!!!
* NOTE: NON PAYMENT IS NOT A GROUND FOR RECOVERY!!!! YOU ARE ENTITLED WITH INTEREST ONLY!!!!
* Note:
In 1978, the NHA took possession of parcels of land pursuant of PD No. 1669 and PD No. 1670, and set up a
socialized housing project for squatters. On May 27, 1987, the Supreme Court declared the decrees
unconstitutional and the expropriation of the parcels of land null and void for being violative of the owner’s
right to due process.
process. On September 14, 1987, the NHA instituted expropriation of the same parcels of land.
From what date should just compensation be based?
* (a) 1978, because that was the time of the actual taking
* (b) 1987, because the entrance in 1978 was not under color of title
* © 1987, because the property was not devoted to public purpose in 1978
* (d) 1987, because the utilization of the property did not oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial
enjoyment of the property
Non-payment of just compensation for a long period of time, as a rule:

(a) entitles the previous owner to return of the property without further obligations to the expropriator
(b) entitles the owner to the market value of the property based at the time when payment is actually made
© entitles him to the payment of the market value at the time of taking, plus interest.
(d) entitles him to the return of the property provided he refunds the just compensation previously received
* When can expropriator enter the property?
* After filing of complaint,
* With notice to owner
* Deposit with authorized government depository
* Amount equivalent to assess value for taxation purposes [LGC – 15%
* NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE FINAL COMPENSATION… THIS AMOUNT IS ONLY FOR PURPOSES ENTERING THE
PROPERTY
* LGU IS SET TO 15% OF THE VALUE… THEN WRIT OF POSSESSION IS ENTERED!!!!
Bar Question, 2011
* 19. The government sought to expropriate a parcel of land belonging to Y. The law provides that, to get
immediate possession of the land, the government must deposit the equivalent of the land's zonal value.
value. The
government insisted, however, that what apply are the rules of court which require an initial deposit only of
the assessed value of the property.
property. Which should prevail on this matter, the law or the rules of court?
51 | P a g e
* A. Both law and rules apply because just compensation should be fixed based on its zonal or assessed value,
whichever is higher.
* B. Both law and rules apply because just compensation should be fixed based on its zonal or assessed value,
whichever is lower.
* C. The law should prevail since the right to just compensation is a substantive right that
Congress has the power to define. SUBSTANTIVE LAW PREVAILS OVER PROCEDURAL LAW!!!
the government must deposit the equivalent of the land's zonal value
* D. The rules of court should prevail since just compensation is a procedural matter subject to the rule making
power of the Supreme Court.
* Expropriation bY LGU’s
* It must be based on an ordinance, not a resolution; VM Realty, Saguitan
* There is no need to secure DAR clearance even if property is converted to non-agricultural [Province of
Camarines] (USUALLY, WHEN AN AGRICULTURAL LAND IS CONVERTED INTO A NON-AGRICULTURAL,
DAR CLEARANCE MUST BE SECURED.. HOWEVER, IN EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS BY LGU, NO
NEED TO SECURE THE SAME AS IT WOULD AMOUNT TO INTRUSION TO THE POWER OF THE COURT
TO DETERMINE W/N IT IS FOR PUBLIC USE)
* Provincial board cannot disapprove on the ground of lack of necessity. [Monday] If the purpose is
socialized housing, follow the order of priority in UDHA,
UDHA, Estate v. City of Manila,
Manila, 422 SCRA 551 (2004)
* MONDAY….(GENERALLY, ALL ORDINANCES PASSED BY COMPONENT CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES ARE

SUBJECT FOR REVIEW BY THE SANGGUNIANG PANGLUNGSOD TO DETERMINE W/N THE SAME ARE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH LAW OR OTHERWISE ULTRA VIRES..).. NOW, THE PROVINCIAL CANNOT DISAPPROVED
THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF NECESITY OR ULTRA VIRES AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
EMPOWERS THE LGUS OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN WITHOUT LIMITATION!
* CITY OF MANILA: WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT THE CITY OF MANILA EXPROPRIATED A PRIVATE
PROPERTY FOR SOCIALIZE HOUSING.. IT WAS IMPUGNED FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF PRIORITY
PROVIDED BY UDHA LAW.. HELD, IF THE PURPOSE IS SOCIALIZED HOUSING, ORDER OF PRIORITY IN
UDHA MUST BE FOLLOWED
*
* Section 9: Eminent Domain
* Police Power and Eminent Domain:

Domain:
* 1 . If the property is taken in the exercise of eminent domain, the owner is entitled to compensation,
compensation, but
in police power, he is not .
* 2. In eminent domain, property is taken for public use , but in police power, it is destroyed
in the interest of public health, safety, morals or public welfare .
Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD,
DSWD, 526 SCRA 130 (2007)
Theoretically, the treatment of the discount as a deduction reduces the net income of the private establishments
concerned. The discounts given would have entered the coffers and formed part of the gross sales of the
private establishments, were it not for R.A. No. 9257. The permanent reduction in their total revenues is a
52 | P a g e
forced subsidy corresponding to the taking of private property for public use or benefit. A tax deduction does
not offer full reimbursement of the senior citizen discount. As such, it would not meet the definition of just
compensation. [Note: The law was sustained as a valid exercise of police power, however.]
2011 Bar Exam:
* 86. When the State requires private cemeteries to reserve 10% of their lots for
* burial of the poor, it exercises its
* A. eminent domain power. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT DESTROY THE PROPERTY HERE BUT IT
MUST BE WITH JUST COMPENSATION
* B. zoning power.
* C. police power.
* D. taxing power.
* 1993, 5: In expropriation proceedings:
* 1. What legal interest should be used in the computation of interest on just compensation? 12%
FOREBEARANCE OF MONEY
* 2. Can the judge validly withhold issuance of the writ of possession until full payment of the final value of the
expropriated property? NO! THE FULL VALUE SHALL BE PAID ON THE FINAL DECISION
* PLEASE NOTE THE REQUISITES BEFORE THE LGU CAN ENTER THE PROPERTY
* After filing of complaint,
* With notice to owner
* Deposit with authorized government depository
* Amount equivalent to assess value for taxation purposes [LGC – 15%
* 1990, 2: The City of Cebu passed an ordinance proclaiming the expropriation of a 10 hectare property of C
Company which is already a developed commercial center. The city proposed to operate the commercial
center in order to finance a housing project for city employees in the vacant portion of the said property. The
ordinance fixed the price of the land and the value of the improvements to be paid C Company on the basis
of the prevailing land value and cost of construction.
* As counsel for c company, give 2 constitutional objections to the validity of the ordinance.
* DETERMINATION OF THE SAME BELONGS TO THE COURTS…
* THE PURPOSE IS NOT ALREADY FOR PUBLIC USE
The ordinance is void because:
* Void, because it constitutes taking of property without just compensation
* Void, because the determination of what constitutes just compensation is a judicial

function DETERMINATION OF THE SAME BELONGS TO THE COURTS… THE OTHER
REASON IS THAT IT IS NOT ALREADY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE
* Valid, because the purpose of the expropriation is to convert the property for public use
* Valid, because the ordinance authorized payment of just compensation
* 2004, No. 9: The City of San Rafael passed an ordinance authorizing the city Mayor, assisted by the police,
to remove all advertising signs displaced or exposed to public view in the main city street, for being
offensive to sight or otherwise a nuisance.
nuisance. AM, whose advertising agency owns and rents out many of the
53 | P a g e
billboards ordered removed by the City Mayor, claims that the City should pay for the destroyed billboards at
their current market value since the City has appropriated them for the public purpose of city beautification.
The Mayor refuses to pay, so AM is suing the City and the Mayor for damages arising from the taking of his
property without due process nor just compensation.
* Will AM’s suit prosper?
a. yes, because the city is depriving X of property without due process of law and should pay damage
b. yes, because the city is exercising its power of eminent domain and taking private property without just
compensation
c. no, because the city is exercising its police power of abating a nuisance BECAUSE IT DID NOT
APPROPRIATE THE PROPERTY BUT DESTROYED THE SAME FOR PURPOSES OF PUBLIC
SAFETY OR FOR BEING A NUISANCE. NOTE THAT in police power, THE PROPERTY IS destroyed
in the interest of public health, safety, morals or public welfare .
d. no, because the right to property is not absolute and may be restricted by law
* 1989, No. 16: A law provides that in the event of expropriation, the amount to be paid to a landowner as
compensation shall be either the sworn valuation made by the owner or the official assessment thereof,
whichever is lower.
lower. Can the landowner successfully challenge the law in court? Discuss briefly your answer.
* YES. 1. DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTE JUST COMPENSATION IS VESTED TO THE COURTS
* 2. SINCE THIS INVOLVES TAKING OF A PROPERTY, A PERSON CANNOT BE DEPRIVED OF THE SAME
WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW… THE OWNER MUST BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AS TO THE
VALUE OF HIS PROPERTY
* 1996, 4: The City of Pasig initiated expropriation proceedings on a one hectare lot which is part of a 10-
hectare parcel of land devoted to the growing of vegetables. The purpose of the expropriation is to sue the
land as a relocation site for 200 families squatting along the Pasig river.
river.
* 1. Can the owner of the property oppose the expropriation on the ground that only 200 out of the more than
10,000 squatter families in Pasig will benefit from the expropriation? NO! SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND
NUMBER OF BENEFICIARIES IS NOT THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR SO LONG AS THERE IS Indirect
advantage or benefit to the public,, SO LONG AS IT IS FOR PUBLIC USE…
* 2. Can DAR require the city to first secure and authority before converting the use of the land from
agricultural to housing? NO! BECAUSE IT WILL AMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION AS TO W/N A THE PURPOSE
IS FOR PUBLIC USE WHICH IS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE JUDICIARY…
* 1987, No. 16: Pasay City filed an expropriation proceedings against several landowners for the construction
of an aqueduct for flood control on a barangay. Clearly, only the residents of that barangay would be
benefited by the project. Is the expropriation proper? YES! CONSTRUCTION OF AQUEDUCT FOR FLOOD
CONTROL IS PUBLIC USE.. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT HAD IT BEEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION!
* 1992, No. 11: The PCO, a government agency, wishes to establish a direct computer and fax linkup with
trading centers in the US. The advanced technology of a private company, PCT, is necessary for that purpose
but negotiations between the parties have failed. The Republic, in behalf of the PCO, files suit to compel the
telecommunications company to execute a contract with PCO for PCOs access and use of the company’s
facilities.
* Decide. If the case will not prosper, what alternative will you propose to the Republic?
* THE SUIT MUST FAIL.. YOU CANNOT COMPEL ANOTHER TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT WITH YOU BECAUSE
IT WILL VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE GOVERNING CONTRACTS.. THERE MUST BE CONSENT BETWEEN
PARTIES… HOWEVER, YOU CAN FILE A EXPOPRIATION PROCEEDINGS BY TAKING BY HAVING DIRECT
COMPUTER AND FAX LINKUP SYSTEM WITHOUT TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION.. IN THIS
CASE, THERE IS IMPAIRMENT OF USE OF PROPERTY
* 2008, No. 4: The Congress passed a law authorizing the authorizing the NHAto expropirate or acquire
private property for the redevelopment of slum areas, as well as to lease or resell the property to
private developers to carry out the redevelopment plan . Pursuant to the law, the NHA acquired all
the properties within a targeted badly blighted areas in San Nicolas, manila, except a well-maintained drug
and convenience store that poses no blight or health problem itself. Thereafter, NHA sold the properties it
has thus far acquired to a private realty company for redevelopment.
redevelopment. Thus, the NHA initiated expropriation
54 | P a g e
proceedings against the store owner who protested that his property could not be taken because it is not
residential or slum housing.
housing. He also contended that his property is being condemned for a private purpose,
purpose,
not a public one, noting the NHA’s sale of the entire area except his property to a private party. If you were
the judge, how would you decide the case?ANSWER NEXT SLIDE!!!
* The act of the NHA of entering into a contract with a real estate developer for the construction of low cost
housing on the expropriated lots cannot be taken to mean as a deviation from the stated public purpose of
their taking.
taking. Jurisprudence has it that the expropriation of private land for slum clearance and urban
development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is later sold to homeowners, commercial
firms, service companies and other private concerns. Moreover, the Constitution itself allows the State to
undertake, for the common good, and in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban
land reform and housing which will make at affordable cost decent housing to homeless citizens. It follows
that the low cost housing of the NHA on the expropriated lots is consistent with the public use requirement
* Reyes vs. NHA, 395 SCRA 495 (2003)
The act of the NHA of entering into a contract with a real estate developer for the construction of low cost
housing on the expropriated lots cannot be taken to mean as a deviation from the stated public purpose of
their taking.
taking. Jurisprudence has it that the expropriation of private land for slum clearance and urban
development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is later sold to homeowners, commercial
firms, service companies and other private concerns. Moreover, the Constitution itself allows the State to
undertake, for the common good, and in cooperation with the private sector, a continuing program of urban
land reform and housing which will make at affordable cost decent housing to homeless citizens. It follows
that the low cost housing of the NHA on the expropriated lots is consistent with the public use requirement.
STRANGE DECISION PER DEAN
* III, 2009
* The Municipality of Bulalakaw, Leyte, passed Ordinance No. 1234, authorizing the expropriation of two
parcels of land situated in the poblacion as the site of a freedom park, and appropriating the funds needed
therefor. Upon review, the |Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte disapproved the ordinance because the
municipality has an existing freedom park which, though smaller in size, is still suitable for the purpose, and
to pursue expropriation would be needless expenditure of the people's money. Is the disapproval of the
ordinance correct? Explain your answer. (2%)
* THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN CANNOT REVIEW NOR REJECT THE EXPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF
A LOCALITY ON THE GROUND OF NECESSITY.. LGUS ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CODE TO EXPROPRIATE WITHOUT LIMITATION BY THE PROVINCIAL BOARD ( READ MONDAY CASE)
* 2009, XVII
* Filipinas Computer Corporation (FCC), a local manufacturer of computers and computer parts, owns a
sprawling plant in a 5,000-square meter lot in Pasig City. To remedy the city's acute housing shortage,
compounded by a burgeoning population, the Sangguniang Panglungsod authorized the City Mayor to
negotiate for the purchase of the lot. The Sanggunian intends to subdivide the property into small
residential lots to be distributed at cost to qualified city residents.
residents. But FCC refused to sell the lot. Hard
pressed to find a suitable property to house its homeless residents, the City filed a complaint for eminent
domain against FCC.
* If FCC hires you as lawyer, what defense or defenses would you set up in order to resist the expropriation of
the property? Explain. (5%) FIRST, THE COMPLAINT FILED BY PASIG CITY IS NOT VALID AS THERE WAS NO
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAYOR TO FILE EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDING.. IN THE INSTANT
CASE, THE CITY MAYOR IS ONLY AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LOT.. NOT
ENOUGH AUTHORITY. SECONDLY, SINCE THE PURPOSE IS SOCIALIZED HOUSING, THE CITY
GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF PRIORITY OF UHDA. IT SHOULD HAVE FIRST
EXPROPRIATED OTHER TYPES OF PROPERTY BEFORE PRIVATE PROPERTIES
* If the Court grants the City's prayer for expropriation, but the City delays payment of the amount determined
by the court as just compensation, can FCC recover the property from Pasig City? Explain. (2%) DELAY IN
PAYMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION IS NOT A GROUND FOR RECOVERY OF PROPERTY..
YOU ARE ONLY ENTITLED WITH INTEREST FROM THE TIME OF TAKING!
* Suppose the expropriation succeeds, but the City decides to abandon its plan to subdivide the property for
55 | P a g e
residential purposes having found a much bigger lot, can FCC legally demand that it be allowed to
repurchase the property from the City of Pasig? Why or why not? (2%)
* ALL EXPROPRATIONS ARE CONSIDERED CONDITION IN THAT THE MOMENT THE GOVERNMENT
ABANDONED THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS EXPROPRIATED, RECOVERY MAY BE HAD BY THE
OWNER PROVIDED BY PAYING THE VALUE OF JUST COMPENSATION RECEIVED WHEN IT WAS
EXPROPRIATED!
* 2010, XIII
* True or False.
* A valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre-requisite to expropriation initiated by a local government
unit. (0.5%)
* TRUE!!! valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre-requisite to expropriation initiated by a local
government unit BECAUSE OF NECESSITY.. BECAUSE IF THE OWNER WOULD BE WILLING, THERE IS NO
NEED FOR THE INSTITUTION OF EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS!!!
* Section 10: Impairment of Contracts

No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted.
* WHEN DOES A LAW IMPAIRS ?
* A law impairs the obligations of contracts when it changes the terms of the contract:
* 1 . In time or mode of performance; MORATORIUM FOR PAYMENT OF DEBTS (CHANGES THE TIME
OR MODE OF PERFORMANCE)
* 2. Imposes new conditions; (EXAMPLE, THE LGU PROCURED A NON-AIRCONDITIONED

DUMPTRUCK, LATER THE LAW WAS PASSED REQUIRING ALL UNITS TO BE AICONDITIONED! THE LAW
CANNOT BE MADE TO APPLY AS IT IMPOSES NEW CONDITIONS!
* 3. Dispenses with those expressed; EX. THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO STIPULATES 10%
INTEREST. . NOW THE LATER LAW PROVIDES FOR THE ANNULMENT OF ANY INTEREST.. THAT LAW
CANNOT BE APPLIED AS IT DISPENSES WITH THOSE EXPRESSED (REVOKES CONDITIONS)
* 4. Authorizes for its satisfaction something different . THIS HAPPENS WHEN A LAW PROVIDES FOR
THE SATISFACTION OF A DEBT BY SERVICE INSTEAD OF PAYMENT OF CASH….
* Basic Principles
* Police power, eminent domain and taxation are superior to non-impairment [Republic
[Republic v. Pagadian
Timber,
Timber, 565 SCRA 260 (2008)/IFMA; Republic v. RMDC,
RMDC, 426 SCRA 517 (2004) exploration/mining
permit] REPUBLIC- MINING PERMITS CAN BE IMPAIRED BY EO OR LAW BECAUSE APPARENTLY THESE
ARE ONLY PRIVILEGES AND PRIVILEGES CAN BE WITHDRAWN BY THE STATE.. AND POLICE POWER IS
SUPERIOR TO NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
* Freedom of religion is superior (IGLESIA ELIZALDE CASE: CLOSE SHOP AGREEMENT CANNOT PREVAIL
THE RIGHT OF RELIGION INVOKED BY A WORKER..)
* Can be invoked only against statutes, ordinances, but not against (JUDICIAL) quasi-judicial acts [BPI
Case – rehabilitation)- THIS CASE INVOLVED SEC ORDERING THE SECURITIES OF LOANS IN A BANK
56 | P a g e
UNDER REHABILITATION TO BE PAID DACION EN PAGO… IT WAS IMPUGNED FOR BEING VIOLATIVE
TO NON IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE.. HELD.. YOU CANNOT INVOKED THE SAME AGAINST QUASI JUDICIAL
ACTS, THE SEC..
* Usual answers/cases
* There is no contract to speak of [Gonzalo, Picop (TLA ), Lim v. Pacquing] (TIMBER) LICENCES AND
PERMITS ARE ONLY PRIVILEGES GIVEN BY THE STATE.. IN FACT IT CAN BE WITHDRAWN BY THE
STATE
* Police power, etc.. is superior [Caleon v. Agus (sub-leasing), La Insular, Beltran [United BF Homeowners
v. Mayor] USUALLY SUBLEASING CONTRACT MAY BE ENTERED BY PARTIES WHEREBY THE LESSEE
MAY SUBLEASE THE PROPERTY.. THE A LAW CAME AVOIDING OR TERMINATING ANY SUBLEASING
AGREEMENT… CAN IT BE DONE WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT? YES POLICE POWER IS SUPERIOR OVER
NON IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
* BELTRAN-LAW WAS PASSED ABOLISHING PRIVATE BLOOD BANKS. THIS WAS IMPUGNED ON THE GROUND
THAT IT WIL IMPAIR THE CONTRATS BY PBB WITH HOSPITALS.. HELD: POLICE POWER IS SUPERIOR OVER
NON IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
* Contract was not impaired [Siska (notice or rescission), Hontanosas]-USUALLY GOVT EMPLOYEES
OBTAINS LOAN BY EXECUTING SPA AUTHORIZING LENDERS TO GET THEIR SALARY AS PAYMENT
THEREOF… HENCE, CSC WAS ALARMED PROMPTING IT TO ISSUE CIRCULAR DECLARING SUCH
SPECIAL POWER OF AUTHORITY NULL AND VOID!!! HELD… THE CIRCULAR IS VALID AS THEIR
CONTRACT WAS NOT IMPAIRED… REMEMBER THAT THE CONTRACT IS THE PAYMENT OF LOAN.. IT
WAS NOT IMPAIRED AS ANY OF THE REQUISITES IS NOT PRESENT.. THE OBLIGATION OF THE
EMPLOYEE CAN STILL BE PAID BUT NOT THROUGH THIS MANNER AS IT PREJUDICED THE WORK
PERFORMANCE OF THE EMPLOYEE
* SISKA- I ENTER A CONTRACT WITH YOU FOR A SALE OF LOT. .. THE LAW CAME PROVIDING THAT A
NOTICE OF RECISSION MUST BE HAD BEFORE A CONTRACT MAY BE RESCINDED.. HELD.. THE
CONTRACT WAS NOT IMPAIRED.. THE LAW DOES NOT IMPAIR THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONTRACT..
IT IS ONLY A MANNER OF ENFORCING THE CONTRACT… IT CAN BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT
* Law is not retroactive [Banat/Serrano]
* REMEMBER THAT ALL LAWS HAVE PROSPECTIVE EFFECT.. UNLESS EXPRESSLY MADE TO APPLY
RETROACTIVELY!!!!!
* Serrano v. Gallant, 582 SCRA 254 (2009)
* Sec. 10, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, states:
* Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of termination of overseas employment without just, valid or authorized
cause as defined by law or contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement
fee with interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the unexpired portion of his
employment contract or for three (3) months for every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. “
* HELD: FIRST THE LAW IS NOT MADE TO APPLY RETROACTIVELY
* SECONDLY, EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT IT HAS RETROACTIVE EFFECT, POLICE POWER IS
SUPERIOR TO NON IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE!!!
Bar Q: No. 18, 2001:: Pedro bought a parcel of land from Smart Corp., a realty firm engaged in developing and
selling lots to the public. One of the restrictions in the deed of sale which was annotated in the
57 | P a g e
title is that the lot shall be used by the buyer exclusively for residential purposes . A main
highway having been constructed across the subdivision, the area became commercial in nature. The
municipality later passed a zoning ordinance declaring the area as commercial.
commercial. Pedro constructed a
commercial bank building on his lot. Smart Corp went to court to stop him because he is violating the
restriction imposed on the contract and title.
title. The corporation contends that the zoning ordinance cannot
nullify the contractual obligation assumed by the buyer. Decide.
* The ordinance is void because it impaired a contract
* The ordinance is valid because the contract has been consummated and no longer exists between
Smart Corp and Pedro
* The ordinance is valid because, being an exercise of police power by the municipality, it
is superior to the non-impairment clause of the Constitution- REMEMBER THAT A
ZONING ORDINANCE IS ALWAYS CONSIDERED A POLICE POWER
* The ordinance is valid because it did not impair the terms of the contract between Smart Corp and
Pedro
Sec. 11. Free access to the courts [and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance] shall not be denied
to any person by reason of poverty.
IT EXPANDED THE COVERAGE BY INCLUDING QUASI JUDICIAL AND ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE!!!!!
* Sec. 12. Custodial Investigation

Any person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of
his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If
the person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
* (2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used
against him. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.
* (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in
evidence against him. (EXCLUSIONARY RULE)
* (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section as well as compensation to
the rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices, and their families. (THE ONLY NON SELF-
EXECUTING PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION)
2011 Bar Exam:
* 20. After X, a rape suspect, was apprised of his right to silence and to counsel,
* he told the investigators that he was waiving his right to have his own counsel or to be
provided one. He made his waiver in the presence of a retired Judge who was assigned to assist and explain
to him the consequences of such waiver. Is the waiver valid?
* A. No, the waiver was not reduced in writing.
* B. Yes, the mere fact that the lawyer was a retired judge does not cast doubt on
* his competence and independence.
58 | P a g e
* C. Yes, the waiver was made voluntarily, expressly, and with assistance of
* counsel.
* D. No, a retired Judge is not a competent and independent counsel.

Topics:
1. When right attaches
2. Counsel of Choice
3. Waiver
4. Exclusionary Rule
* When right to counsel attaches ? WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR STARTS TO ASK QUESTIONS WHICH TENDS TO
INCRIMINATE YOU
*
* The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e . , when the
investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or confessions or
admissions from the accused . At such point or state, the persons being interrogated must be assisted by
counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions from the lips
of the person undergoing interrogations for the commission of an offense.
offense. ( PEOPLE VS. DIMAANO )
* In which instance should a suspect be warned of his right to remain silent and to counsel?
* a. investigation by the Legal Officer of the Civil Service Commission of an employee who falsified his
eligibility papers-ADMIN INVESTIGATION AND NOT CUSTODIAL
* b. investigation done by a Bantay-Bayan member of a suspected robber- A BANTAY BAYAN

MEMBER IS AGENT OF THE STATE LIKE A POLICE OFFICER
* c. investigation by a company lawyer of a detained employee suspected of theft- A COMPANY LAWYER IS A

PRIVATE PERSON
* d. investigation by a TV crew of a recently arrested rapist inside his cell- THE INTERVIEWER IS A PRIVATE
PERSON
In which instance is the presence of counsel required:

a. signing by a suspect of a marked money taken from him after a buy bust operation
b. service and execution against him of a search warrant
c. appearance in a police line up to enable the victim to identify the culprit
d. signing of a receipt of items taken from him as a consequence of a search by virtue of a
warrant
* 1. If the police obtains confession without counsel orally, and later reduces it into writing with the assistance
of counsel, is the written confession admissible? [Bandula, Quidato, Mojello] NO! THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
ATTACHES WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR STARTS TO ASK QUESTIONS WHICH TENDS TO INCRIMINATE THE
PERSON!!! AT THE START OF THE INVESTIGATION!!!
* 2. Are voluntary admissions or res gestae statements covered? [Dy, but Arondain] HERE, A PERSON IN
BORACAY VOLUNTARILY WENT TO THE POLICE STATION AND ADMITTED TO HAVE SHOT A TOURIST-
HELD- THIS IS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF RES GESTAE STATEMENTS-YOU ARE NOT ENTTILED TO COUNSEL
* 3. Is a person placed in a police line up entitled to counsel?[Pavillare, Hatton, but Macam] HERE, YOU ARE
59 | P a g e
NOT ENTITLED TO COUNSEL BECAUSE YOU, THE PERSON, PLACED IN THE LINE UP IS NOT THE ONE
UNDER INVESTIGATION FOR PURPOSES OF IDENTIFICATION!! YOU ARE NOT THE ONE BEING
INVESTIGATED, IT IS THE WITNESS WHO IS BEING INVESTIGATED!. HOWEVER, AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN
SUBJECT ED TO INVESTIGAT ION AND PLACED IN A POLICE LINED UP, YOU ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO COUNSEL
* 4. Is an interview given to a TV or radio reporter covered by the right to counsel? [Espejo, Taboga, Endino]
NO! ADMISSION GIVEN TO A RADIO TV REPORTER (A PRIVATE PERSON) IS ADMISSIBLE.. YOU ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO RIGHT TO COUNSEL
* 5. Are Filipinos detained in a foreign country but later on tried in the Philippines entitled to the right if
investigated abroad? [Gomez]
* THIS INVOLVED A PERSON CHARGED OF DANGEROUS DRUGS VIOLATIONS.. HE WAS ARRESTED AND
INVESTIGATED IN HONKONG BY FILIPINO INVESTIGATORS WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF A COUNSEL-
HELD- YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A LAWYER THERE.. HENCE IT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE
* 6. When a suspect is made to sign receipts of articles taken from him, is he entitled to counsel?[Linsagna, Li
Wai ching, Gutang] YES! YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. THIS THE VERY EASY AND CLEVER WAY FOR
THE POLICE TO INCRIMINATE YOU OR TO HAVE YOU ADMITTED TO A CRIME… FOR INSTANCE, THE
POLICE SEARCH YOU WITH OR WITHOUT A WARRANT, AND THEY FOUND SHABU FROM YOU.. IF YOU ARE
MADE TO SIGN WITHOUT A COUNSEL, IT IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THAT IS ONE WAY OF OBTAINING
CONFESSION FROM YOU … BUT ONLY THE RECEIPT WILL BE IN ADMISSIBLE.. THEIR TESTIMONY CAN BE
ADMITTED AGAINST YOU
* 7. What about if he is made to sign a marked money taken from him in a buybust operation? YOU ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. IT IS ADMISSIBLE… BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT BEING CHARGED WITH ILLEGAL
POSSESSION OF MONEY BUT WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUGS..
* 8. Can pictures of a reenactment taken without counsel be admitted in evidence? [Olvis] NO! YOU ARE
ENTITLED RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THERE IS REENACTMENT! HENCE, ANY PICTURES TAKEN WITHOUT
COUNSEL, IT IS INADMISSIBLE
* 9. In an administrative investigation, is a person entitled to counsel? Lumiqued, Sebastian/postal,

Remolina/CSC, Ting Lan Uy/NPC, Salonga/Metrobank- A FACT FINDING COMMITTEE CONDUCTED AN
INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR OR ANY ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION…
HELD.. IT CAN BE ADMITTED BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT BEING INVESTIGATED FOR THE COMMISSION OF A
CRIME.. YOU ARE BEING INVESTIGATED FOR PURPOSES OF DISMISSING YOU OR FOR DISCIPLINARY
MEASURES.. HENCE, IT CAN BE ADMITTED IN COURT, IN LABOR OR IN ANY TRIBUNAL.. IT CAN BE USED
ANYWHERE
* 10. Are you entitled to counsel when you are only invited or interviewed? [Tan, Sequino] YES! THERE IS NO
INVESTIGATION BETWEEN INVITATION OR INTERVIEW!!! YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. OTHERWISE
ANY ADMISSION ELICITED FROM YOU WITHOUT COUNSEL, SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE! SO LONG AS YOU
ARE UNDER THE POLICE CUSTODY, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL
* 11. Investigation by Barangay Tanod? [Malngan] By bantay bayan? [Lauga, 2010] INVESTIGATION BY A
BRGY. TANOD IS COVERED BECAUSE THEY ARE AGENTS OF THE STATE.. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL
* Summary: Custodial Investigation
60 | P a g e
* 1. Suspect must be in custody , either in jail or deprived of your freedom in a significant way
* 2. Under investigation, questioning initiated by officers having custody in relation to an

offense [NC Construction, Malngan] (COMPANY LAWYER IS NOT COVERED.. HE IS NOT AN OFFICER
HAVING CUSTODY OF A PERSON)
* NOTE! ONCE THESE REQUISITES CONCUR, YOU ARE DEEMED TO BE IN CUSTODIAL

INVESTIGATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SU
* People v. Bokingo, 655 SCRA 313 (2011)
* Accused was charged with murder. During the preliminary investigation , he admitted killing the
victim, which admission was taken down by the prosecutor’s stenographer. Is the admission admissible?
* NO!!!! NOTE THAT IN THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING W/N THERE IS
PROBABLE CAUSE, WHILE THE FISCAL IS A PUBLIC OFFICER WHO CONDUCTS THE SAME, HE IS NOT THE
PERSON IN CUSTODY OF THE PERSON CHARGED.. HENCE, THE PERSON IS ENTITLED TO COUNSEL… ANY
ADMISSION MADE THEREIN WITHOUT COUNSEL IS INADMISSIBLE
* Jesalva v. People, 640 SCRA 253 (2011)
* After accused learned that he was a suspect in a murder case, he went to the police station,
accompanied by his cousin who was a prosecutor. He told the police that the victim jumped from his vehicle.
Can the admission, without the assistance of a lawyer, be used as circumstantial evidence that he was with
the victim the night she was stabbed?
* VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS MADE IN THE POLICE STATIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE EVEN WITHOUT A LAWYER
BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF RES GESTAE.. IT IS NOT COVERED TO THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL…DY CASE
PREVIOUS SLIDE.. NOTE THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT ADMISSIONS OR STATEMENTS BE MADE IN
WRITING APPLIES ONLY IN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE STATEMENTS MADE
WAS VOLUNTARY AND PART OF RES GESTAE!
Abad Sample: A person walks into a police station and declares that he has committed a crime before the police
could take him into custody. May his declaration be admitted against him?
* No since he has not been forewarned of his rights to silence and to counsel
* Yes, since he made his declaration before he could be taken into custody and
investigated MOST APPROPRIATE ANSWER!!!!
* No, since he has entered the police station and came within its jurisdiction
* Yes since he freely gave his declaration to the police
* 2002, No. 8-Dante Galang was arrested and investigated by the police without counsel. In the course
thereof, he admitted ownership of the shabu taken inside his handbag . The NBI made him sign a
receipt for the plastic bag and its shabu contents.
contents. Is the receipt admissible? [Also 1993/4]
* NO! THE RECEIPT IS INADMISSIBLE… RECEIPT IS COVERED.. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. THIS THE
61 | P a g e
VERY EASY AND CLEVER WAY FOR THE POLICE TO INCRIMINATE YOU OR TO HAVE YOU ADMITTED TO A
CRIME
1997, No. 10: C and D were placed in a police line-up as robbery suspects. The complainant was able to identify
them as the robbers.
Was their identification without the assistance of counsel valid?[Also 1993, No. 9] YES! THEY ARE ENTITLED
TO COUNSEL… VERIFY THIS WITH DEAN!!
1990, No. 9. Police operatives searched the house of X for firearms by virtue of a search warrant. May X
successfully challenge the search on the ground that the peace officers did not inform him of his right to
remain silent and his right to counsel?
NO! RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS REQUIRED ONLY
IF A PERSON IS IN COSTUDIAL INVESTIGATION!! SEARCH WARRANT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION!!!!!
* No. 14, 1993: The S/S Masoy of Panamanian registry, while moored at the South Harbor, was found to have
contraband goods on board. The customs Team found out that the vessel did not have the required ship’s
permit for shipping documents. The vessel and its cargo wee held and a warrant of seizure and Detention
was issued after due investigation. In the course of the forfeiture proceedings, the ship captain and the
ship’s resident agent executed sworn statements before the customs legal officer admitting that the
contraband cargo were found aboard the vessel. The shipping lines object to the admission fo the statements
contending that the two were not assisted by counsel? Are the statements admissible?
* YES! THE STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE.. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS OR

INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY CUSTOMS OFFICER (NOT BY A POLICE) IN A SIEZURE AND DETENTION
PROCEEDINGS.... THE STATEMENTS MADE CAN BE USED ANYWHERE
Abad Sample: The police nabbed two robbery suspects whom they convinced during investigation to go with them
to the scene of the crime to reenact how they committed it . Is the reenactment admissible in
evidence?
* No, since it amounts to a waiver of right to silence without the advice of counsel NOTE
THAT REENACTMENT AMOUNTS TO ADMISSION…. HENCE RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS A
MUST
* Yes, since the reenactment was voluntary
* No, since it is irrelevant evidence
* Yes, since reenactment was unaccompanied by any statement from the suspects
* 2. Counsel of Choice
* Only lawyers are qualified- Ordono (NOT PARISH PRIEST!): Rules on choice:
* 1. Suspect can choose his lawyer,
* 2. If police chooses someone, and he expressly agrees to the lawyer given to him, he is
deemed counsel of choice of the suspect . [Parojinog, Pamon]
62 | P a g e
* 3. Likewise, if police chooses someone and you agree to be investigated without objection,
counsel is deemed the choice of accused.
* Lumanog v. People, 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
* Accused, a suspect in the killing of Col. Abadilla, was assisted by a lawyer provided to him by police
investigators. He confessed with the lawyer’s assistance. Was the lawyer a counsel of choice by the
accused?
YES!!! if police chooses someone and you agree to be investigated without objection, counsel is
deemed the choice of accused.
* 2005, Bo. 8: Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a suspect in the shopping mall bombings. Advised of his
rights, Mariano asked for the 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 topnothcer who was in the premises
visiting a relative. Atty. Barroso ably assisted Mariano when the latter gave a statement. However, Mariano
assailed the investigation claiming that he was deprived of counsel of his choice.
* Was the NBI correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead? Is Mariano’s
statement, made with the assistance of Atty. Barroso, admissible in evidence?
* yes, because the right to choose counsel belongs to the investigator
* yes, because by failing to object to the lawyer assigned to him, that lawyer is considered
as his choice NOTE if police chooses someone and you agree to be investigated without
objection, counsel is deemed the choice of accused.
* yes, because the lawyer assigned to him was a Bar Topnocher
* no, because after the suspect has exercise his right to choose a lawyer, the police cannot replace him
with another
* Counsel must be competent(MEMBER OF THE BAR) and independent(YOU ARE NOT WORKING FOR THE
POLICE), effective and vigilant. Who are not deemed independent?
* 1. Prosecutors- [Matus Viduya, RA 7438 B PROSECUTORS ARE PRESUMED TO BE PSYCHOLOGICALLY WANT

TO CONVICT PEOPLE!! PROHIBITED!
* 2. Those conducting preliminary investigations [7438] ALL LAWYERS OF THE OMBUDSMAN, WHILE THEY
ARE NOT PROSECUTORS, THEY CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION!!! COMELEC LAWYERS ALSO
CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS- PROHIBITED UNDER 7438
* 3. City, Municipal and Provincial attorneys [Espanola, Culala] IT IS BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ASSIST THE
MAYORS OR THE LCES IN THE PEACE AND ORDER IN THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCALITY.. THEY ARE NOT
EXPECTED TO BE NEUTRAL (MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE WORKING FOR THE POLICE)
* 4. Mayors and Barangay Captains who are lawyers (ALSO GOVERNORS)[Tomaquin/Velarde]
* 5. Policemen who are lawyers [Obero] POLICEMENT ARE NOT INDEPENDENT.. NOT OBJECTIVE!!!!!
63 | P a g e
* PTC MP

Who has the burden of proving that accused was assisted by an effective and vigilant counsel ?
The right to counsel has been written into our Constitution in order to prevent the use of duress and other
undue influence in extracting confessions from a suspect in a crime. The lawyer’s role cannot be reduced to
being that of a mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared confession, even if it indicated compliance with
the constitutional rights of the accused. The accused is entitled to effective, vigilant and independent
counsel. Where the prosecution failed to discharge the State’s burden of proving with clear and convincing
evidence that the accused had enjoyed effective and vigilant counsel before he extrajudicially admitted his
guilt, the extrajudicial confession cannot be given any probative value.
SO THE BURDEN REST ON THE PROSECUTOR TO PROVE THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE SUSPEK IS VIGILANT AND
EFFECTIVE!!!!!!
* 1996, No 3: A, who was arrested by the police 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 counsel, who happened to be at the police station. After conferring with A, the
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. [Lucero and Ruos]
* NO! THE STATEMENT OF A CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS HIS CONFESSION
* FIRST, THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACHES AT THE START OF THE INVESTIGATION…
* THE COUNSEL WAS NOT EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT AS HE CAME ONLY LATER PART OF THE
INVESTIGATION
EFFECTIVE AND VIGILIANT– A LAWYER THOUGH PRESENT DURING THE CONDUCT OF THE CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION WAS DOING SOMETHING, OPENING THE DOOR, LOOKIJNG AT THE WINDOW, CANNOT BE SAID
TO BE VIGILANT AND EFFECTIVE!!!!
* 1993, No. 17: In his extrajudicial confession executed before the police authorities, Jose Walangtakot
admitted killing his girlfriend in a fit of jealousy. This admission was made after the following answer and
question to wit:
* T: Ikaw ay may karapatan pa rin kumuha ng serbesyo ng isang abogado poara kmakatulong mo sa
inmbestigasyong ito at kung wala kang makuha, ikaw ay aming bibigyan ng libreng abogado, ano ngayon and
iyong masasabi?
* S: Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal kaya hindi kn na knakailangan ang abogado?
* Is the confession admissible
* NO! THE CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE COUNSEL OF CHOICE WAS NOT
7438 TO ASSIST SUSPECTS IN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS!!!
* III. Waiver: Requisites (THIS IS WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL)
* 1. Must be in writing
* 2. Must be made in the presence of counsel (NOTE THAT IT NEED NOT BE SIGNED BY THE COUNSEL)
64 | P a g e
* 3. After a valid waiver, confession itself must be signed in the presence of the parent, brother, sister,
spouse, mayor, judge, supervisor or priest… [RA 7438] PSBS MJSP
* TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO COERCION!!
* 4. [It must be voluntary.] IT MUST NOT BE A PRODUCT OF TORTURE
* WHAT WILL HAPPEN HERE IS THAT AFTER THE SUSPECT HAS INDICATED HIS WAIVER, THE WAIVER MUST
BE SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE COUNSEL.. AFTER THAT, THE COUNSEL MAY NOW LEAVE THE
PERSON AND INVESTIGATION AND CONFESSION WITHOUT A LAWYER MAY NOW PROCEED.. NOTE
HOWEVER THAT THE SIGNING OF THE CONFESSION MUST BE MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PERSON
UNDER RA 7438… THIS IS TO AVOID COERCION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
* IV. Exclusionary Rule – Confessions which are covered-
* 1. Uncounselled confession
* 2. Obtained through force torture, violence and other means that vitiates the will (NOTE THAT EVEN IF THE
CONFESSION IS MADE WITH ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IT WILL STILL BE INADMISSIBLE IF IT IS
PROCURED THROUGH MEANS WHICH VITIATES CONSENT OR TORTURE… OR WHEN THE SUSPECT IS
PROMISED THAT HE WILL BE GIVEN LENIENCY OR MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE… CONFESSIONS
OBTAINED AFTER OR THE PERSON IS DRUNK.. CONFESSIONS OBTAINED THROUGH HYPNOTISM OR
WHEN HE MADE IT HE WAS HYPNOTIZED BECAUSE THE PERSON IS REALLY NOT ACTING IN HIS WILL.
THOUGH THESE ARE NOT THROUGH FORCE, IT VITIATES ONE’S WILL
* 3. Oral confession [7438] (ALL CONFESSIONS HAVE TO BE IN WRITING TO BE ADMISSIBLE) IF IT IS UNDER

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION, IT HAS TO BE IN WRITING) NOTE, ORAL CONFESSION NOT UNDER
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION IS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF RES GESTAE)
* 4. Those obtained after a valid waiver (MEANING WITH ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE MADE THE
WRITTEN WAIVER) but not signed in the presence of brother, sister, parent, spouse or etc.. THIS IS FOR
BEING VIOLATIVE TO RA 7438
* Scope of indmissiblity- OR CANNOT BE USED OR ADMITTED AGAINST)
* 1. Against confessant
* 2. Against third persons (THIS HAPPENS WHEN THE CONFESSANT IMPLICATES OTHER PERSONS FOR THE
COMMISSION OF A CRIME)-IT CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THAT PERSON
* 3. Applies to objects taken (AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INADMISSIBLE OR ILLEGAL CONFESSION) FOR

INSTANCE, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SAME, I CONFESSED THAT THERE IS A SHABU AT MY
APARTMENT, OR THE MURDER WEAPON I PLACED IN THE BACKYARD.. THAT CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS
EVIDENCE AS IT WILL NOW BE CONSIDERED AS FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE!!! AS OBTAINED AFTER
INVALID CONFESSION!!
* 4. For any purpose in any proceedings (RA 7438)
65 | P a g e
* IT CANNOT BE USED IN LABOR, CIVIL, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS… NOTE HOWEVER THAT
CONFESSIONS OBTAINED UNDER ADMINSTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS EVEN WITHOUT A LAWYER, IT CAN
BE USED IN ANY PROCEEDINGS… THIS IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF THOSE OBTAINED UNDER
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION!!!
* No. 9, 2001: Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of murder before the RTC of Manila. Accused Joseph
turned state witness against his co-accused Rafael and Carlos, and was accordingly discharged from the
information. Among the evidence presented by the prosecution was an extrajudicial confession made by
Joseph during the custodial investigation, implicating Rafael and Carlos who, he said, together with him
committed the crime. The extrajudicial confession was executed without the assistance of
counsel.
* Accused Rafael and Carlos vehemently objected on the ground that said extrajudicial confession is
inadmissible in evidence against them.
Which is correct?
(a) The confession of Joseph is admissible against Rafael and Carlos
(b) The confession of Joseph is admissible against himself
© If Joseph repeats his story in open court, his oral testimony will be admissible against
Rafael and Carlos THIS WILL BE CORRECT IN VIEW OF THE FACT ONCE THE TESTIMONY IS
BEING REPEATED DURING THE TRIAL, IT WILL BE ADMISSIBLE SINCE IT IS NOT
CONFESSION THAT IS BEING PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE. MOREOVER, THE WITNESS WILL BE
SUBJECT TO CROSSEXAMINATION!
(d) Such oral testimony will have no more value in any proceeding for being fruit of a poisonous tree
* A team of CAFGU members conducting a patrol came upon Z riding on his carabao with an unloaded
M-16 across his lap. They promptly arrested him and brought him to an Army detachment. After a
long interrogation during which he was not assisted by counsel, Z revealed that he is an
NPA commander and he has 1,000 rounds of ammunitions for the rifle hidden on a
clump of grass near the place where his carabao was grazing . A CAFGU unit was immediately
dispatched to the area and they retrieved the bullets.
* Which statement is correct? [5%]
* A. both the M16 and the bullets are admissible in evidence
* B. both the M16 and the bullets are inadmissible
* C. only the M16 is admissible BECAUSE IT WAS SEEN IN PLAIN VIEW AND THE OTHERS
ARE FRUITS OF POISONOUS TREE
* D. only the bullets are admissible
* Sec. 13. Right to Bail
* All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is
strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
* 74. An information for murder was filed against X. After examining the case
* records forwarded to him by the prosecution, the trial judge granted bail to X
* based on the prosecution's manifestation that it was not objecting to the grant of bail. Is the trial judge
correct?
66 | P a g e
* A. Yes, the trial judge may evaluate the strength or weakness of the evidence
* based on the case records forwarded to him.
* B. No, the trial judge should have held a hearing to ascertain the quality of the
* evidence of guilt that the prosecution had against X.
* C. No, the trial judge should have conducted a hearing to ascertain first whether or not X was validly arrested.
* D. Yes, the trial judge may reasonably rely on the prosecution's manifestation
* that he had no objection to the grant of bail.

In which instance is bail a matter of right?
(a) after final judgment where sentence is only 30 days YOU CANNOT POST BAIL BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT
HAS BECOME FINAL
(b) during trial for a crime punishable with reclusion temporal
© during trial for a crime punishable with life imprisonment NOT ALLOWED UNLESS THE EVIDENCE OF
GUILT IS NOT STRONG
(d) where the case is on appeal involving a sentence of 12 years and one day to 14 years THIS IS A MATTER OF
DISCRETION ALREADY
* Section 13: Right to Bail
* When is bail a matter of right ? MEANING THE JUDGE CANNOT REFUSE YOU TO POST BAIL
*
* 1. Before (DURING TRIAL) or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC; (BEFORE CONVICTION-FOR THE
REASON THAT CASES FALLING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THESE COURTS DO NOT EXCEED 6 YEARS)
… (AFTER CONVICTION- IT IS STILL A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT WHEN OR AFTER THE DECISION HAS
BECOME FINAL)
* 2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death [ SC
Administrative Circular No. 12-94 ]; and (MEANING THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY COUNTS OF THE
CRIMES FOR WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN THE RTC THE PENALTY OF IS LESS THAN 20 YEARS OR
LESS THAN RECLUSION PERPETUA, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT… SO LONG AS
NONE OF THEM EXCEEDS THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL
* 3. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or death when the
evidence of guilt is not strong . (Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 13] [But see Pp. v. Sandiganbaya, 2007, if
probability of flight is strong.]
* When is bail a matter of right ? MEANING THE JUDGE CANNOT REFUSE YOU TO POST BAIL
* 1. Before (DURING TRIAL) or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC (BUT BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT);
(BEFORE CONVICTION-FOR THE REASON THAT CASES FALLING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THESE
COURTS DO NOT EXCEED 6 YEARS)… (AFTER CONVICTION- IT IS STILL A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT WHEN
67 | P a g e
OR AFTER THE DECISION HAS BECOME FINAL)
* 2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death [ SC
Administrative Circular No. 12-94 ]; and (MEANING THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY COUNTS OF THE
CRIMES FOR WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN THE RTC THE PENALTY OF IS LESS THAN 20 YEARS OR
LESS THAN RECLUSION PERPETUA, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT… SO LONG AS
NONE OF THEM EXCEEDS THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL
* 3. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or death when the
evidence of guilt is not strong . (Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 13] [But see Pp. v. Sandiganbaya, 2007, if
probability of flight is strong.]
* When is bail not allowed ? F
* 1. After final judgment by any court; EVEN 1 DAY IMPRISONMENT BY FINAL JUDGEMENT-BAIL NOT
ALLOWED. YOU CANNOT BUY YOUR LIBERTY
* 2. Before conviction for an offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua where the evidence of
guilt is strong ; [Constitution, Art . IV, Sec. 13]
* 3. After conviction for a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua or death while the case is on
appeal. [People Vs. Valeriano] THIS IS TOO OBVIOUS SINCE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT HERE HAS BEEN
ESTABLISHED AS STRONG IN VIEW OF THE CONVICTION BY THE LOWER COURT
* 4. After conviction for an offense with the penalty exceeding six years but but not more than
20 years , if; RTC JURISDICTION,- THIS HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE CONVICTED OF 12 YEARS BUT IT
HAPPENS THAT YOU ARE RECIDIVIST.. YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST BAIL
* A. accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or has committed a crime

aggravated by reiteracion ; RQHARE
* B. accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement
* When is bail not allowed ?
* ROHARE ACU
* C. accused committed the offense while on probation, parole or conditional pardon;
* D. circumstances of accused or his case indicate the probability of flight ; SUBJECTIVE TO THE
JUDGE
* E. there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, accused may commit
another crime . [SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94. SUBJECTIVE TO THE JUDGE
Section 13: Right to Bail

68 | P a g e
When is bail a matter of discretion ?
After conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death if any of
the circumstance mentioned in [SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94]. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court are
present. (PENDING APPEAL) AND THERE IS NO FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE CONVICTED OF AN offense with the penalty exceeding six years but but
not more than 20 years , AND THE NON OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES (ROHARE ACU) IN THE PRECEDING
SLIDE IS PRESENT!!!!! TAKE NOTE THEN THAT THE BAIL HERE IS A MATTER CONVICTION
Is there a right to bail in extradition?
* 1. Government v. Purganan (2002)– No. It is not a criminal proceedings.
* 2. Government v. Olalia (2007) – Yes. It (THE RIGHT TO BAIL) is not limited to criminal proceedings. IT
APPLIES TO EXTRADITION!!.. NOTE THAT EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS DETERMINES ONLY W/N YOU
SHOULD BE THROWN OUT OF THE COUNTRY OR GIVEN OTHER TO OTHER COUNTRY PROVIDED THAT
YOU ARE NOT A FLIGHT RISK!!!!
* But prove that you are not “flight-risk.”
* Bar questions:
* 2006, IV (2): State whether the following are constitutional: (2) A law denying persons charged with crimes
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death the right to bail. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! RIGHT OF BAIL MAY BE
ONLY DENIED IN CASES WHERE THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA OR DEATH WHERE THE
EVIDENCE IS STRONG … THE EVIDENCE MUST BE STRONG HERE!!! TAKE NOTE VERY TRICKY!!!
* 2005, VII: State with reasons whether bail is a matter of right or a matter of discretion in the following cases:
[In which instance is bail not allowed?] THE REFER THE ANSWER IN THE PRECEDING SLIDE!!!
* (a) the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua and the accused is a minor. BECAUSE IT
WILLNO LONGER BE RECLUSION PERPETUAL IN VIEW OF THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY-
THE PENALTY IS REDUCED TO 1 OR 2 DEGREE
* (b) The imposable penalty for the crime charged is life imprisonment and the accused is a
minor. THIS IS BECAUSE IN SPECIAL LAW, WE DO NOT APPLY THE MITIGATING OR
AGGRAVING CIRCUMSTANCES.. SO YOU CANNOT SAY THAT IT IS ONE DEGREE LOWER THAN
LIFE IMPRISONMENT… TAKE NOTE!!! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 1 DEGREE LOWER OF
LIFE SENTENCE
* © After conviction for homicide on a charge of murder and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate penalty of
from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as minimum, to 12 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as
maximum. BAIL IS MATTER OF DISCRETION SINCE THERE IS NO ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCE HERE!!!
* (d) after conviction by the RTC for a crime punishable with prision mayor where accused was previously
granted absolute pardon in a previous conviction… TAKE NOTE THAT THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCE
IS ABSOLUTE PARDON AND NOT CONDITIONAL ONE.. IT IS AS IF THERE IS NO CIRCUMSTANCE IF ITS IS
69 | P a g e
ABSOLUTE PARDON….. THE ACCUSED OR PESON MUST BE UNDER CONDITIONAL PARDON TO RENDER IT
NON BAILABLE!!!
Other rules:
* 1. The judge cannot determine the strength of evidence base on the records alone. He must hold a summary
hearing (Mamolo v. Narisma) NOTE THAT THE JUDGE MUST HOLD HEARING EVEN IF THE PROSECUTION
DOES NOT OBJECT TO THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL IN CASES WHERE THE PENALTY IS RECLUSION
PERPETUA OR DEATH!!! the JUDGE MUST HOLD A hearing to ascertain the quality of the
evidence of guilt that the prosecution
* 2. Where bail is a matter of right, the judge cannot hold a hearing to determine whether he should be allowed
bail or not. [People v. Donato] IT IS BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF RIGHT… THE JUDGE MAY HOLD A
HEARING ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE AMOUNT AND NOT W/N TO GRANT OR DENY IT…
THE CONTEMPLATED HEARING MUST BE HAD ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT
THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS STRONG!!!!!
* 3. In a hearing for bail, the court cannot take into account the presence of aggravating or mitigating
circumstance, except minority [Peole v. Bravo] IT IS BECAUSE IF IT IS ALLOWED TO ACCOUNT THE
PRESENCE OF THAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WILL RESULT TO FULL BLOWN TRIAL AND THE PURPOSE OF THE
LAW ON HEARING WOULD BE DEFEATED AND RENDERED NUGATORY!!!! THE MITIGAING CIRCUMSTANCE
OF MINORITY IS ALLOWED BECAUSE MERE PRESENTATION OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE WOULD SUFFICE.. IT IS
EASY TO DETERMINE MINORITY!! NOTE HOWEVER, THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY IS NOT
APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER A SPECIAL WHERE THE PENALTY IS LIFE IMPRISONMENT
OR MORE FOR THE REASON ALREADY DISCUSSED EARLIER BY YOURS TRULY, THE AUTHORITY@!!!!!
* 4. Bail is not available to military men facing court martial proceedings for violation of the Articles of War.
[Comendador v. De Villa] THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE BAIL TO MEN FACING COURT
MARTIAL PROCEEDING FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLES OF WAR
* 6. Bail can be waived expressly in writing[Donato] or impliedly [Manes] by not pursuing one’s petition for bail
DONATO- DONATO SIGNED A WAIVER TO RIGHT OF BAIL ON THE CONDITION THAT HIS WIFE WILL BE
RELEASED.. AFTER THE RELEASE OF THELATTER, DONATO APPLIED FOR BAIL AND INVOKED HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BAIL.. HELD: RIGHT TO BAIL MAY BE EXPRESSLY WAIVED IN WRITING!!! WHAT MAY
NOT BE WAIVED ARE THOS MATTERS WHERE ONLY THE STATE HAS INTEREST.. HERE IN BAIL, THE ACCUSED HAS
ALSO INTEREST
MANES-HE FILED FOR A BAIL.. BUT HE DID NOT PURSUE IT UNTIL HIS CONVICTION OF THE CRIME.. HE
IMPUGNED THE SAME HELD; RIGHT TO BAIL MAY BE IMPLIEDLY WAIVED BY NOT PURSUING ONE’S PETITION
FOR BAIL
* 1993, No. 9
* Johann was charged with rape. After the prosecution presented several witnesses, Johann through counsel,
invoked the right to bail and filed a motion therefor, which was denied outright by the judge.
* Johann claims that he is entitled to bail as a matter of right, thus the judge should not have denied his
motion to fix bail outright. Is he correct?
* THE CORRECT PROCEDURE IS THE PROSECUTION HAS TO PRESENT EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THAT THE
GUILT IS STRONG AND ALLOW THE ACCUSED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PRESENT THE OTHERWISE..
ONLY THEN HE CAN MAKE DECISION.. HENCE THE OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF JUDGE WAS NOT CORRECT!!
70 | P a g e
* 1989, No. 15
* May an alien invoke the constitutional right to bail during the pendency of deportation proceedings?
* NOTE THAT IN EXTRADITION, RIGHT TO BAIL IS AVAILABLE BUT HE MUST PROVE THAT HE IS NOT FLIGHT
RISK!!
* HOWEVER IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS IS DIFFERENT AS IT IS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT.. IT IS

DISCRETIONARY!!!
* 2008, No. 7:
* JC, a major in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is facing prosecution before the RTC of Quezon City of
the murder of his neighbor whom he suspected to have molested his 15 year old daughter.
* is JC entitled to bail? Why or why not?
* IT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED…. IF THE EVIDENCE IS STRONG, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO BAIL.. IF

OTHERWISE, HE MUST BE ALLOWED!!
* Where an accused Abu Sayaff member is charged with homicide , and it is certain as the night follows the
day that he will fled to the jungles of Basilan if he is granted bail:
(a) the judge can deny bail outright
(b) the judge must first find out if evidence of guilt is strong
© the judge must receive evidence to find out if he will take flight
(d) the judge must grant bail THIS IS A MATTER OF RIGHT BECAUSE THE PENALTY OF
HOMICIDE IS ONLY RECLUSION TEMPORAL.. YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS HERE TO DETERMINE
W/N HE SHOULD BE GRANTED BAIL.. THERE MAY BE HEARING BUT ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF
DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF BAIL
* Trial Rights of Accused

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.
* Section 14: Trial Rights of the Accused

DPH CIS IPMC
* 1. Right to due process THIS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL RIGHTS!
* 2. Presumption of innocence
71 | P a g e
* 3. To be heard
* 4. To counsel
* 5. To be informed
* 6. To speedy trial
* 7. To impartial trial
* 8. To public trial
* 9. To meet witnesses
* 10. To compulsory process
* Due Process:
* Due process here is procedural, not substantive. It’s elements are: (CJOJ)
* 1. A court or tribunal cloth with judicial power to hear and decide the case;
* 2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the accused and over the offense;
* 3. Accused was given an opportunity to be heard; and
* 4. Judgment was rendered upon lawful hearing. [ Pagasian]
* Olaguer – Trial by judicial process
* OLAGUER WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED BY A MILITARY COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY FORMER

PRESIDENT MARCOS.. IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.. DUE
PROCESS UNDER THIS SECTION MEANS THE TRIAL BY JUDICIAL PROCESS.. NOT A MILITARY ONE OVER
CIVILIANS!! CIVILIANS MAY ONLY BE TRIED BY CIVIL COURTS AND NOT BY MILITARY COUTS EXCEPT THE
FORMER IS NO LONGER FUNCTIONING!!!!!!
2. Presumption of innocence
Reversed presumption is allowed in
* malversation, A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CHARGED WITH THE FUNCTION OF COLLECTING MONEY IS

PRESUMED TO HAVE APPROPRIATED THE COLLECTED MONEY IF SHE FAILS TO REMIT THE SAME ON
TIME..
* anti-fencing,
* rules of evidence,
* Illegal Fishing,
* Intellectual Property Law,
72 | P a g e
* Plunder.
* Reasons: (MARFIP)
* 1. It is ONLY prima facie (MEANING IT IS SUBJECT TO REBUTTAL.. OTHERWISE STATED, IF HE CAN PROVE
THE OTHERWISE, HE CAN BE ACQUITTED)
* 2. There is a logical connection between the fact proved and the fact presumed.
* IN ANTI FENCING, THE FACT PROVED THAT YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF STOLEN GOODS IS A LOGICAL
CONNECTION THAT YOU ARE THE AUTHOR OF THE THEFT OR THEFT!!
* No. 5, 2004: OZ lost 5 head of cattle which he reported to the police. He requested several neighbors,
including RR, for help in looking for missing animals. After an extensive search, the police found 2 head in
RR’s farm. RR could not explain to the police how they got hidden in a remote area of his farm.
* Insisting on his innocence, RR consulted a lawyer who told him he has a right to be presumed innocent
under the Bill of Rights. But there is another presumption—of theft arising from his unexplained possession
of stolen cattle—under the penal law.
* Are the 2 presumptions capable of reconciliation in ths case? If so, how can they be reconciled? If not,
which should prevail?
* YES IT IS CAPABLE OF RECONCILIATION… THE REVERSED PRESUMPTION IS ONLY
* PRIMA FACIE WHICH IS REBUTTABLE AND
* THERE IS LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FACT PROVED AND THE FACT PRESUMED!!!
* Abad Sample: The right to be presumed innocent is not violated by a law that establishes a presumption
of guilt based on a certain fact proved provided that:
* What is proved and presumed are reasonably connected
* The nature of the crime committed permits a reverse presumption
* The accused has ample opportunity to overcome the adverse presumption
* The law is not retroactive
* 3. To be heard: Pertains to the right to present evidence (RIGHT TO PRESENT WITNESSESS) NOT MUCH
HERE
* 4. Right to counsel
* Elements of Right to Counsel:
*
* 1. The court is duty – bound to inform accused of his right before the arraigned;
* 2. The court must ask him if he desires the service of counsel;
* 3. If he does, and is unable to get one, the court must assign him a counsel de oficio;
* 4. If accused wishes to get a private counsel, the court must give him time to obtain one. [PP VS.
HOLGADO] USUALLY HE IS GIVEN 1 MONTH TO OBTAIN A LAWYER.. THE JUDGE CANN OT JUST ASSIGN
73 | P a g e
PAO LAWYER TO THE ACCUSED EVEN IF HE SIGNIFIES HIS INTENT TO OBTAIN ONE… HE MUST BE GIVEN
TIME …
* 1. What is the effect if accused is convicted and it turned out that his lawyer is fake? [Delgado, Santocildes,
Tulin
THE CONVICTION HAS TO BE OVERTURNED BECAUSE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS VIOLATED.. THIS APPLIES ALSO
TO CIVIL CASES WHERE THE COUNSEL TURNED OUT TO BE FAKE, THE PARTY REPRESENTED IS ENTITLED TO A
NEW TRIAL
* 2. Can a conviction be nullified if one’s lawyer is incompetent? [Liwanag, except Callangan]

GENERALLY NO! BECAUSE ALL LAWYERS ARE PRESUMED TO BE COMPETENT BECAUSE THEY PASSED THE BAR..
THE EXCEPTION IS IF THE INCOMPETENCE OF THE LAWYER AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS THE
PERSON REPRESENTED, THE CONVICTION HAS TO BE REVERSED!!… EX. IS WHEN A LAWYER NEVER APPEARED
AGAIN AFTER HIS CLIENT HAS BEEN ARRAINGED.. AND THE LATTER WAS CONVICTED BY VIRTUE THEREOF…
THE CONVICTION HAS TO BE NULLIFIED. NEW TRIAL MUST BE HAD.
* 3. Can a person defend himself without a lawyer? [Rules of Court/Sesbreno] IN MTC WE HAVE NO
PROBLEM.. IN THE RTC, YOU MUST MAKE IN WRITING A REQUEST THAT YOU BE ALLOWED TO DEFEND
YOURSELF WITHOUT A LAWYER.. IF THE JUDGE IS CONVINCED THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO DEFEND
YOURSELF, THEN YOU CAN PROCEED TO DEFEND YOURSELF EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER!! WRITTEN
REQUEST IS A MUST!!!
* 4. What is the extent of the right to retain? [Chiongbian]

THE RIGHT TO RETAIN MUST BE BALANCE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTE OF THE STATE..
THE EXTENT OF THE RIGHT TO RETAIN OR CHOOSE A LAWYER IS UNLIMITED… IT MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH
THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO PROSECUTE… OTHERWISE, THE TRIAL WILL BE DELAYED.
* 5. To be informed- to enable him to defend himself

THIS IS USUALLY DETERMINED OR BASED ON W/N THE INFORMATION WAS PROPERLY CRAFTED..
* -sale and possession- IF YOU ARE CHARGED OF SALE OF SHABU, AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND
ESTABLISHED WAS ONLY POSSESSION THEREOF, THE ACCUSED MUST BE ACQUITTED BECAUSE HE WAS
DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF FOR ILLEGAL POSITION… HE DEFENDED HIMSELF ONLY
FOR SALE AS CHARGED!!
* -physical injuries- IF THE CHARGE INCLUDES LESSER OFFENSE, YOU CAN BE CONVICTED OF LESSER
OFFENSE.. FOR INSTANCE, YOU ARE CHARGED WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES, BUT THE
PROSECUTION WAS ONLY ABLE TO PROVE AND ESTABLISHED SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES, YOU CAN BE
CONVICTED OF THE LATTER… SUPPOSED IF IT IS REVERSED, YOU ARE CHARGED WITH SLIGHT PHYSICAL
BUT EVIDENCE PROVED WAS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY.., YOU CAN BE ONLY CONVICTED OF SLIGHT
PHYSICAL.. HENCE, YOU CAN BE CONVICTED OF A LESSER OFFENSE PROVIDED THAT IT IS EMBRACED IN
THE INFORMATION.. THE LESSER OFFENSE MUST BE NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE CRIME CHARGED..
HENCE YOU CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE WHEN YOU ARE ONLY CHARGED OF ROBBERY!!
* -Antido- A PERSON WAS CHARGED OF 1 COUNT OF RAPE BUT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED SHOWED
THAT HE RAPED THE VICTIM 3 TIMES… THE CONVICTED WITH 3 COUNTS.. HELD: IGNORANCE OF THE
LAW… IF YOU ARE CHARGED WITH 1 COUNT, YOU CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF 3 COUNTS BECAUSE THE
ACCUSED IS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO BE INFORMED!!
74 | P a g e
* -allegation of retardation- IF YOU WANT TO AGGRAVATE THE CRIME BECAUSE THE VICTIM WAS
RETARDATE OR MINOR, YOU MUST ALLEGED THAT IN INFORMATION.. THE CONVICTION OF THE
ACCUSED CANNOT BE AGGRAVATED BY THE SAME IF NOT ALLEGED IN INFORMATION… SUFFICIENCY OF
THE INFORMATION IS A MUST!!!
* 6. To speedy trial
* Factors:
* 1. Extent of the delay- HOW LONG… REFERS TO TIME OF DELAY
* 2. Reasons for the delay- IT MUST BE JUSTIFIED.. HEALTH REASONS,.. LOOK AT THE REASONS FOR THE
DELAY!!!
* 3. Invocation of the right- IT MUST BE INVOKED ON TIME.. OTHERWISE THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL IS
WAIVED!!!
* 4. Prejudice to the accused- IF THE ACCUSED IS NOT ON BAIL, IT WILL PREJUDICE HIM AS HE WILL BE
DETAINED FOR A LONGER PERIOD.. NO PREJUDICE IF HE IS ON BAIL…
* Right is only violated if delay is capricious or whimsical.
* DELAY IS NOT A MERE MATHEMATICAL.. REASON BEHIND IT MUST BE CONSIDERED AS CAPRICIOUS OR

WHIMSICAL
* 7. Right to impartial trial (SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT BE BIASED!!)
* Trial by publicity: What is trial by publicity? What right is violated? What is the test? [Sanchez. Teehankee,
Webb, Estrada] ALL THESE CONVICTIONS WERE IMPUGHNED ON THE GROUND OF IMPARTIAL TRIAL…
THE DECISIONS OF THESE CASES WERE ATTEMPTED TO NULLIFY ON THE GROUND OF TRIAL BY
PUBLICITY
* PUBLICITY BY TRIAL REFERS TO A TRIAL WHERE TOO MUCH OR EXTENSIVE MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE
TRIAL IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE PARTICIPANTS THEREOF OR THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE PRE-JUDGMENT TO
THE CASE .. THIS DOES NOT APPLY IN IMPEACHEMENT
* TEST: HAS THE JUDGE BECOME ACTUALLY BIASED OR IMPARTIAL BY REASON OF MEDIA COVERAGE OR
TRIAL BY PUBLICITY? NOTE, ACTUAL BIAS! IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE PUBLICITY RESULTED TO
ACTUAL BIAS… NOT POSSIBLE BIAS!!!!
* 1996, No. 2: At the trial of a rape case where the victim-complainant was a well known personality while the
accused was a popular movie star, a TV station was allowed by the trial judge to televised the entire
proceedings like the OJ Simpson trial. The accused objected to the TV coverage and petitioned the Supreme
Court to prohibit the said coverage.
* As the Supreme Court, how would you rule on the petition?

IT SHOULD BE RULED IN THIS MANNER… THE PUBLIC TRIAL WITH MEDIA COVERAGE INVOLVES RIGHT OF
FREEDOM OF PRESS, THE RIGHT TO REPOR OR NOT TO REPORT, RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE INFORMED
(BECAUSE TRIAL IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN).. THE RIGHT OF THE COURT TO CONTROL THE
PROCEEDINGS, AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE! HOWEVER, SC RULED IN FAVOR TO THE RIGHT OF THE
75 | P a g e
ACCUSED TO FAIR AND IMPARTIALTRIAL.. SO NO COVERAGE.. BUT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB MOVED FOR
RECON CONTENDING THAT THE TRIAL IS A PUBLIC MATTER..
HENCE, THE COURT RULED BACKWARD…FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES, IT ALLOWED 1 CAMERA TO BE
INSTALLED TO RECORD THE PROCEEDINGS TO BE LATER ARCHIVED IN THE NATIONAL HISTORIC MUSEUM..
ONLY AFTER THE TRIAL HAS BEEN CULMINATED SHALL IT BE ALLOWED FOR PUBLIC VIEW.. MEANING.. NO
MEDIA COVERAGE DURING TRIAL!!! ONLY RECORDING~!
* Estrada Cases:
* 1. Re:Request (2001) – freedom of the press, right to information, and right to fair trial
* 2. Re: Request (recon) – only for historical purposes EXPLANATION IN THE PRECEDING SLIDE!!
* Re: Petition for Radio and TV..., 652 SCRA 1 (2011)
* Following the November 23, 2009 Maguindanao Massacre, charges for 57 counts of murder were filed
against 197 accused. Various entities filed a petition before the Supreme Court praying that live television
and radio coverage of the trial in these criminal cases be allowed, recording devices (e.g., still cameras, tape
recorders) be permitted inside the courtroom to assist the working journalists. In effect, petitioners seek the
lifting of the absolute ban on live television and radio coverage of court proceedings imposed by the 1991
ruling in Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C. Aquino’s Libel Cae. Should
the Court allow live media coverage of the trial?
* Held: It is about time to craft a win-win situation that shall not compromise rights in the criminal
administration of justice, sacrifice press freedom and allied rights, and interfere with the integrity, dignity and
solemnity of judicial proceedings. Compliance with regulations, not curtailment of a right, provides a
workable solution. The peculiarity of the subject criminal cases is that the proceedings already necessarily
entail the presence of hundreds of families. It cannot be gainsaid that the families of the 57 victims and of
the 197 accused have as much interest, beyond mere curiosity, to attend or monitor the proceedings as
those of the impleaded parties or trial participants. It bears noting at this juncture that the prosecution and
the defense have listed more than 200 witnesses each.
* The Court allows pro hac vice the live broadcasting by radio and television of the Maguindanao
Massacre cases, subject to the following guidelines: (a) Media entities must file a written application with
the trial court; no selective or partial coverage shall be allowed. (b) A single fixed compact camera shall be
installed inside the courtroom to provide a single wide-angle full-view of the sala of the trial court, operated
by an employee of the Supreme Court; no panning and zooming shall be allowed. (c) The transmittal of the
audio-visual recording from inside the courtroom to the media entities shall be conducted in such a way that
the least physical disturbance shall be ensured. (d) The broadcasting of the proceedings for a particular day
must be continuous and in its entirety. (e) To provide a faithful and complete broadcast of the proceedings,
no commercial break or any other gap shall be allowed until the day’s proceedings are adjourned. (f) To
avoid overriding or superimposing the audio output from the on-going proceedings, the
proceedings shall be broadcast without any voice-overs, except brief annotations of scenes
depicted therein. (h) No repeat airing of the audio-visual recording shall be allowed until after the finality
of judgment, except brief footages and still images derived from or cartographic sketches of scenes.
* PRO HAC VICE RESOLUTION-.. THIS IS TO CASE BASIS.. THIS DECISION IS FOR THIS CASE ONLY!!! SO YOU
THE PREVAILING JURISPRDENCE IS NO LIVE COVERAGE OF TRIAL… HENCE, YOU NEED TO PETITION
BEFORE SUPREME COURT IF YOU WANT TO HAVE LIVE COVERAGE OF A CERTAIN TRIAL IN VIEW OF THE
FACT THAT THIS CASE HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY SC PRO HAC VICE
76 | P a g e
* 8. Public Trial – Intended to prevent abuse of judicial power. In certain cases, however, the public may be
excluded. THIS APPLIES TO RAPE CASES WHERE SELECTED PERSONS ARE ONLY ALLOWED
* 9. Right meet Witnesses – the right to cross examine witnesses against him. [People v. Nadera]
THIS IS THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSESS.. TO CONFRONT THEM
* 10. Right to compulsory process

IT IS NOW BROADENED AS IT INCLUDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES
* Section 14: Trial Rights of the Accused
* Requisites for Trial in Absencia: ANF
*
* 1. Accused has been arraigned;
* 2. He was notified of the proceedings; and
* 3. His failure to appear is unjustified.
*
Bar Question 2011:
* 73. During promulgation of sentence, the presence of the accused is mandatory but he may appear by
counsel or representative when
* A. he is charged with a light offense.
* B. he was able to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses.
* C. he waives his right to be present.
* D. he is convicted of a bailable offense.

Bar Question 2011:
57. Accused X pleaded not guilty to the charge of homicide against him. Since he was admitted to bail, they sent
him notices to attend the hearings of his case. But he did not show up, despite notice, in four successive
hearings without offering any justification. The prosecution moved to present evidence in absentia but the
court denied the motion on the ground that the accused has a right to be present at his trial. Is the court
correct?
77 | P a g e
* A. No, the court is mandated to hold trial in absentia when the accused had been arraigned,
had notice, and his absence was unjustified. ONCE THESE REQUISITES ARE PRESENT, THE
COURT MUST HOLD TRIAL IN ABSENTIA….
* B. Yes, it remains discretionary on the court whether to conduct trial in absentia even if the accused had
been arraigned and had notice and did not justify his absence.
* C. Yes, it is within the court's discretion to determine how many postponements it will grant the accused
before trying him in absentia.
* D. No, the court may reject trial in absentia only on grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence.
Sec. 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion
when public safety requires it.
-A writ of habeas corpus is an order issued by a court directed to a person detaining another,
commanding him to produce the body of the prisoner at a designated time and place (PRODUCE HIM IN
COURT), and to explain the cause of detention (JUSTIFY THE DETENTION OR DOES HE HAVE THE WARRANT
OF ARREST TO JUSTIFY HIS DETENTION).
OTHERWISE STATED… THE PERSON DETAINING ANOTHER MUST EXPLAIN THE CAUSE OF THE DETENTION!!!!
OTHERWISE, THE PERSON DETAINED MUST BE RELEASED!
-Only the privilege is suspended, not the writ itself- MEANING IF THE PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS
SUSPENDED AND YOU FILE FOR PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE COURT
MUST ISSUE THE SAME AS THE NIGHT FOLLOWS THE DAY AS MATTER OF COURSE.. IT IS BECAUSE THE
ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT ITSELF IS NOT SUSPENDED BUT ONLY THE PRIVILEGE..
MEANING ONCE THE PRIVILEGE IS SUSPENDED, AND YOU FILED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE SAME IT IS FOUND
ON THE RETURN THAT THE PERSON DETAINED IS CHARGED WITH REBELLION OR OTHER CRIMES IN
FURTHERANCE THEREOF, THE COURT WILL NOT MAKE INQUIRY… MEANING, THE COURT WILL STOP THE
INQUIRY IN THE SENSE THAT YOU CANNOT OBTAIN THE PRIVILEGE OF GETTING RELEASED!!!! ONCE YOU
ARE CHARGED WITH REBELLION, YOU CANNOT BE RELEASED AS THE PRIVILEGE OF GETTING RELEASE IS
SUSPENDED… REMEMBER, WHAT IS BEING SUSPENDED IS THE PRIVILEGE!!! NOT THE ISSUANCE OF THE
WRIT!!!!
-Effects of suspension?
-effect on right to bail? THE RIGHT TO BAIL IS NOT SUSPENDED IF THE PRIVILEGE IS SUSPENDED
-May be availed of in cases of illegal deprivation of liberty: detention w/o charge, or sentenced that has been
SERVE
THIS HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE DETAINED FOR THE COMMSISION OF THE CRIME AND YOU ARE NOT CHARGED
WITHIN A PRESCRIBE PERIOD 36 HOURS, YOU MUST PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS.. YOU WILL BE RELEASED FOR THE DETENTION HAS BECOM ILLEGAL AFTER THE LAPSE OF 36
HOURS WITHOUT BEING CHARGE.. EVEN IF YOU ARE ARRESTED IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO!!! ILLEGAL
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY IS WHAT WE REFERRING HERE!!
sentenced that has been SERVE- THIS HAS REFERENCE TO THOSE WHO WERE CONVICTED OF ILLEGAL
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS FOR 12 YEARS .. LATER THE REVILLA LAW WAS PASSED REDUCING THE
PENALTY THEROF TO 6 YEARS.. HELD.. INSO FAR AS THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY SERVED SENTENCE
MORE THAN 6 YEARS, THEY MAY BE RELEASED BY FILING THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED RULE THAT CRIMINAL STATUTES SHALL BE GIVEN
RETROACTIVE EFFECT INSOFAR AS THE IT IS FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED!!!.. THE PRIVIILEGE MAY BE
HAD ALSO WHERE THE A PERSON IS DETAINED BY CREDITOR FOR NONPAYMENT OF DEBTS OR THOSE
WHO WERE NOT RELEASED BY HOSPITAL FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE BILLS.. THAT IS ILLEGAL DETENTION
-But see Moncupa and Andan.
MONCUPA-IT ENLARGED THE COVERAGE!! HE WAS DETAINED BY THE MILITARY… SO BEFORE THE WRIT COULD
BE ISSUED, THE MILITARY RELEASED HIM THEREBY CONTENDING THAT THE PETITION HAS BECOME
MOOT AND ACADEMIC.. HOWEVER THE RELEASE WAS UPON A CONDITION THAT MONCUPA WOULD NOT
TALK TO MEDIA AND CHANGE HIS RESIDENCE: HELD; CONSIDERING THAT THE RELASE WAS WITH
78 | P a g e
CONDITION AND THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON HIS RELEASE, THE PETITION MUST PROCEED.. THE
RESTRICTIONS IS EQUIVALENT TO RESTRAINT OF HIS LIBERTY.. WHILE IT IS NOT A DEPRIVATION OF
LIBERTY, IT IS CONSTITUTE DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL.. IT IS EQUIVALENT TO RESTRICTION
OF PERSON’S LIBERTY!
REMEMBER ..ALSO THE CASE WHERE A PERSON IS WAS ARRESTED AND MANILA AND BROUGHT TO DAVAO…
BEFORE THE PETITION COULD BE ACTED UPON, THE PERSON WHO ARRESTED THE PERSON RELEASED
THE PERSON.. THE FORMER CONTENDED THAT THE PETITION HAS BECOME MOOT IN VIEW OF THE
RELEASE IN DAVAO CITY.. SO IT MUST BE DISMISSED.. HELD: NO THE PETITION MUST PROCEED BECAUSE
WHEN YOU BRING THE PERSON IN ANOTHER PLACE WITHOUT MONEY OR ANY MEANS, IT AMOUNTS TO
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY.. IT RULED THAT UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT YOU BRING THE PERSON IN MANILA,
THE PETITION SHALL NOT BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC!!! THAT IS ANOTHER FORM OF DEPRIVATION
OF LIBERTY
In re: Aquino v. Esperon, (2007) [conditions of confinement]
A MILITARY OFFICER WAS DETAINED... HIS WIFE AND RELATIVES WAS NOT ALLOWED TO VISIT HIM.. HE WAS
HELD INCOMMUNICADO... THE WIFE FILED A PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WHC ON THE GROUND OF
THE CONDITIONS OF HER HUSBANDS CONFINEMENT.. HELD: CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT IS NOT A
GROUND FOR PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. NOTE THAT THE PURPOSE OF
ISSUANCE OF WRIT IS TO OBTAIN IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!!!
-
Ampatuan v. Macaraig, (2010) [“restrictive custody”] nominal restraint, not actual
AMPATUAN WAS ARRESTED IN MANILA FOR THE MURDER OF A COMELEC OFFICIALS.. HE WAS PLACED UNDER
RESTRICTIVE CUSTODY WHEREIN HE WAS PLACED UNDER RESTRICTIVE CUSTODY… HE WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO GO OUT WITHIN THE A SPECIFIED AREA.. HE FILED FOR PIWHC.. HELD: RESTRICTIVE
CUSTODY IS A ONLY NOMINAL RESTRAINT.. NOT ACTUAL!!!! DEAN FINDS THE JUSTIFICATION STRANGE!!!
NOT ACTUAL RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY!!
-Ilagan and Aberca
ILAGAN: PERSONS WAS ARRESTED AND DETAINED BY THE MILITARY WITHOUT ANY CHARGE.. THE COURT
ORDERED FOR THEIR RELEASE.. AFTER THEY RECEIVED THE ORDER, THEY FILED A MOTION FOR RECON..
PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF THE MOR, THE MILITARY FILED A CASE AGAINST THE PERSON FOR
REBELLION HELD: ONCE A CASE IS ALREADY FILED AGAINST THE PERSON, THE PETITION HAS BECOME
MOOT AND ACADEMIC.. THEIR RELEASE MAY NOT NOW BE HAD IN VIEW OF THE CASE FILED ..
DANGEROUS DOCTRINE PER DEAN!!! DETENTION WILL BE LEGAL
OTHERWISE STATED, THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST RENDERS THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS MOOT AND ACADEMIC BECAUSE THEIR DETENTION WILL NOW BE VALID IN
VIEW OF THE WOA…
ABERCA-.. PRESIDENT MARCOS SUSPENDED THE PRIVILEGE OF WHC… SO SINCE DIOKNO CANNOT
SUCCESSFULLY OBTAIN THE RELEASE OF CERTAIN PERSONS, HE FILED CIVIL CASE FOR DAMAGE AGAINST
MILTARY OFFICIALS FOR ILLEGAL DETENTION, STEALING PROPERTIES OF DETAINEES… THE MILITARY
COUNTERED THAT DIOKNO IS CIRCUMVENTING THE CONSTITUION.. HELD: THE SC SAID THAT ONCE THE
PWHC IS SUSPENDED, ONLY THE PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT OF GETTING IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS
SUSPENDED.. CIVIL CASE OF CLAIM FOR DAMAGES IS NOT SUSPENDED
1991, No. 1. What is the constitutional Writ of Amparo and what is the basis for such remedy under the
Constitution?
Writ of Amparo - The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any person whose right to life,
liberty and security is violated or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or omission of
a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity . The writ shall cover extralegal
killings and enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
WRIT OF AMPARO WAS CREATED BY VIRTUE OF THE RULE MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT!!
* [REMEDY AVAILABLE AGAINST UNLAWFUL DEPRIVATION OF LIFE LIBERTY AND SECURITY]
* TAKE NOTE THE DISTINCTION WITH HABEAS CORPUS

* WRIT OF AMPARO IS A REMEDY AGAINST LIFE LIBERTY AND SECURITY WHILE THE LATTER IS LIMITED TO
LIBERTY
* IT APPLIES TO NOT ONLY TO ACTUAL VIOLATION BUT ALSO THREATENED VIOLATIONS WHILE THE
LATTER IS ONLY FOR ACTUAL DEPRIVATION LIBERTY OR ACTUAL RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY!!
79 | P a g e
* IT MAY BE INSTITUTED AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE OR OF A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OR
ENTITY WHILE THE LATTER MAY BE INVOKED AGAINST THE STATE
* THEY ARE MORE APPLICABLE TO EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS AND ENFORCED DISAPPERANCES!!
* OTHERWISE STATED, THE GENERALLY FORMER IS MORE EXPANSIVE THAN THE LATTER..
* THAT SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS)
Jurisdiction:
1. RTC –where the threat, act or omission occurred
2. SC, CA and Sandiganbayan- (NOTE THAT SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS)
MTC-MAY IS GIVEN SPECIAL JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS WHERE NO RTC JUDGES ARE
AVAILABLE BUT NOT HABEAS DATA AND AMPARO
NOTE, GENERALLY WRIT ISSUED BY RTC IS ONLY ENFORCEABLE WITHIN THE JUDICIAL REGION… SEARCH
WARRANT IS ALSO ENFORCIABLE WITHIN THE JUDICIAL REGION BUT WARRANT OF ARREST IS
ENFORCEABLE EVERYWHERE!!
In either case, the writ shall be enforceable everywhere.
Canlas v. Napico Homeowners, 554 SCRA 208 [2008] [demolition of dwelling]
CANLAS- DEMOLITIONS OF DWELLING IS NOT A GROUND FOR THE ISSSUANCE OF WRIT OF AMPARO.. IT HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY!!
Reyes v. CA (2009) – right to travel- FR. REYES WAS ISUED WITH HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER.. HELD: RIGHT TO
TRAVEL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE LIBERTY AND SECURITY!!
Roxas v. GMA (2010) – [return of property unlawfully seized] Command responsibility – HELD: RETURN OF
PROPERTY SIEZED HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE LIBERTY AND SECURITY.. YOU MAY FILE FOR
REPLEVIN!! PROPERTY IS NOT INCLUDED!!
* Possible reliefs OF WRIT OF AMPARO: MEMO!! PIP

1. Protection order - in a government agency or accredited private institution
2. Inspection order – permitting entry, inspection and photographing of property or area.
3. Production order – production of documents, photos and objects
WRIT IN HABEAS DATA- RELIEF IS TO ORDER THE PERSON OR ENTITY GATHERING DATA TO STOP THE
GATHERING OR DESTROY THE DATA OR RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN GATHERED! TO PROTECT THE
PRIVACY OF A PERSON
* Questions:
* Will the filing of a criminal case render the petition for a writ of amparo and a writ of habeas data moot
and academic? IT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED! IN THE LATTER, THE FILING OF CRIMINAL CASE WILL
RENDER THE DETENTION MOOT AS THE SAME IS CLOTHED ALREADY WITH WARRANT OF ARREST
WHILE THE FORMER WILL NOT RENDER IT MOOT FOR THE REASON THAT WHILE IT MAY RENDER
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY LEGAL, IT DOES NOT RENDER MOOT OR LEGALIZE AS TO ACTUAL OR
THREATENED VIOLATIONS OF LIFE AND SECURITY!!!
* Does the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus also suspend the remedies of petition
for a writ amparo or a writ of habeas data?
NOTE THAT ONLY THE PRESIDENT CAN DECLARE THE PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.. BUT THERE IS
NO AGENCY OR ENTITY AUTHORIZED TO SUSPEND AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA.. IT IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE
CONSTITUTION!! IN THE END MAY LIKELY THE SUPREME COURT WHO MAY SUSPEND THE LATTER BECAUSE
THEY ARE THE ONE WHO PROMULGATED AND CREATED THE SAME… SO IN OTHERWORDS, IF THERE IS
SUSPENSION OF PWHC, YOU CAN STILL FILE AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA…. IN AMPARO, WHILE THE
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY, DURING THE SUSPENSION OF PWHC, MAY BE RENDERED MOOT, YOU CAN STILL
PURSUE THE SAME SINCE LIFE AND SECURITY IS COVERED BY THE SAME………… SAME WITH HABEAS DATA!!!
THEY ARE NOT AFFECTED BY SUSPENSION OF PWHC
80 | P a g e
2010, X: A, the wife of an alleged victim of enforced disappearance, 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 production
orders addressed to the AFP Chief of Staff to allow entry at Camp Aquino and permit the
copying of relevant documents, including the list of detainees , if any. Accompanied by court-
designated Commission on Human Rights (CHR) lawyers, A took photographs of a suspected isolation cell
where her husband was allegedly seen being held for three days and tortured before he finally disappeared.
The CHR lawyers requested one Lt. Valdez 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 objected on the ground that it may violate his
right against self-incrimination. Decide with reasons. (4%)
REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY VIRTUE OF A WRIT OF AMPARO IS SIMILAR TO MODES OF

DISCOVERY OR RULES OF DISCOVERY IN THE REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE!!.. SEARCH WARRANT IS
NOT NECESSARY.. AFTER ALL, THE PROSCRIPTIONS RELATIVE ILLEGAL SEIZURE PROVIDED FOR BY THE
CONSTITUTIONS APPLIES ONLY TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AGAINST THE STATE.. IN THE CASE AT BAR,
WHO IS BEING REQUIRED TO PRODUCE IS THE STATE.. SO IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS VIOLATION OF
THE RIGHT AGAINST ILLEGAL SEIZURE…
Assume that the President of the Philippines suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus due to
rebellion. On the same day, X, a suspected member of the New People’s Army, was arrested by the military.
State which of following is WRONG.
* a. X can challenge the suspension of the privilege before the Supreme Court
* b. X can be detained indefinitely without being charged in court for as long as the
suspension of the privilege of the writ is in effect YOU CAN ONLY BE DETAINED FOR 72
HOURS.. IF AFTER THAT PERIOD NO CHARGE IS LEVELLED, YOU MUST BE RELEASED!!
* c . X can file a civil case for damages against the arresting officers on the ground that his arrest was
illegal (ILAGAN CASE)
* d. X is entitled to bail if he is not charged with an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment.
* Which of the following does NOT render a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus academic?
(a) the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him
(b) his execution of an extra-judicial confession with assistance of Counsel admitting guilt IT
IS THE FILING OF THE CASE THAT WILL RENDER PETITION MOOT.. IT IS NOT THE
CONFESSION THAT RENDERS THE DETENTION LEGAL!!
(c) the release of the person
(d) the escape of the person
Which case CANNOT prosper if the privilege of the
writ is suspended?
(a) damages arising from illegal searches
(b) a suit to obtain one’s speedy release from detention – BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF
WRIT OF HABEAS CURPOS IS TO OBTAIN YOUR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!
© a criminal case for violation of RA 7438 on interrogation without counsel
* (d) an administrative case against the police for grave misconduct arising from torture
* Boac v. Cadapan, 649 SCRA 618 (2011)
* Can the doctrine of command responsibility be applied in writ of amparo petitions?
* Held: Command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order to determine the author who,
at the first instance, is accountable for, and has the duty to address, the disappearance and harassments
complained of, so as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate under the
premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. As intimated earlier (ROXAS CASE), however, the
determination should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal
prosecution, or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings under existing administrative
81 | P a g e
issuances, if there be any.
* Boac v. Cadapan, 649 SCRA 618 (2011)
* Is there a need to file a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution to enforce a decision in a petition for
a writ of amparo?
* Held: There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas corpus decision. Since the
right to life, liberty and security of a person is at stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution
of any decision thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay, even for a day, may
jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to immediately protect. The argument that the Rules of Court
supplement the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced. The Rules of Court only find suppletory application
in an amparo proceeding if the Rules strengthen, rather than weaken, the procedural efficacy of the writ. As
it is, the Rule dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the life, liberty or security of
the aggrieved party. Suffice it to state that a motion for execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and
expeditious remedy being offered by an amparo proceeding.
* ONCE IT IS FINAL, THERE NO NEED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT
* Speedy Disposition of Cases

Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial
or administrative bodies.
* How is it distinguished from speedy trial?
* SPEEDY DISPOSITION IS BROADER THAN SPEEDY TRIAL
* THE FORMER INCLUDES PRE-TRIAL, POSTRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN PERIODS OF APPEALS OR
PERIODS FROM THE TIME OF TRIAL UP TO TIME OF DECISION WHILE THE LATTER REFERS TO TRIAL ONLY
OR THE STAGE OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCES, WITNESSESS..
* THE FORMER APPLIES TO ALL CASES(ADMIN, CIVIL, CRIMINAL) WHILE SPEEDY TRIAL APPLIES ONLY TO
CRIMINAL CASES
* THE FORMER APPLIES TO ALL JUDICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADMINSTRATIVE BODIES.. THE LATTER
APPLIES ONLY TO COURTS
2. What are the factors to determine violation?
-right may be invoked only when the delay is capricious, vexatious and oppressive
-Reasonable causes of delay-
1. voluminous records
2. complex issues
3. frequent reorganization in an office (reorganization in OMB)
3. Is the right waived by inaction?
REMEMBER THAT THE RIGHT OF SPEEDY TRIAL MAY BE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO INVOKE.. BUT IN SPEEDY
DISPOSITION, MAY BE WAIVED OR NOT.. JURISPRUDENCES ARE CONFLICTING!!
* Right Against Self-Incrimination
* Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
* 1. When is a question incriminating- IT IS INCRIMINATING WHEN THE QUESTIONS LEVELLED TENDS TO

SUBJECT YOU TO A PENALTY.. IF IT TENDS TO SUBJECT YOU TO A PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME.. BUT IT
DOES NOT COVER QUESTIONS WHICH ARE EMBARRASSING
* 2. The right in various proceedings
* a. Criminal (Chavez v. CA)- prohibition of inquiry (MEANING, YOU CAN REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNES
STAND)
82 | P a g e
* b. Civil (Bagadiong v. Gonzales) –an option to refuse to answer an incriminating question (MEANING, YOU
HAVE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND AND INVOKE ONLY THE RIGHT WHEN QUESTIONS ASKED IS
INCRIMINATING!!)
* c. Administrative case (Pascual v. Board, Cabal v. Kapunan
* GENERALLY, an option to refuse to answer an incriminating question IS APPLIED IN ADMIN CASES.,

HOWEVER IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THEY APPLIED PROHIBITION OF INQUIRY;
* PASCUAL CASE- A PHYSICIAN WAS FACING REVOCATION OF HIS MEDICAL LICENSE FOR THE
MALPRACTICE, THE RESPONDENT PHYSICIAN REFUSED TO TAKE THE WITNES STAND BEFORE THE PRC..
HELD.. WHILE THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL CASE, THIS CAN BE LIKENED TO THE SAME SINCE THE PENALTY OF
WHICH COULD RESULT TO REVOCATION OF LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE.. YOU CANNOT BE FORCED
TO TAKE THE WINESS STAND
* CABAL- THIS INVOLVED THE FORFIETURE OF IL GOTTEN WEALTH.. HELD.. YOU CANNOT BE FORCED TO
TAKE THE WITNESS STAND SINCE THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS MIGHT RESULT TO LOSS OF
PROPERTY..
* BUT IN OTHER ADMIN CASE, YOU NEED TO APPLY THE APPROACH OF CIVIL CASE..
* d. Legislative investigation [In re:Sabio]

YOU CANNOT REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND BUT ONLY REFUSE TO ANSWER INCRIMINITANG
QUESTIONS
SIMILAR TO THE APPROACH OF CIVIL CASES
* 26. The right of the State to prosecute crimes by available evidence must yield to the right of
* A. the accused against self-incrimination.
* B. another State to extradite a fugitive from justice.
* C. the State to deport undesirable aliens.
* D. the complainant to drop the case against the accused.
* Bar questions:
* 1990, No. 4: The privilege against self-incrimination must be timely invoked, 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. When should the defendant invoke the right? ONLY WHEN QUESTION
BECOME INCRIMINATING!!
* 2. In a criminal case, the prosecution called the accused t the witness stand as the first witness. When should
the accused invoke the privilege against self-incrimination? AT THE TIME HE IS CALLED!
* 3. In an administrative case for malpractice and the cancellation of a license to practice medicine filed
against C, the complainant called C to the witness stand. When should C invoke the privilege against self
incrimination? [1988, No. 3. Board of Dentistry] SAME WITH APPROACH OF CRIMINAL CASE.. ONLY WHEN
QUESTION BECOME INCRIMINATING!! HE NEED NOT WAIT THE QUESTIONS TO BECOME
INCRIMINATING…
83 | P a g e
* 3. Scope of the Right
* It covers only testimonial self incrimination , not mechanical and physical acts. Thus: 1) it exempts the
witness from testifying against himself (2) it exempts him from producing documents and articles demanded
of him (EXAMPLE.. THE FISCAL CANNOT SUBPEONA THE DOCUMENTS OR COMPELL YOU TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS), except
* a) Baseco –Corporation/Officers
PCCG REQUIRED A CORPORATION TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS.. THE LATTER INVOKED THE RIGHT AGAINST
SELF INCRIMINATION!! HELD: THE CORPORATION CANNOT INVOKE THE RIGHT OF SELF INCRIMINATION IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT IS ONLY A CREATURE OF THE STATE.. THE EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS OWED TO THE
STATE.. SO IT CANNOT INVOKE SUCH RIGHT AGAINST THE STATE… THE STATE CAN EVEN DISOLVE IT..
AS TO THE CORPORATE OFFICERS, IT WILL NOT BE SELF INCRIMINATION AGAINST THEM… GRANTING THE
DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED IS INCRIMINATING, IT WILL NOT INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES BUT
THE CORPORATION THEY REPRESENT.. HENCE.. IT IS NOT SELF INCRIMINATION.. THEY MAY BE COMPELLED TO
PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS
* NOTE: THE GUARANTEE IS SELF INCRIMINATION.. MEANING DO NOT COMPELL ME TO PRODUCE
EVIDENCE AGAINST MYSELF!
* b) Almonte – (THE RIGHT OF SELF INCRIMINATION DOES NOT APPLY TO) Public officers WHO ARE
REQUIRED TO PRODUCE public documents- THIS IS PREMISED ON THE FACT THAT PUBLIC HAS THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS RIGHT IF IT
MAY BE COVERED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE!! NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHT OF SELF INCRIMINATION!!!
* EXAMPLE IS THE ONE STATED IN THE BAR WHERE THE MILITARY OFFICER WAS ORDERED TO SUBMIT THE
PLAN AND MAP OF THE CAMP ACQUINO.. HE CANNOT REFUSE THE SAME AS HE IS A PUBLIC OFFICER
REQUIRED TO PRODUCE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS … IT CANNOT BE A GROUNT OF SELF INCRIMINATION
* Specific Instances:
* US v. Tan Teng (gonorrhea) A PERSON WAS ACCUSED OF RAPING A GIRL AND WHOM HE INFLICTED WITH
GONORRHEA.. HE FORCED TO REMOVED HIS CLOTHES AND REMOVE SUBSTANCE FROM HIS BODY TO
DETERMINE W/N HE HAD GONORRHEA.. HE INVOKED THE RIGHT HELD: THAT IS NON-TESTIMONIAL.. YOU
CANNOT INVOKED THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION!!!
* Villaflor v. Summers (pregnancy) A WOMAN WAS ACCUSED OF ADULTERY AND SHE WAS REQUIRED TO
UNDERGOE A TEST TO DETERMINE W/N SHE IS PREGNANT.HELD: THAT IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT.. YOU
CANNOT INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION!!! SHE WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO ANSWER
QUESTIONS!!
* Gamboa (paraffin) – THIS IS A MECHANICAL ACT.. NOT A TESTIMONIAL ACT
* Tranca (ultra violet radiation) MECHANICAL ACT .. NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT!!!!
* Rodero (hair strands)- THE CHILD VICTIM WAS ABLE TO PULL THE HAIR OF THE RAPIST.. THE LATTER WAS
REQUIRED TO GIVE SOME OF HIS HAIR FOR EXAMINATION AND COMPARISION HELD: THIS IS NON
TESTIMONIAL.. MEANING, IT CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU!
* Codilla (line up)- PERSON PLACED IN POLICE LINE UP IS NOT TESTIMONIAL
* Yatar (DNA) (BLOOD SAMPLE OBTAIN FROM HIM IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT:
84 | P a g e
* SO THE GENERAL RULE IS, IF IT IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT, YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE RIGHT OF SELF
INCRIMINATION.. THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU
Exceptions: EVEN IF SEEMINGLY NOT TESTIMONIAL BUT COVERED BY THE RIGHT
1. Handwriting –Beltran v. Samson (requires the use of intelligence and attention)
A PERSON CHARGED OF FALSIFICATION CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE DICTATION OR MAKE WRITING FOR
PURPOSES OF IDENTIFICATION AND COMPARISON-HELD- WHILE IT IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT, IT IS
COVERED BY THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION FOR IT REQUIRES THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE
AND ATTENTION!!!!
2. Reenactment-Olvis (communicative in nature)
A PERSON WAS REQUIRED TO UNDERGOE REENACTMENT OF THE COMISSION OF THE CRIME HELD: WHILE IT IS
NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT, IT IS COMMUNICATIVE IN NATURE
* Bar Questions
* 1992, No. 3: Congress: Congress is considering a law agaisnt drunken driving. Under the legislation, police
authorities may ask an driver to take a “breathalyzer test” wherein the driver exhales several times into a
device which can determine whether he has been driving under the influence of alcohol. The result of the tst
will be used in any legal proceeding against him. Does it violate the right? NO! THE INSTRUMENT FOR
WHICH THE DRIVER IS REQUIRED TO TAKE AND EXHALE IS NON TESTIMONIAL ACT.
* 2000, No. 11: Borja was arrested as a suspect in a killing. After his arrest, he was brought to the police
precinct where his pants, shirt and boots were forcibly taken and he was weighed, measured, photographed,
fingerprinted and subjected to paraffin testing. At his trial, Borja objected to the admission of the above
items on the ground that his right against self –incrimination was violated. Rule on the objection. THE
OBJECTION MUST FAIL AS WEIGHING, MEASURING, PHOTOGRAPHING, FINGERPRINTING AND PARAFFIN
TESTING ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT.. HENCE IT CAN BE USED AGANST BORJA!!!
* 2006, No. VII: Select the best answer and explain. An accused right against self-incrimination is violated in
the following cases:
* A. When he is ordered by the trial court to undergo a paraffin test to prove he is guilty of murder; NOT
VIOLATIVE SINCE IT IS NON TESTIMONIAL ACT
* B. When he is compelled to produce his bankbooks to be used as evidence against his father charged with
plunder. THE PERSON WILLL NOT BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCED PURSUANT TO BANK SECRECY LAW
* C. 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 to kill the victim; WHILE IT IS NOT A
TESTIMONIAL ACT, IT REQUIRES THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE AND ATTENTION!
* D. When the president of a corporation is subpoenaed to produce certain documents as proof he is guilty of
illegal recruitment. NOT COVERED BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SELF INCRIMINATION!!! CORPORATION AND ITS
OFFICERS CANNOT INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION!!!
2008, 5: Having received tips that the accused was selling narcotics, two police officers forced open the door of his
room. Finding him sitting partly dressed on the side of the bed, the officers spied two capsules on the night
stand beside the bed. When asked, "Are these yours?", the accused seized the capsules and put them in his
mouth. A struggle ensued, in the course of which the officers pounced on the accused but failed to extract
the capsules. The officers handcuffed the accused, took him to a hospital where at their direction, a doctor
forced an emetic solution through a tube into accused's stomach against his will. This process induced
vomiting. In the vomited matter were found two capsules which proved to contain heroin. In the criminal
case, the chief evidence against the accused was the two capsules.
a) As counsel for the accused, what constitutional rights will you invoke in his defense? (4%) THIS IS
COVERED BY THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION AS AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE WOULD STATE…
COMPELLING A PESON IS FORCE TAKE SOMETHING IN HIS BODY IS SOME KIND OF A TORTURE… THIS
IS INCRIMINATING!!!
85 | P a g e
b) How should the court decide the case? (3%)

Which provision of RA No. 9165 violates the right against self-incrimination?
* (a) requiring candidates to a public office to undergo drug-testing THIS WAS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE IT
ADDS QUALIFIACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
* (b) requiring secondary and tertiary students to undergo drug-testing ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS RANDOM
AND SUSPICIONLESS
* © requiring public and private employees to undergo random drug-testing ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS
RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS
* (d) requiring persons accused of crimes to undergo drug-testing THIS IS NOT ALLOWED..
THIS IS NOT ALREADY RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS BECAUSE ONCE THE ACCUSED IS
FOUND POSITIVE, IT WILL AGGRAVATE HIS PENALTY THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED AS
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE : NOTE THAT ONLY THOSE PERSON CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES OTHER THAN SALE AND POSSESSIN OF DANGEROUS DRUGS ARE COVERED BY
THE RIGHT
* MEANING, THOSE WHO ARE CHARGED WITH SALE AND POSSESSION OF CAN BE REQUIRED
TO TAKE DRUG TEST!!! AND THESE PERSONS CANNOT INVOKE RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION!!!.. THIS HAS BEEN ALLOWED AND A PRACTICE NOW… IN OTHERWORDS, IT
CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU!!!
SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board, GR No. 157870, Nov. 3, 2008

NOTE: THE GENERAL TEST INORDER TO PROPERLY INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION IS
WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TESTIMONIAL ACT
HOWEVER IN DRUG CASES (URINATING), THE SUPREME COURT USES THE TEST : W/N THE DRUG
TESTING IS RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS
NOTE:
Students- “random and suspicionless” right to enroll not absolute .. THIS IS THE TEST IN DRUG CASES
(Laserna) – charged before the Prosecution

Which statement is CORRECT?
(a) an accused in a criminal case can be compelled to take the witness

stand if assured that no incriminating question will be asked HE CAN REFUSE IF CALLED TO THE WITNESS
STAND
(b) the defendant in a civil case cannot be compelled to take the witness
stand .. HE CANNOT REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND
© a defendant in a civil case can be asked if he borrowed P1M from
plaintiff THIS IS NOT INCRIMINATING!!!! IT IS INCRIMINATING ONLY IF IT SUBJECTS YOU TO A
CRIME!!!
(d) the right against self-incrimination is narrower in criminal than in
civil cases .. NO!! IT IS MORE EXPANSIVE
* In which instance can one invoke the right against self-incrimination?

a. compelling a person to provide blood sample NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT
b. compelling a public officer to produce public records THE PEOPLE HAS THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION WHEN
THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE PUBLIC RECORDS
c. compelling a person to participate in a police lineup NONE TESTIMONIAL ACT
d. compelling a person to reenact his participation in a crime
86 | P a g e
YES THERE IS VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION HERE AS IT IS COMMUNICATIVE IN
NATURE
Which of the following is covered by the right against self-incrimination?
A. compelling him to undergo ultra-violet examination
B. compelling him to undergo a paraffin test
* compelling him to produce his personal correspondence- TESTIMONIAL ACT COVER BY THE
RIGHT INCLUDEDS producing documents and articles demanded of him.. HENCE.. HE CANNOT BE
COMPELLED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS DEMANDED OF HIM EXCEPT PUBLIC PUBLIC
CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS.. THEY CAN BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
D. compelling him to bare portions of his body
* Use immunity v. Transactional immunity VIP
IMMUNITY- IS THE WEAPON OF THE STATE AGAINST RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION!! IT IS
BECAUSE ONCE YOU INVOKE SUCH RIGHT, THE STATE CANNOT COMPELL YOU TO DISCLOSE OR
PRODUCE SOMETHING WHICH TENDS TO SUBJECT YOU TO A CRIME OR PUBISHMENT.. SO THE ONLY
WAY FOR THE STATE TO COMPELL YOU TO DISCLOSE OR PRODUCE DOCUMENT IS TO GIVE YOU
IMMUNITY IN THE SENSE THAT THE PERSON WILL NOT BE INCRIMINATED BY HIS TESTIMONY OR
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED.. HENCE, THE PURPOSE OF IMMUNITY STATUTE IS TO DEFEAT YOU RIGHT
AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION!!!
* Use- prohibits the use of the witness compelled testimony in connection with the criminal prosecution of
the witness.
EXAMPLE: SINGNSON AS WITNESS TESTIFIED AGAINST ESTRADA FOR JUETING OPERATIONS.. IF GRANTED WITH
USE IMMUNITY, SINGSON CAN STILL BE PROSECUTED FOR JUETENG PROVIDED THAT HIS TESTIMONY AGAINST
ESTRADA IS NOT ADMITTED AGAINST HIM.. SINGSON MAY BE PROSECUTED FOR EVIDENCES OTHER THAN HIS
COMPELLED TESTIMONY AGAINST ESTRADA..
IF GRANTED WITH TRANSCATIONAL IMMUNITY, SINGSON CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR ANY GAMBLING OR
JUETING BECAUSE HIS COMPELLED TESTIMONY RELATES TO JUETING….
2. Transactional –immunity to the witness from prosecution for any offense to which his compelled testimony
relates.
THIS IS MORE BROADER.. YOU CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR ANY OFFENSE TO WHICH YOUR COMPELLED
TESTIMONY RELATES!!
Bar Question, 2011
* 4. When a witness is granted transactional immunity in exchange for his testimony on how his immediate
superior induced him to destroy public records to cover up the latter's act of malversation of public funds, the
witness may NOT be prosecuted for
* A. direct contempt.
* B. infidelity in the custody of public records. HE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR ANY

OFFENSE TO WHICH HIS COMPELLED TESTIMONY RELATES
* C. falsification of public documents.
* D. false testimony.
* Bar Question, 1998, V: Summary: Suppose Congress passes a law requiring that an employee can be
compelled to testify even if it tends to incriminate him, provided his testimony cannot be used in evidence
against him. (USE IMMUNITY)
* Supposed further that A, a member of the PRC Board was required to answer questions pertaining to a
leakage in the medical examination. Can he refuse to answer on the ground of self-incrimination? NO! SHE
CANNOT REFUSE BECAUSE SHE CAN NO LONGER BE PROSECUTED FOR THE OFFENSE IN VIEW OF THE
87 | P a g e
USE IMMUNITY
* Sec. 18: (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
* (2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted.
* A. Freedom of conscience
YOU CANNOT BE IMPRISONED FOR BELEIVING IN COMMUNISM… BUT IF YOU ACT IN ACCORDANCE OF THE
YOU BELIEF OR IDEOLOGY OF COMMUNISM, AND YOU ARE CAUGHT WITH HIGH POWERED FIREARMS, YOU ARE
NOT NOW PROTECTED BY THESE SECTION
* B. Involuntary Servitude
* Aclaration v. Gatmaitan:
* Estrada Case: THERE WAS A LAW RA 1329 PROVIDING THAT ALL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND
OFFICIALS FACING ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RETIRE OR RESIGN.. NOTE
THAT ESTRADA WAS CONSIDERED BY THE SC TO HAVE RESIGNED VOLUNTARILY OF HIS
PRESIDENCY.. SAGUISAG NOTED THAT ESTRADA COULD NOT HAVE RESIGNED FROM HIS POST
SINCE HE WAS FACING IMPEACHMENT CASE AT THE TIME HE RESIGN.. SO HE WAS PROHIBITED
FROM RESIGNING!! HELD: SC HELD THAT IF WE INTERPRET RA1319 LITERALLY, WE MIGHT END UP
VIOLATING THE INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE PROVISON OF THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE YOU ARE
FORCING PEOPLE TO WORK AGAINST THEIR WILL!!! SO THE RULE NOW IS THAT EVEN IF YOU ARE
FACING ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO RESIGN OR RETIRE PROVIDED THAT HIS
BENEFITS SHALL BE WITHOLD PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE!!!
1993, No. 16: GATMAITAN CASE!!!
Joy, an RTC stenographer, retired at the age of 65. She left unfinished the transcription of her notes in a criminal
case which was on appeal. The Court of Appeals ordered Joy to transcribe her notes. She refused to comply
with the order reasoning that she is no longer in the service. The CA declared Joy in contempt of court and
she was incarcerated. Joy filed a petition for habeas corpus arguing that her incarceration is tantamount to
illegal detention and tp require her to work sans compensation would be involuntary servitude. Decide.
HELD.. YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE CLAUSE INTHIS CONTEXT FOR THE VERY REASON
THAT THE POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE IS SUPERIOR TO THE
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE CLAUSE..
OBITER CASE SINCE THE CASE WAS SETTLED DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SAME
Which of the following is prohibited by the “involuntary servitude” clause of the Constitution?
a. An order of the Secretary of Labor for strikers to return to work IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE BECAUSE IT IS VOLUNTARY
ON YOUR PART BECAUSE IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO RETURN, YOU ARE DEEMED TO HAVE RESIGNED!
b. An law prohibiting public officers and employees from retiring during the pendency of an
administrative case against them .
* A law providing for hard labor as a sentence for soldiers guilty of desertion .. THIS IS PROVIDED FOR BY
LAW
* d. An order of the Court of Appeals compelling a stenographer to transcribe her notes under pain of
contempt THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS SUPERIOR TO
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE CLAUSE
Bar Question, 2011
88 | P a g e
* 63. Involuntary servitude may be required as
* A. part of rehabilitation of one duly charged with a crime.
* B. substitute penalty for one who has been duly tried for a crime.
* C. punishment for a crime where one has been duly convicted. REASON IS CODAL..No
involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted. AS OF TO DATE, THERE IS NO LAW PROVIDING FOR
INVOLUNTARY SERVICE AS PENALTY .. HOWEVER, THERE IS A law providing for hard labor as a
sentence for soldiers guilty of desertion .. THIS IS PROVIDED FOR BY LAW… IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE TO
THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED THERE IS CONVICTION~~ IT IS ONLY IN THE MILITARY
* D. condition precedent to one's valid arraignment.
Section 19.
* (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted . Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous
crimes, the Congress hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to
reclusion perpetua.
* (2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment against any prisoner
or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.
* NOTE THAT DEATH PENALTY MAYBE RE-IMPOSED, BUT THREE CONDITIONS MUST BE MET:
* THERE MUST BE A LAW PROVIDING THE SAME
* ONLY FOR COMPELLING REASONS
* INVOLVING HEINOUSE CRIMES

Cruel and inhumane punishment : HOW DO WE DEFINE IT
* 1. Those which public sentiment would regard as cruel and obsolete to law . It has something to do
with the form, not severity. OBSOLETE-MEANING THOSE NO LONGER USED IN ANOTHER
COUNTRY!!!
* 2. Those which are disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense . MEANING, IT MUST BE
DISPROPORTIONATE AND IT MUST SHOCK THE MORAL SENSE
NOTE: THAT DEATH PENALTY WAS IMPUGNED AS CRUEL AND INHUMAN, BUT WAS UPHELD BY THE SC IN VIEW
OF THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO RESTORE OR REIMPOSE THE SAME
NOTE ALSO THAT LETHAL INJECTION WAS CHALLENGED FOR BEING CRUEL AND INHUMANE… SC HELD THAT IT
CANNOT BE CRUEL AND INHUMANE SINCE IT IS USED BY SEVERAL COUNTRIES.. HENCE, NOT OBSOLETE!!
WHILE LETHAL INJECTION MAY INFLICT PAIN, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE
NO PAIN.. WHAT IS UNCONSTITIUTIONAL IS THE PENALTY THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO INFLICT PAIN… HERE,
THE PAIN IS ONLY INCIDENTAL OF THE PENALTY.. IN FACT ALL PENALTY INFLICTS PAIN!! WHAT IS PROSCRIBED
IS PAIN THAT IS INHERENT TO THE METHOD.. MEANING THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS REALLY INFLICT PAIN..
89 | P a g e
* Agbanlog –1993, malversation of 21,000 – 11-16 years. HE WAS CONVICTD FOR MALVERSATION OF 21,000
AND SENTENCED TO 11- 16 YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT IN 1993.. HELD: IT RULED THAT IT IS NOT CRUEL
OR UNUSUAL.. THE PENALTY IS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE AS TO SHOCK THE MORAL SENSE IN VIEW.. YOU
CANNOT COMPLAIN BEFORE US, YOU GO TO CONGRESS AND HAVE IT AMENDED…
* Lim – estafa through BP 22, P360 –T – Perpetua
* HELD: IF YOU THINK IT IS DISPROPORTIONATE, YOU GO TO CONGRESS AND HAVE IT AMENDED!!
* Serrano – full back wages [excessive fine]

SERRANO DECISION. SC STATED THAT BACKWAGES SHALL BE FROM THE TIME OF THE DISMISSAL UNTIL SUCH
TIME THE COURT DECIDES THE CASE WITH FINALITY!!! IF THE CASE DRAG UP TO 20 YEARS, BACKWAGES SHALL
COVER THE AMOUNT COVERING THE PENDENCY OF THECASE!!! IT WAS IMPUGNED ON THE GROUND SAID
BACKWAGES ARE EXCESSIVE FINES.. HELD: BACK WAGES ARE NOT FINES!!! FINES ARE THOSE
WHICH ACCRUE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE… HERE, THE BACKWAGES ARE DUE TO THE PERSON
ENTTILED TO IT OR TO THE EMPLOYEE.. HENCE, FULL BACKWAGES CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS
VIOLATIVE TO THE CONSTITUTION!!
Bar Question, 2011
* 78. The Constitution prohibits cruel and inhuman punishments which involve
* A. torture or lingering suffering.
* B. primitive and gross penalties. THIS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS OBSOLETE!!
* C. unusual penal methods.
* D. degrading and queer penalties. CONSTITUTION ALSO PROHIBITS DEGRADING PUNISHMENT
* NOTE MOST ANSWERS ARE GOOD.. BUT TORTURE IS THE MOST CLEAR ANSWER
2010 Bar Exam:
XI
Which statement best completes the following phrase: (1%)
“Freedom from torture is a right
A. subject to derogation when national security is threatened.”
B. confined only during custodial investigation.”
C. which is non-derogable both during peacetime and in a situation of armed conflict.”
D. both (a) and (b)
E. none of the above.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
* Non-imprisonment for debt

(DEBT HERE REFERS ONLY TO CONTRACTUAL DEBT… WALAY MAPRISO SA UTANG!!!!.. HENCE, IF IT IS NOT A
CONTRACTUAL DEBT, YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE PROVISION!!!
B. Non-payment of poll tax
90 | P a g e
* Debt- applies only to contractual debt , express or implied
* 1. Lozano v. Martinez – BP 22 (BP 22, YOU ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR ISSUING A BOUCING CHECK WHICH
POISONS BLOODSTREAM OF THE ECONOMY.. NOT BECAUSE OF NONPAYMENT OF DEBT..)
* 2. People v. Nitafan – Trust Receipt law (REFERS TO ESTAFA, YOU ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR YOUR DECEIT,
OR FAILURE TO DELIVER THE PROCEEDS OF THE GOODS.. AND NOT FOR NONPAYMENT OF DEBTS)..
WHAT IS BEING PUNISHED HERE IS THE ACT OF ABUSING THE CONFIDENCE OF OTHERS!!! IT IS REALLY
NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CREDITOR. OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!
* 3. People v. Merillo – Salary of Workers- THERE IS A LABOR LAW PROVIDING THE COMPLIANCE OF
EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE SALARY IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINIMUM WAGE LAW.. VIOLATION THEREOF
EMPLOYERS WILL GO TO JAIL… THIS WAS IMPUGNED FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THIS SECTION HELD: THE
SAME WAS HELD TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL AS VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER OF THE STATE..
* MOREOVER, THIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONTRACTUAL DEBT IN THE SENSE THAT I BORROWED
MONEY FROM YOU AND I FAILED TO PAY.. HENCE, NONPAYMENT OF SALARY OF WORKER IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE WAGE BOARD CAN BE PUNISHED WITHOUT VIOLATING THE PROVISION!!
Sentencing an employer to imprisonment for non-payment of minimum wage IS VALID!!
Which is violative of the constitutional provision against non-payment of debt?
* Ordering the incarceration of defendants for contempt for non-payment of rental THIS IS
COVERED BY THE NON PAYMENT OF DEBT CLAUSE… WHILE THIS MAY BE A
CONTRACTUAL DEBT, THIS GOES AGAINST THE CIVIL PROCEDURE BECAUSE IF THERE
IS A JUDGMENT, YOU FILE FOR MOTION FOR EXECUTION… CONTEMPT IN JUDGEMENT
IS HAD ONLY JUDGMENT ORDERING OTHER PERSON TO BE RESTORED TOHIS
POSITION!! VIOLATIVE
* Sentencing an employer to imprisonment for non-payment of minimum wage NOT VIOLATIVE
* Compelling a convict to serve subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of civil liability.. DEAN SAYS
THIS IS WRONG!! SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT FOR NON PAYMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY CANNOT BE
DONE BECAUSE THE RPC DOES NOT ALLOW IT. HOWEVER NONPAYMENT OF FINE IS NOT
VIOLATIVE TO THIS SECTION BECAUSE FINE BECAUSE FINE ACTUALLY DOES NOT
ARISE EX CONTRACT . IT IS NOT A CONTRACUAL DEBT.IT ARISES EX DELICTO OR OUT
OF CRIME AND IT GOES TO THE STATE… VIOLATIVE
* Convicting an accused of estafa for converting money received in trust or on commission NOT
VIOLATIVE
* Double Jeopardy MEMO!!!!
Sec. 21, No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a
law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.
* Two Kinds:
91 | P a g e
* 1. For the same offense
* 2. For the same act
* Sec. 1. Double Jeopardy (SAME OFFENSE)
* Requisites for Double Jeopardy:
* 1. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
* 2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
* 3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense.
* DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS TO SAME OFFENSE AND AS TO SAME ACT HAVE THE SAME ELEMENTS EXCEPT NO.
3 OF WHICH IT IS NOT REQUIRED IN THE LATTER
* 1999, No. VII:
* A. Discuss the right of every accused against double jeopardy. No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
* B. What are the requisites for double jeopardy?
* Requisites for Double Jeopardy:
* 1. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
* 2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
* 3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense.
* Applicable to criminal cases only: Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA 348 (2009)-Plunder and Forfeiture of
Ill-Gotten Wealth
GARCIA- THE GOVT FILED A PLUNDER CASE AGAINST HIM.. LATER IT FILED A FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST HIM BEFORE THE SANDIGANBYAN. HELD: FORFEITURE OF ILL GOTTEN WEALTH IS NOT A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS!! THEREFORE THE 2 CASES CAN PROCEED TOGETHER WITHOUT VIOLATING DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
DOUBLE JEOPARDY APPLIES ONLY IN CRIMINAL CASES
* I. First Jeopardy has Attached
* NOTE THAT THE 3 SUB REQUISITES MUST CONCURE INORDER THAT THE FIRST JEOPARDY
HAS ATTACHED!! NAMELY:
92 | P a g e
* VALID COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
* FILED BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT AND
* ACCUSED WAS ARRAIGNED.
* 1. Valid complaint or information (VALID ONE IS ONE SUFFICIENT TO
* a. Information charging no offense/element missing [Pu yi Kun]
* b. information not signed by offended party (Manaba)
* c. Info not filed/signed by proper authority (Cudua)
* [Lasoy v. Senerosa]
* 2. Filed before a competent court
* a. No jurisdiction over offense [Binay]
* b. Filed in wrong venue [Us v. Arceo]
* c. See next slide
* 3. Accused was arraigned

1. Valid complaint or information (VALID COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS ONE SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT A
PERSON) IF SOMETHING IS DEFECTIVE IN THE INFO OR COMPLAINT, THEN YOU CANNOT CONVICT THE
ACCUSED AND CONSEQUENTLY WE CAN SAY THAT THE FIRST SUB-REQUISITE IS ABSENT!!
a. Information charging no offense/element missing [Pu yi Kun] (IN THE INFORMATION OF THEFT, IT WAS NOT
ALLEGED OR (ONE ELEMENT OF THEFT WAS MISSING) THAT THE TAKING OF PROPERTY WAS WITHOUT THE
CONSENT.. THAT WILL RENDER THE INFORMATION DEFECTIVE AND NOT SUFFICIENT TO
CONVICT THE PERSON AND IT CHARGES NO OFFENSE AT ALL BECAUSE ONE ELEMENT IS
MISSING. SO THE ACCUSED CANNOT INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY HERE WHEN THE SECOND INFO
WAS FILED FOR THE REASON THAT THE FIRST INFO WAS DEFECTIVE AND INSUFFICIENT FOR
VALID CONVICTION.. OTHERWISE STATED.. THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO BE INFORMED OF
THE CAUSE AND NATURE OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE IS BEING CHARGE IS VIOLATED.. NO
DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
b. information not signed by offended party (Manaba) (NOTE THAT PRIVATE CRIMES CAN ONLY BE INITIATED BY
THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS (THE INFORMATION FOR ADULTERY WAS FILED WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE OF
THE WIFE) OR INFORMATION OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE OF THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANT (PRIVATE CRIMES).. SO IT THE SAME WAS DISMISSED.. WHEN THEY FILED THE SECOND
INFORMATION WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, THE ACCUSED INVOKED DOUBLE JEOPARDY.
HELD: NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. CONSIDERING THAT THE FIRST INFORMATION WAS NOT INITIATED AND SIGNED
BY THE OFFENDED PARTY, THERE CAN BE NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THAT COULD NOT HAVE RESULTED TO
VALID CONVICTION!! THEREFORE, THE NEW INFO FILED, THIS TIME SIGNED BY THE OFFENDED PARTY, WILL BE
OKAY!!!
c. Info not filed/signed by proper authority (Cudua)
[Lasoy v. Senerosa]
EX.. WE KNOW THAT TAGUM CITY IS UNDER THE PROVINCE OF DAVAO DEL NORTE.. THE LATTER HAS A
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR (ENAD) AND FORMER ALSO HAS ITS CITY PROSECUTOR (GALAGALA).. THE OFFENSE
OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS OCCURRED IN TAGUM CITY BUT THE ONE WHO FILED/SIGNEDTHE
INFORMATION WAS THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR (ENAD) CONSIDERING THE PROVINCE ALSO HANDLES ITS
COMPONENT CITY. LATER ON THE ONE FILED BY PROSECUTOR ENAD WAS DISMISSED. WHEN THE SECOND
INFORMATION WAS FILED NOW BY PROSECUTOR GALAGALA, THE ACCUSED VILLACORTE MOVED FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF THE SAME INVOKING DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. HELD.. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! CONSIDERING THAT
THE FIRST INFORMATION WAS NOT FILED/SIGNED BY THE PROPERTY AUTHORITY (WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN
BY PROSECUTOR ENAD).. SO IT COULD NOT HAVE RESULTED TO A VALID CONVICTION!! SO HE CAN BE
CHARGED AGAIN!!
(LASOY CASE) A was charged with illegal possession of 4 kilos of shabu. Apparently with A’s connivance, someone
erased the word “kilos” and changed it to “grams.” Accused pleaded guilty and due to the small amount the
93 | P a g e
RTC judge sentenced him to less than 6 years in prison and placed him on probation. When the anomaly was
discovered, the Fiscal filed a new information against A. A claimed double jeopardy. Is accused correct?
a. No, because there was no valid complaint or information
b. No, because the court had no jurisdiction over the offense the information having been falsified
c. No, because there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge
d. Yes, because there was a valid complaint or information sufficient to convict A FALSIFIED IS
A VALID INFORMATION!! NOTE THAT THE INFORMATION WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE
ACCUSED AND IN FACT HE WAS DULY CONVICTED!! ONCE HE HAS BEEN DULY CONVICTED,
YOU CANNOT OPEN THE CASE ANYMORE BECAUSE THE FIRST JEOPARDY HAS ALREADY
ATTACHED!!!
2. Filed before a competent court (MEANING IT MUST BE A COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE)
a. No jurisdiction over offense [Binay] NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL OFFENSE BY
REASON OF YOUR PUBLIC OFFICE (AS MAYOR), THE JURISDICTION IS VESTED IN THE SANDIGAN BAYAN!! THE
PROBLEM IS THAT THE OMBUDSMAN FILED A CASE AGAINST BINAY BEFORE THE RTC (WITHOUT
JURISDICTION).. UPON REALIZING THE ERROR, THE OMB FILED A CASE BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN.. SO THE
CLEVER LAWYERS OF BINAY HAD THE LATTER PLEADED GUILTY BEFORE THE RTC KNOWING THE SAME TO BE
WITHOUT JURISDICTION.. WITH THAT, THEY MOVED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE ONE FILED IN THE
SANDIGANBAYAN INVOKING DOUBLE JEOPARDY!. HELD-CONSIDERING THAT THE RTC HAS NO JURISDICTION
OVER THE OFFENSE, BINAY WAS NOT PLACED IN JEOPARDY!! THE CASE BEFORE THE RTC MUST BE DISMISED
AND LET THE ONE FILED BEFORE THE SANDIGANBYAN PROCEED!!
b. Filed in wrong venue (VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL) [Us v. Arceo] THIS CASE INVOLVED BIGAMY… THE
FIRST MARRIAGE WAS HAD IN COTABATO AND THE SECOND MARRIAGE WAS HAD IN TAGUM CITY! THE BIGAMY
CASE WAS FILED IN COTABATO (ERRONEOUS).. IT WAS DISMISSED FOR IMPROPER VENUE.. WHEN IT WAS FILED
IN TAGUM, THE HUSBAND INVOKED DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. HELD.. NO! THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
CONSIDERING THAT THE FIRST INFO WAS FILED BEFORE AN IMPROPER VENUE, THE ACCUSED WAS NOT
PLACED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
c. See next slide Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales, 629 SCRA 423 (2010)
* Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales, 629 SCRA 423 (2010)
* Accused was charged with parricide before the RTC. After a reinvestigation, the prosecutor filed a motion
to withdrew information, to give was to the filing of an information against the accused for Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Parricide . The motion to withdraw was not acted upon by the court in view of
an appeal with the DOJ, and later with the Office of the President, by the heirs of the victim questioning the
downgrading of the charge Reckeless Imprudence. Meanwhile, accused pleaded guilty to reckless
imprudence and was sentenced to a maximum of 2 years and 10 months by the MeTC . Due to
the dismissal by the Office of the President of the appeal of the heirs, the RTC also granted the motion to
withdrew the information for parricide. The dismissal turned out to defective because the judge did not make
an independent evaluation but relied merely on the motion of the fiscal and the findings of the DOJ.
Considering that accused had been convicted by the MeTC (TAKE NOTE THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
BEFORE THE RTC WAS DEFECTIVE), can the case be reinstated in the RTC without placing the accused in
double jeopardy?
* HELD: NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THE METC ACTUALLY HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE
BECAUSE THE CASE IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE RTC AND REMEMBER THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONCE
JURISDICTION IS ACQUIRED, IT CONTINUES UNTIL IT IS VALIDLY TERMINATED… MOREOVER, THE CASE
OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO PARRICIDE IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE CASE OF
PARRICIDE. HENCE, THE METC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE CASE MAY BE REFILED AND
REINSTATED IN THE RTC WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! TRICKY EXAMPLE!!
LITTLE SUMMARY: BEFORE FIRST DOUBLE JEOPARDY HAS ATTACHED, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT
* THERE MUST BE A VALID COMPLAINT
* THAT IT MUST BE FILED BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT
* Accused was arraigned
94 | P a g e
NOTE: WHY IS IT THAT WITHOUT NO. 1 OR NO 2 SUBREQUISITE, THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY? YOU ARE
NOT IN DANGER OF BEING CONVICTED BECAUSE THEY ARE NULL IN VOID ANYWAY.. SO YOU CANNOT SAY
THAT YOU ARE PLACED IN DANGER OF GETTING CONVICTED!!
3. Accused was arraigned
3. Accused has been arraigned
* 1. Antone v. Beronilla, 637 SCRA 615 (2010)
* Accused was charged with bigamy. He filed a motion to quash the information on the ground that his first
marriage was declared null and void after he contracted the second marriage, which the trial court granted .
His wife filed a certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed it on the ground that it will violate
the rule on double jeopardy. Is the CA correct?
* NO! THE FIRST JEOPARDY HAS NOT YET ATTACHED IN VIEW OF THE GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH.. IN
OTHER WORDS, THE ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN ARRAIGNED!! IF THE INFORMATION IS DISMISSED BY
REASON THE GRANTING OF MOTION TO QUASH, THE FISCAL CAN FILE A CASE AGAIN AND AGAIN!!!
Vincoy [Fiscal’s Office of Pasay

THE FIRST COMPLAINT FOR ESTAFA WAS FILED WITH FISCAL’S OFFICE OF PASAY.. THEN A CASE FOR THE SAME
ESTAFA WAS FILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED WITH FISCALS OFFICE OF PASIG.. WAS THERE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY? HELD: NO! EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE FACT THE FIRST COMPLAINT WAS FILED
ONLY BEFORE THE FISCAL’S OFFICE.. THERE WAS NEVER AN ARRAIGNMENT THERE.. ARRAIGNMENT
COMES ONLY BEFORE A COURT… YOU CAN BE CHARGED BEFORE THE FISCAL’S OFFICE 10 TIMES
WITHOUT PLACING IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
Exceptions:
1. Balisacan – not valid plea/self-defense
THE PERSON WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE.. THE ACCUSED PLEADED GUILTY ON THE CONDITION THAT HE
BE GIVEN MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.. THIS WAS ALLOWED BY THE COURT. DURING TRIAL, HE
PRESENTED EVIDENCE (SELF DEFENSE).. THE JUDGE ACQUITTED HIM… THE FISCAL APPEALED BEFORE
THE SC.. IS THERE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? HELD- NO! THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!! SOMETHING’S
WRONG WITH THE PROCEEDINGS.. SC EMPHASIZED THAT WHEN THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY AND
DURING TRIAL HE PRESENTS EVIDENCE WHICH TENDS TO EXCULPATE HIM, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE
HAD HIM REARRAIGNED AND SHOULD HAVE ASKED HIM TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY! THE ARRAIGNMENT WAS
NULL AND VOID (THE FIRST ONE).. HENCE, THE CASE MAY BE REOPENED WITHOUT PLACING THE
ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THERE WAS NO VALID PLEA!!.. HIS EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS
INCONSISTENT WITH HIS PLEA OF GUILTY.. THERE WAS NO VALID ARRAIGNMENT
* 2. grave abuse:Dimatulac v. Villon, 297 SCRA 679 (1998) – rushing arraignment despite pendency of appeal
with DOJ
* THE RESOLUTION OF THE FISCAL WAS HOMICIDE AND INFORMATION FOR HOMICIDE WAS FILED WITH
THE COURT.. THE RELATIVE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY APPEALED TO THE DOJ QUESTIONING THE
RESOLUTION FOR THE FILING OF HOMICIDE.. PENDING THE APPEAL, THE JUDGE ARRAIGNED THE
ACCUSED FOR HOMICIDE.. DOJ RULED THAT THE A CASE OF MURDER BE FILED INSTEAD OF HOMICIDE…
ACCUSED OBJECTED TO MOVE ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY SINCE HE HAS BEEN ALREADY
ARRAIGNED: HELD- NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THE JUDGE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
WHEN HE RUSHED THE ARRAIGNMENT FOR HOMICIDE NOTWIDSTANDING THE PENDENCY OF THE
APPEAL BEFORE THE DOJ!! HENCE, THE SC ALLOWED THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION FOR MURDER
WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!! GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART
OF THE JUDGED RESULTED TO INVALIDITY OF THE ARRAIGNMENT HAD BY THE ACCUSED!!
* Cerezo v. People, 650 SCRA 222 (2011)
* Respondents were charged with libel before the RTC. On motion for reinvestigation, the City
Prosecutor reversed itself and found no probable cause to charged them. Meanwhile, they were
95 | P a g e
arraigned and pleaded not guilty . The offended party appealed to the DOJ for a review of the
resolution of the City Prosecutor . Despite the pendency of the appeal, a motion to withdrew
information was filed by the prosecutor which was granted by the court (TAKE NOTE THAT
ACCUSED WAS SO CLEVER THAT THEY HAD THEMSELVES ARRAIGNED FIRST BEFORE THE
INFORMATION COULD BE DISMISSED!) . Later, when the DOJ reversed the resolution of dismissal and
ordered the prosecutor to refile the case, the judge granted the motion to reinstate the information. Both
orders of the judge were not based on his independent consideration but relied merely on
the finding of the DOJ . Can the case be reinstated without placing the accused in double jeopardy?
* YES! THE CASE CAN BE REINSTATED WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY! THE
JUDGE ACTUALLY COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE ACTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS
BASED ON THE FINDING OF THE DOJ WITHOUT HIS INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION.. HENCE, THE CASE
CAN BE REINSTATED AS THE ARRAIGNMENT WAS PATENTLY NULL AND VOID!! NOTE THAT WHEN
A PROSECUTOR MOVES FOR THE DISMISAL OF THE INFORMATION, THE JUDGE MUST RELY ON HIS
INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OR ARGUMENT AND NOT MERELY DEPEND ON THE ASSESSMENT OR
RESOLTION OF THE PROSECUTOR..OR THE DOJ… IT IS BECAUSE ONCE THE INFORMATION IS FILED WITH
COURT, THE CASE IS NOW THE PROPERTY OF COURT AND THE JUDGE THEREOF MUST MAKE PERSONAL
AND INDEPENDENT EVALUATION TO ANY MOTION FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAME.. HE MUST
RESOLVED THE SAME BASED ON HIS INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT!! HENCE, GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE WHICH RESULTED TO THE INVALIDITY OF THE
ARRAIGNMENT HAD BEFORE HIS SALA!!!!
* People v. Dumlao. 580 SCRA 409 (2009)
* Dumlao and several other ranking officials of the Marcos regime were charged before the Sandiganbayan
of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. After arraignment , he filed a motion to quash
invoking the ground that “the facts charged do not constitute an offense.” The Sandiganbayan, based on
the Pre-Trial Stipulation entered into by the accused and the prosecution, however, dismissed
the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence . Can the Supreme Court review the dismissal
without placing the accused in double jeopardy?
* YES.. THE SC CAN… HOW CAN THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE WHEN THERE WAS NO TRIAL!! THAT IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION!!! THEREFORE, THE CAN
BE REFILED AGAIN… GAD CAN BE IN SEVERAL FORMS
(LASOY CASE) A was charged with illegal possession of 4 kilos of shabu. Apparently with A’s connivance, someone
erased the word “kilos” and changed it to “grams.” Accused pleaded guilty and due to the small amount the
RTC judge sentenced him to less than 6 years in prison and placed him on probation. When the anomaly was
discovered, the Fiscal filed a new information against A. A claimed double jeopardy. Is accused correct?
a. No, because there was no valid complaint or information
b. No, because the court had no jurisdiction over the offense the information having been falsified
c. No, because there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge
d. Yes, because there was a valid complaint or information sufficient to convict A FALSIFIED IS
A VALID INFORMATION!! NOTE THAT THE INFORMATION WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE
ACCUSED AND IN FACT HE WAS DULY CONVICTED!! ONCE HE HAS BEEN DULY CONVICTED,
YOU CANNOT OPEN THE CASE ANYMORE BECAUSE THE FIRST JEOPARDY HAS ALREADY
ATTACHED!!!
II. IST Jeopardy Terminated
Nitafan – 21 criminal cases

* SEVERAL CASES WAS FILED AGAINST A PERSON FOR VIOLATION OF CENTRAL BANK CIRCULAR.. JUDGE
NOTICED THAT THERE ARE 21 CRIMINAL CASES FILED AGAINST THAT PERSON BEFORE HIS SALA… HE
ORDERED THE DISMISSAL OF THE OTHERS.. HELD: FOR AS LONG AS CASES WERE PENDING, YOU CANNOT
MOVE FOR THE DISMISSAL OF ONE SINCE THERE WAS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY BECAUSE NOT ALL OF
THEM HAS BEEN VALIDLY TERMINATED… WAIT THE CASE TO BE VALIDLY TERMINATED BEFORE YOU CAN
VALIDLY INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
96 | P a g e
* Jeopardy is terminated by:

ACQUITTAL, CONVICTION AND DISMISSAL,
* A. Acquittal –Immediately final, ONCE IT THE SENTENCE OF AQUITTAL IS READ, IT IS ALREADY FINAL..
* Pp. V. CA – convicted of homicide but reversed by CA- Certiorari- HELD: CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS A
JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL BY THE LOWER COURT, CERTIORARI CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED.
* Paluay – Annulment of judgment : HELD: A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL CAN NO LONGER BE SUBJECT OF

ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
* Reconsideration- Serrano – Notice of appeal- THE PERSON WAS ACQUITTED OF RAPE.. A NOTICE OF
APPEAL WAS FILED.. THE JUDGE WHO WAS IGNORANT OF THE LAW, HE FORWARDED THE RECORDS TO
THE SC FOR REVIEW.. HELD: THE SC FINED TE JUDGE 20,000.00 FOR IGNORANCE OF THE LAW..
* Argel v. Pascua –acquitted, reversed 5 days after [revised] THE JUDGE ACQUITTED THE ACCUSED FOR THE
CRIME OF MURDER ON THE REASON THAT NON OF THE WITNESSESS WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE
ACCUSED .. HOWEVER, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS STENOGRAPHIC NOTES SHOWING THAT A
WITNESS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THEWITNESS.. SO THE JUDGE ISSUED A REVISED DECISION 5 DAYS AFTER
THE PROMULGATION.. HELD: A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS IMMIEDIATLY FINAL!!!.. THE JUDGE WAS
DISMISSED FOR GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE LAW!!
* People v. Sandiganbayan, 631 SCRA 128 (2010)
* After trial wherein the Ombudsman prosecutor and the accused presented witnesses and
numerous documents, the Sandiganbayan acquitted accused of violation of the Anti-Graft Act. The
Ombudsman filed a petition for certiorari to overturn the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that “there was no
doubt that dredging work was performed” considering that when the work was allegedly done, there was yet
no approve specification and plans as required by law. Can the Court review the decision without violating
the right of the accused against double jeopardy?
Held: No. The foregoing is essentially an issue involving an alleged error of judgment , not an error
of jurisdiction . Petitioner has not convincingly shown that the prosecution has indeed been deprived of
due process of law. There is no showing that the trial court hampered the prosecution's presentation of
evidence in any way. On the contrary, the prosecution was given ample opportunity to present its ten
witnesses and all necessary documentary evidence. The case was only submitted for decision after the
parties had duly rested their case. The trial court clearly stated in its decision which pieces of evidence led it
to its conclusion that the project was actually undertaken, justifying payment to the contractor. Petitioner
failed to show that there was mistrial resulting in denial of due process. When the trial court arrives at
its decision only after all the evidence had been considered, weighed and passed upon, then “any error
committed in the evaluation of evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be
remedied by certiorari. IN OTHER WORDS, JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL CANNOT BE
REVIEWED EVEN IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE JUDGE COMMITTED AN ERROR!!!
* Exceptions: THAT JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL MAY BE REVIEWED.. NOTE THAT THIS CAN BE A GROUND
FOR CERTIORARI
* 1. Deprivation of due process
* 2. Grave abuse of discretion
97 | P a g e
* 3. Galman and Bellaflor – recon/ De Grano

GALMAN- THIS CASE INVOLVED ACQUITTAL OF VER FOR THE DEATH OF NINOY ACQUINO.. THE PROSECUTION
FILED A MOTION FOR RECON BUT DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL
CANNOT BE SUBJECT FOR REVIEW ANYMORE AS IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. AFTER
CORY ASSUMED PRESIDENCY, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE CASE WAS RAFFLED TO MARCOS TUTA
JUDGE.. IT WAS ALSO LEARNED THAT MONITORING DEVICE WAS HAD INSIDE THE COURTROOM BY THE
MILITARY.. SOME OF THE WITNESSESS DISAPPEARED… HELD: THE COURT RULED THAT THE STATE
WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS .. SO RE-TRIAL WAS ALLOWED AND THE ACCUSED WERE
CONVICTED
BELLAFLOR- THE JUDGE CONVICTED THE ACCUSED.. UPON MOTION FOR RECON, THE JUDGE ACQUITTED THE
ACCUSED.. BUT THE SAID DECISION ONLY INDICATED “FINDING THE MOTION FOR RECON
MERTITORIOUS, THE ACCUSED IS HEREBY ACQUITTED”. HELD: THERE WAS AN GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE.. IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT IN RENDERING JUDGMENT
REVERSING YOUR PREVIOUS JUDGMENT UPON MOR, YOU MUST STATE THE LAW AND THE FACTS… A
JUDGMENT OF THE SAME WITHOU STATEMENT OF LAW AND FACTS IS UNCONSTITTIONAL…
* De Grano
* People v. De Grano, 588 SCRA 550 (2009)
* Six (6) people were charged with murder, but only four (4) were arraigned, the rest being at-large. After
trial, the RTC convicted the four (4). During the promulgation, only one, Lacaba, was present. Despite the
fact that the three (3) had become fugitives from justice, through counsel, all four (4) filed a motion for
reconsideration . The judge, however, acted on the motion by acquitting two (2) of the
accused and downgrading the conviction of the two (2) others, including Lacaba, to
homicide. A petition for certiorari filed by the prosecution with the Court of Appeals was dismissed on the
ground of double jeopardy. May the Supreme Court review the judgment of acquittal without placing the
accused in double jeopardy?
* YES! NOTE THAT AFTER THE 3 ABSCONDED WITHOUT APPEARING THE PROMULGATION OF CONVICTION,
THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE LOST THEIR STANDING.. IN OTHERWORDS, THEY WERE WITHOUT STANDING
IN FILING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.. SO IN SO FAR AS THE 3 WHO HAD ABSCONDED, THEIR
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR DOWNGRADING OF SENTENCE ARE NULL AND VOID.. IT WAS ISSUED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE!!! HENE, THE ACQUITTAL MAY BE REVIEWED
ON THE GROUND OF GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE!!
* Lejano v. People, 639 SCRA 760 (2011)
* After the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted accused Webb and others,
complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, filed a motion for reconsideration, claiming that it “denied the prosecution
due process of law; seriously misappreciated the facts; unreasonably regarded Alfaro as lacking credibility;
issued a tainted and erroneous decision; decided the case in a manner that resulted in the miscarriage of
justice; or committed grave abuse in its treatment of the evidence and prosecution witnesses.” Can the
Court reconsider its decision? NO MORE!! THE COURT CANNOT RECONSIDER ITS DECISION..!! A
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL CANNOT BE REVIEWED… DOUBLE JEOPARDY ALREADY SET IN.. IT IS
DOUBTED W/N THE SC WOULD REVERSE ITS DECISION ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS BY THEM OR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THEM….
* Jacob v. Sandiganbayan, 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
* Due to repeated postponements by Ombudsman prosecutors and their failure to submit their
reinvestigation report, Justice Nario of the Fourth Sandiganbayan Division, during its session, issued a
verbal order dismissing the cases . The dismissal was duly recorded in the minutes of the hearing of the
said date which was attested to by the Clerk of Court and signed by the parties. On motion of the
98 | P a g e
prosecution, the Special Fourth Division reversed the order 6 months later. Will the reversal of the order of
dismissal which was based on speedy trial violate the rights of the accused against double jeopardy?
WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS THAT THE JUDGE ORDERED THE DISMISAL BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION DID
NOT ARRIVE, A FEW MINUTES LATER, THE WITNESS ARRIVED AND WAS PRESENTED.. AFTER THAT HE
REVERSED HIS VERBAL ORDER
* HELD: NOTE THAT A DISMISSAL OF A CASE BASED ON THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED
BASED ON SPEEDY TRIAL WILL RESULT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS WE WILL LEARN LATER ON… HOWEVER,
EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED THAT TO HAVE A VALID JUDGEMENT OR ORDER OF DISMISSAL, THE SAME
MUST BE MADE IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE.. WHAT HAPPEN HERE WAS THAT THE JUDGE
REVERSED HIS ORDER (VERBAL) AFTER THE WITNESS HAD SHOWN UP AND PRESENTED BY THE
PROSECUTION.. SO THE PRINCIPLE HERE IS THAT UNTIL THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN REDUCED
INTO WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE (DISMISSAL ORDER), DOUBLE JEOPARDY HAS
NOT YET SET IT.. IN THE CASE AT BAR, THERE WAS NO VALID JUDGMENT OR ORDER AS IT WAS NOT IN
WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE.. CORRECT PROCEDURE FOR A VALID ORDER OR JUDGMENT IS IT
MUST BE IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE (ONCE SIGNED, IT CANNOT BE REOPENED
ANYMORE, DOUBLE JEOPARDY COMES IN) AND IT IS READ. ONCE IT IS READ, IT BECOMES
IMMEDIATELY FINAL….
* Ordinary errors: Laggui: No error, however flagrant, committed by the court against the state can be
reviewed by the Supreme Court (EVEN IF IT IS VERY CLEAR AND VERY OBVIOUS) WITHOUT RESULTING TO
DOUBLE JEOPARDY..
* HOW DO WE KNOW W/N THE ERROR IS ORDINARY OR GRAVE ABUSE?
ORDINARY ERRORS- THE JUDGE MISAPPRECIATION EVIDENCE OR HE CANNOT UNDERSTAND OR
MISUNDERSTOOD THE LAW THE LAW
FOR INSTANCE, ONE JURISPRUDENCE HAS IT THAT WHERE A JUDGE CONVICTED THE ACCUSED FOR MURDER
AND THE PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY TO THAT IS DEATH.. BECAUSE THE JUDGE ARE NOT AKIN OF DEATH
PENALTY, HE ONLY SENTENCED THE ACCUSED OF RECLUSION PERPETUA! NOW, HE IS BEING INTERVIEWED
ABOUT HIS DECISION AND HE STATED IN THE INTERVIEW THAT HE DID NOT IMPOSED THE DEATH PENALTY
BECAUSE HIS CONSCIENCE CANNOT BEAR PUTTING PEOPLE TO DEATH.. IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD BE
CONSIDERED AS ORDINARY ERRORS.. BUT HAD HE PUT THAT STATEMENTS IN THE DECISION OF CONVICTION,
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION SINCE HE KNEW THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND
CONSEQUENTLY IT CAN BE REVERSED BY THE SC.. ON THE OTHER HAND, HOWEVER, IF HE WAS INTERVIEWED
AND HE VERBALLY SAID THAT HE COMMITTED MISTAKE IN NOT IMPOSING WHAT PRESCRIBED BY LAW, IT
WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ORDINARY ERROR.. HENCE IT CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY THE SC, EVEN HOW
FLAGRANT AND OBVIOUS..
* B. Conviction – may be appealed by accused. But if he appeals, entire case is open open for review. Pp. v.
Rondero]
* Phil. Rabbit: To decrease civil liability
* On Certiorari to alter conviction to a more serious crime? Castro v. People
* B. Conviction – (IT BECOMES FINAL 15 DAYS FROM PROMULGATION) may be appealed by accused. But if
he appeals, entire case is open for review. Pp. v. Rondero]
RONDERO-THE POLICE OFFICER WAS CHARGED WITH RAPE WITH HOMICIDE.. AFTER TRIAL, HE WAS
CONVICTED ONLY FOR HOMICIDE AND NOT WITH RAPE SINCE NO EVIDENCE FOUND TO ESTABLISH THE
LATTER… SO CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE ONLY.. SO THE ACCUSED APPEALED BEFORE SC.. HELD: SC HOWEVER
FOUND HIM GUILTY OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE… EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED THAT ONCE THE ACCUSED
APPEAL HIS CONVICTION, HIS ENTIRE CASE IS OPEN FOR REVIEW.. THAT IS RISKY..!!
* Phil. Rabbit: To decrease civil liability
99 | P a g e
THE BUS DRIVER WAS CONVICTED OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE..AND SENTENCED TO PAY BIG AMOUNT AS CIVIL
LIABILITY… BUT THE DRIVER ESCAPED AND CONSEQUENTLY HE HAD NO LONGER STANDING TO APPEAL.. NOTE
THAT IN DAMAGES, IF THE ACCUSED IS INSOLVENT, THE EMPLOYER WILL BE SUBSIDIARILY LIABLE.. NOW HERE,
THE BUS COMPANY FILED AN APPEAL ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED…
CAN THAT BE ALLOWED? HELD: THE BUS COMPANY CANNOT APPEAL AS TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY BECAUSE
ONLY THE ACCUSED IS ONLY ALLOWED TO APPEAL.. THIS IS PREMISED ON THE RULE THAT IF THE CASE IS
APPEALED BY THE ACCUSED AND THE ENTIRE CASE WILL OPEN FOR REVIEW, THERE IS A GREAT POSSIBILITY
THAT THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED MAY BE INCREASED! THEREFORE IT IS ONLY HE, THE ACCUSED
DRIVER, CAN APPEAL THE SAME.. SINCE HE ALREADY ESCAPED AND THEREFORE CANNOT MAKE APPEAL, THE
EMPLOYER SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED SINCE DOUBLE JEOPARDY PRINCIPLE IN THIS CASE WILL SET IN..
* On Certiorari to alter conviction to a more serious crime? Castro v. People

IN THIS INSTANCE, THE ACCUSED WAS CHARGED WITH FRUSTRATED MURDER BUT WAS ONLY CONVICTED OF
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES.. SO YOU APPEAL FOR PURPOSES OF HAVING THE CONVICTION RESTORED TO THE
CRIME ORIGINALLY CHARGED! HELD: THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED.. to alter conviction to a more serious crime
CANNOT BE HAD AS DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN THIS CASE HAS ALREADY SET IN..
What about to increase penalty only?

Pp. v. Leones, 3 counts of rape- 17 years.
THE ACCUSED HERE PLEADED GUILTY OF 3 COUNTS OF RAPE.. BUT INSTEAD OF SENTENCING HIM OF 3
COUNTS OF DEATH PENALTY, HE ONLY SENTENCED HIM FOR 17 YEARS.. SO THERE WAS A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS
ERROR HERE ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE.. CAN THE PROSECUTION APPEAL TO INCREASE THE PENALTY ONLY?
HELD : NO! ONLY THE ACCUSED CAN APPEAL THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE
SAME MAY RESULT TO ENTIRE CASE SUBJECT FOR REVIEW… SAME RULING IF YOU WANT TO ALTER THE
CONVICTION TO A MORE SERIOIUS CRIME..
Pp. v. CA, 4 BP 22, fined by CA
THE ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED IN THE LOWER COURT AND SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT.. UPON APPEAL,
THE CA ONLY SENTENCED HIM TO A FINE.. IT WAS APPEALED BY THE PROSECUTION.. HELD.. IT CANNOT BE
ALOWED.. YOU CANNOT APPEAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE PENALTY..
PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY SET IN HERE
IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROSECUTION IS PROHIBITED FROM APPEALING A JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITAL AND CONVICTION!!
C. Dismissal – Tupaz v. Ulep
When is there consent to the dismissal?
RECAP: JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS IMMEDIATELY FINAL.. IT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION, CERTIORARI, ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT.. BUT IN RARE CASES, MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE
SC IF THERE IS
* VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
* GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND NOT ORDINARY ERRORS OF JUDGMENT

AS TO JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, IT SHALL BECOME FINAL AFTER THE LAPSE OF 15 DAYS FROM
PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT.. ONLY THE ACCUSED HIMSELF CAN APPEAL IT.. THE STATE CANNOT APPEAL IT
FOR PURPOSES OF
* ALTERING THE CONVICTION OF TO A MORE SERIOUS CRIME;\
* INCREASING THE PENALTY THEREOF
* CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE PENALTY FROM FINE TO IMPRISONMENT

BUT TAKE NOTE ON THE RARE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED FOR BY THE JURISPRUDENCE!!
C. Dismissal – Tupaz v. Ulep

IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW W/N THE DISMISSAL IS WITH CONSENT OR NOT.. BECAUSE IF IT IS WITH
CONSENT, PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT APPLY.. OF THERE IS NON, THERE WILL BE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY
100 | P a g e
When is there consent to the dismissal? PDO WSID
1. Provisional dismissal (HERE, IT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED!! IN THE MTC, THE PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL SHALL
BECOME FINAL AFTER THE LAPSE OF 1 YEAR.. IN THE RTC, THE PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL SHALL BECOME FINAL
AFTER THE LAPSE OF 2 YEARS.. MEANING, DOUBLE JEOPARDY WILL SET IN AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE 1 YEAR OR
2 YEARS, AS THE CASE MAY BE..!!! SO THE FISCAL MUST RE-FILE THE CASE WITHIN THAT PERIODS
2. Dismissal with prejudice- Dismissal without prejudice means that the dismissal shall be without prejudice of
refiling… that which WITH PREJUDICE, Cannot be refiled again
3. On motion of accused- BY MOTION TO QUASH OR TO DISMISS FILED BY THE ACCUSED.. SO THERE WILL BE
NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY HERE!!
4. When he agrees (WITH THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE)
Exceptions:
1. Speedy trial [Salcedo v. Mendoza](NOTE THAT EVEN IF THE DISMISSAL IS PROVISIONAL, OR WITH PREJUDICE,
OR ON MOTION OF THE ACCUSED, OR WITH HIS AGREEMENT, THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BASED ON OR
ON THE GROUND OF1. THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED OR INSUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE, THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY… IT WILL RESULT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! MEANING, IF I
ASKED THE JUDGE FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF SPEEDY TRIAL AND
THE LATTER DISMISSES THE SAME ON THE GROUND, THE CASE CANNOT BE REFILED ANYMORE
AS DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THERE..!!
Exceptions:
1. Speedy trial [Salcedo v. Mendoza](NOTE THAT EVEN IF THE DISMISSAL IS PROVISIONAL, OR WITH PREJUDICE,
OR ON MOTION OF THE ACCUSED, OR WITH HIS AGREEMENT, THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BASED ON OR
ON THE GROUND OF1. THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED OR INSUFFICIENCY OF
EVIDENCE, THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY… IT WILL RESULT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! MEANING, IF I
ASKED THE JUDGE FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF SPEEDY TRIAL AND
THE LATTER DISMISSES THE SAME ON THE GROUND, THE CASE CANNOT BE REFILED ANYMORE
AS DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THERE..!! IF IT IS GROUNDED ON SPEEDY TRIAL, IT CANNOT BE
REFILED AGAIN!!
2. Insufficiency of evidence [Demurrer – Ong v. People, MTC granted, RTC reversed, CA granted]
REMEMBER THAT THE ACCUSED FILES A DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE (FOR INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE) AND IT
IS GRANTED, IT AMOUNTS TO ACQUITTAL TO HIM… HENCE, IT CAN NO LONGER BE RE FILED ANYMORE EVEN IF
THE FISCAL DISCOVERS ANOTHER EVIDENCE!!
3. Discharge as state witness
IF THE STATE USES ONE OF THE SEVERAL ACCUSED WHO IS THE NOT THE MOST GUILTY, DISCHARGES HIM AS
STATE WITNESS AND EVENTUALLY DISCHARGES HIM FROM THE INFORMATION AND THE LATTER COMPLIES THE
CONDITION ATTACHED THERETO AS STATE WITNESS, THE CASE CANNOT BE REFILED AGAINST HIM ANYMORE
EVEN IF THE ACCUSED IS ACQUITTED IN THE CASE FOR WHICH HE IS BEING DISCHARGED AS STATE WITNESS..
IN RELATION TO THIS, A JUDGE DISCHARGED THE ACCUSED AS STATE WITNESS AND REMOVED HIM FROM THE
INFORMATION AND EXECUTED AND AFFIDAVIT… THE FISCAL MOVED FOR RECON.. DURING THE PENDENCY OF
WHICH, THE JUDGE WAS REPLACED BY ANOTHER ONE.. THE LATTER ACTING UPON THE MOTION FOR RECON,
REVERSED THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR.. CAN IT BE ALLOWED? HELD: IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED.. ONCE
THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN DISCHARGED FROM THE INFORMATION AND AS A WITNESS, HE CAN NO LONGER BE
REINSTATED TO THE INFORMATION.. DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THERE!!! TRUST THE AUTHORITY!!!!
* When is there no consent? REMEMBER THAT WHEN THE DISMISSAL IS WITHOUT CONSENT, DOUBLE
JEOPARDY SETS IN THE EVEN THE CASE AGAINST IS REFILED (HERE THE ACCUSED DOES NOT WAIVED HIS
RIGHT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!)
* 1. Silence/failure to object [Ilagan] HERE, THE FISCAL ASKED THE COURT THAT THE CASE FILED BE
DISMISSED…. THE ACCUSED WAS CAUGHT SURPRISE AND DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAME.. SO IT WAS
DISMISSED.. LATER ON, THE FISCAL FILED THE SAME CASE OR ANOTHER OF MORE SERIOUS
CRIMEAGAINST THE ACCUSED WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS WITH CONSENT( THAT
HE AGREED TO THE DISMISSAL-WITH CONSENT) BY REASON OF THE SILENCE OR FAILURE TO OBJECT OF
THE ACCUSED … IS THERE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? THE HENCE… HELD: THE SILENCE OR FAILURE TO
OBJECT BY THE ACCUSED OF THE DISMISSAL IS EQUIVALENT TO NO CONSENT.. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT
UNDER THE REVISED RULES OF COURT, THE DISMISSAL TO BE CONSIDER EDAS WITH CONSENT
101 | P a g e
OF THE ACCUSED MUST BE “DISMISSAL WITH THE EXPRESSED CONSENT OF THE
ACCUSED” !!! MEANING, SILENCE OF THE ACCUSED AMOUNTS TO NO EXPRESS CONSENT.. THEREFORE,
THE CASE CAN NO LONGER BE REFILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED AS DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THERE!!
* 2. Reinvestigation [P. v. Vergara] but not motion for reconsideration [Bellaflor]
* VERGARA- THE ACCUSED HERE WAS CHARGED IN COURT.. SO INFORMATION WAS DULY FILED.. THEN
THE ACCUSED FILED FOR REINVESTIGATION OF THE COMPLAINT DETERMINE W/N THERE IS PROBABLE
CAUSE… THE FISCAL FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE PROMPTING THE AGGRIEVED
PARTY TO APPEAL THE RESOLUTION OF THE FISCAL.. THE LATTER FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE
INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE OUTCOM OF HIS REINVESTIGATION FINDING NO PROBABALE CAUSE..
NOTE THAT THE ACCUSED HERE HAD ALREADY BEEN ARRAIGNED.. SO AFTER THE CASE WAS DISMISSED,
THE DOJ ORDERED THE REFILING OF THE CASE….. THE ACCUSED INVOKED DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THE
PROSECUTION CONTENDED THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS WITH CONSENT SINCE IT IS THE ACCUSED WHO
MOVED FOR THE REINVESTIGATION HELD: REINVESTIGATION IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO CONSENT..
* Exceptions: [Loose] 1. Grave abuse
* 2. Violation of due process Serino v. Zosa State Prosecutor v. Murro
BELLAFLOR CASE- THE ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURT.. HE FILED A MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION.. THIS TIME THE JUDGE REVERSED HIS DECISION.. HE CHALLENGED THE REVERSAL BEFORE
THE SC ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. HELD: THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY BECAUSE YOU FILED
A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH IS TANTAMOUNT TO A CONSENT!! REFER THIS TO DEAN
REMEMBER THAT IF THE DISMISSAL IS WITHOUT CONSENT, THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
Exceptions: [Loose]
1. Grave abuse
2. Violation of due process
Serino v. Zosa
THE JUDGE WAS CALLING FOR A TRIAL .. HE TOLD THE ACCUSED TO RETURN AT 10 AM FOR A COFFE BREAK..
HOWEVER AT 9AM HE DISMISSED THE CASE WHEN HE FOUND THAT THE FISCAL AND THE ACCUSED WAS NOT
PRESENT WHEN HE RESUMED.. UPON REALIZING THE MISTAKE, THE JUDGE REINSTATED THE CASE AGAINST
THE ACCUSED.. THE LATTER OBJECTED ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. HELD.. NO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY SET IN.. THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF DUE OF PROCESS AND GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE
PART OF THE JUDGE.. HE SET THE HEARING AT 10 AM AND YET HE DISMISSED IT AT 9AM.. THE CASE CAN BE
REINSTATED
State Prosecutor v. Murro
IMELDA MARCOS WAS CHARGED WITH CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF CENTRAL BANK CIRCULARS.. JUDGE,
WHILE HAVING HIS BREAKFAST, HEARD OVER THE RADIO THAT THE CB CIRCULARS HAVE BEEN REPEALED
PROMPTING HIM TO DECLARE IN THE COURT AND ORDERED THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BASED ON SUCH
RADIO REPORT!!...HELD. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION!!
NOTE: SHOULD THERE BE MOVE TO DISMISS A CASE FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE, THE JUDGE MUST
PERSONALLY EVALUATE AND ASSESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.. HE MUST RESOLVE IT BASED ON HIS
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.. IF HE DISMISSED IT BASED ON THE ARGUMENT OF THE PROSECTUION OR THE
DOJ, IT WILL RESULT TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION!! IN THAT CASE, THE CASE MAY BE REFILED
* C. 2nd Jeopardy is for Same Offense
* TAKE NOT THE WORD “THE SAME” AS HAVING A VERY EXPANSIVE MEANING
* Identical offenses (THIS HAPPENS WHEN THE FIRST CASE IS IDENTICAL WITH THE SECOND CASE)
* 2nd is an attempt to commit the first
* 2nd is a frustration of the first (B AND C MEANS THAT THE CONSUMATED HOMICIDE IS THE SAME WITH
ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE FOR PURPOSES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!) MEANING, I
102 | P a g e
CANNOT FILE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE AND LATER CHANGE IT TO FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE OR
CONSUMMATED ONE)-WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE “SAME OFFENSE”
*
1st necessarily includes the 2nd (THIS HAPPENS WHEN THE ELEMENTS OF BOTH ARE ALMOST THE
SAME)-EX. I CHARGE YOU WITH MURDER, AND THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AT MY INSTANCE AFTER
YOU HAVE BEEN ARRAIGNED, NOW I FILED THIS TIME A CASE FOR HOMICIDE. MURDER NECESSARILY
INCLUDES THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE.. HENCE, DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN HERE.
* 1st necessarily included in the second (I CHARGE YOU WITH THEFT.. THE CASE WAS DISMISSED AT MY
INSTANCE AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN ARRAIGNED.. THEN I FILED ROBERRY AGAINST YOU.. ROBERRY
NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE CRIME OF THEFT.. SAME PRINCIPLE.. SOME ELEMENTS IS MISSING
(FORCE, VIOLENCE)
* EXCEPTONS:
* a. Supervening fact /Melo doctrine
* b. Newly discovered fact
* c. Plea to lesser offense without consent of offended party or fiscal
* [Garcia Plunder Case]
* EXCEPTONS:
* a. Supervening fact /Melo doctrine EX. YOU STABBED.. YOU ARE CHARGED AND ARRAIGNED FOR
PHYSICAL INJURIES FOR STABBING ME .. AFTER ARRAIGNMENT, I DIED AS A RESULT OF THE STABBING
WOUNDS.. SO A NEW CHARGE OF HOMICIDE IS LEVELLED AGAINST YOU.. HELD.. THAT IS OK IN VIEW
OF THE SUPERVENING FACT… WHILE PHYSICAL INJURIES IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN HOMICDE, MY
DEATH IS THE SUPERVENING FACT.. THAT IS ALLOWED.. THE FACT OF DEATH OCCURRED AFTER THE
ACCUSED HAS BEEN ARRAIGNED.. THAT IS SUPERVENING FACT.. ALLOWED BY THE AUTHORITY!!!
* b. Newly discovered fact .. IST DAY YOU WERE STABBED.. 2ND DAY A CASE WAS FILED FOR
PHYSICAL INJURIES AGAINST ME.. 3RD DAY I DIED WITHOUT THE FISCAL HAVING KNOWN OF MY
DEATH.. ON THE 4TH DAY, THE ACCUSED PLEADED GUILTY ON PHYISICAL INJURIES..SO HERE, THE
FISCAL IS ALLOWED TO AMEND THE INFORMATION IN VIEW OF THE NEWLY DISCOVERED FACT.. THAT
IS ALLOWED.. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY THERE IN VIEW OF THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.. IT
MUST BE DISTINGUISHED WITH SUPERVENING FACT IN THAT IN THE LATTER, THE FISCAL HAD
KNOWLEDGE OF MY DEATH THERE.. HERE, THE FISCAL HAS NO KNOWLEDGE..
* c. Plea to lesser offense without consent of offended party or fiscal IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IN A
PLEA OF GUILTY, THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY AND THE FISCAL MUST BE HAD IN ORDER
FOR THE SAME TO BE VALID.. ABSENT ANY OF THE 2, THE PLEA FOR LESSER OFFENSE IS NULL AND
VOID
* c. Plea to lesser offense without consent of offended party or fiscal IT MUST BE NOTED THAT IN A PLEA OF
GUILTY, THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY AND THE FISCAL MUST BE HAD IN ORDER FOR THE
SAME TO BE VALID.. ABSENT ANY OF THE 2, THE PLEA FOR LESSER OFFENSE IS NULL AND VOID AND THE
CASE CAN BE REINSTATED!!
103 | P a g e
* [Garcia Plunder Case] GARCIA WAS CHARGED WITH PLUNDER .. HE PLEADED GUILTY TO A LESSER
OFFENSE OF BRIBERY WITH THE CONSENT OF THE PROSECUTORS OMB WHICH IS BAILABLE.. (PROBABLY
WITH THEIR CONNIVANCE).. THE PROBLEM IS ALL ELEMENTS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY ARE PRESENT.. THIS
IS A CASE OF PLEA OF GUILTY FOR A LESSER OFFENSE
* VALID COMPLAINT
* FILED BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT
* VALIDLY ARRAIGNED
* VALIDLY TERMINATED BY CONVICTION
* Iyvler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
* Due to a vehicular accident, Iyvler was charged before the Metropolitan Trial Court with two separate
offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No.
82367) for injuries sustained by Evangeline L. Ponce; and (2) Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property (Criminal Case No. 82366) for the death of
Ponce’s husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle. He pleaded
guilty to the charge in Criminal Case No. 82367 and was meted out the penalty of public censure. Invoking
this conviction, accused moved to quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 for placing him in
jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless imprudence. Should the information be
quashed? [As judge:]
* A. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the same offense as the first
* B. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the same act as the first.. THERE IS ONLY ONE
OFFENSE THERE.. THOUGH THE SAME RESULTS TO 2 OR MORE EFFECTS.. EMPHASIS
SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE OR NEGLIGENCE AND NOT ON THE
RESULTS OF THE SAME
* C. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a different offense
* D. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a different act
* 2nd Type of Jeopardy: For the same act

NOTE THAT THE REQUISITES FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME ACT IS SIMILAR TO THAT
“SAME OFFENSE” EXCEPT THE NO 3 REQUISITES .. KNOW THE DISTINCTION
* Distinction between same act/same offense
* 1. As to basis of charge: ordinance and statute

IN THE FORMER, THE BASIS IS THE ORDINANCE AND THE STATUTE WHILE THE LATTER IS BASED ON THE
STATUTE EITHER UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND SPECIAL LAWS
* 2. As to point of analysis: the act in time and space [How many acts did accused perform]
* THE FORMER, YOU LOOK AT THE ACT IN TIME AND SPACE BY DETERMINING HOW MANY ACTS DID
THE ACCUSED PERFORM AND IF FOUND TO BE INVOLVED WITH ONLY 1 ACT, THE FORMER MUST APPLY..
WHILE IN THE LATTER, YOU LOOK AT THE ELEMENTS OF THE 2 OFFENSES , ONE OF THE ELEMENT IS
104 | P a g e
ONLY MISSING IN THE OTHER OFFENSE..
Cases:
1.P. v. Saley – Illegal recruitment and estafa- THE COURT HELD THAT ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA AS
NOT CONSTITUTING DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE FOR THE REASON THAT THE
ELEMENTS OF ONE IS CLEARLY DISTINCT TO THE OTHER..
2. Merencillo v. P. – Direct bribery [Art. 210, RPC] and Anti-Graft [directly requesting a gift] THE ELEMENTS OF
THESE CRIMES ARE DISTINCT FROM EACH THAT THE ACCUSED HEREOF CAN BE CONVICTED ON THE
RESPECTIVE CASES EVEN FOR THE SAME ACT WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
EVEN FOR THE SAME ACT THEY CAN BE CONVICTED ON THESE SEPARATE OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY ARE
UNDER PUNISHABLE UNDER THE STATUTES
3. Diaz v. DLPC – Theft of electricity [under Art. 308 of RPC] and unauthorized installation of electrical
connection [under RA 7832] THE ELEMENTS OF BOTH OFFENSES ARE REALLY DIFFERENT .. SO EACH CASE
MAY BE PURSUED EVEN FOR THE SAME ACT WITHOUT VIOLATING DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. THEY DO NOT
CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE
* Bar Questions:
* 1993, No. 13: A pajero driven by A sideswiped a motorcycle driven by B causing damage to the motorcycle
and injuries to B. The fiscal filed 2 informations against A, to wit (a) reckless imprudence resulting in damage
to property with physical injuries under Art. 365, RPC and (2) abandonment of one’s victim under Art. 275 of
the RPC.
* Can A claim double jeopardy in the second charge if he is convicted in the first?
* yes, because A is being charged of the same offense
* yes, because he is being charged for the same act
* no, because the Fiscal committed grave abuse of discretion
* no, because the two offenses are not the same IT IS BECAUSE A IS ACCUSED OF
DIFFERENT OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER THE STATUTES WITH ELEMENTS SO
DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER!! THERE CAN BE NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME
OFFENSES.
ACCUSED WAS CHARGED WITH CONSENTED ABDUCTION AND GOT ACQUITTED.. THEN HE WAS CHARGED
AGAIN FOR QUALIFIED SEDUCTION.. IS THERE DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE?
* 1997, No. 2: The SP of Manila approved ordinance 1000 prohibiting the operation in the streets
within the city limits of taxicab units over 8 years old. The imposable penalty for violation thereof
is a fine of P4,000 or imprisonment for one year on the operator. While the ordinance was in effect, Congress
enacted RA 500 prohibiting the the operation throughout the country of taxicab units beyond ten years old .
The imposable penalty for violation thereof is the same as in the ordinance. A, an operator of a taxicab unit
in Manila was charged with violating it. But after arraignment, the case was dismissed due to
failure of witnesses to show up . The prosecutor filed another information for violation in of RA No. 500.
Is there double jeopardy?
105 | P a g e
* yes, because A is being charged of the same offense
* yes, because he is being charged for the same act
* no, because the two offenses are not the same
* 1999, No. 7:
* Consented Abduction & Qualified Seduction
* CA QS
* 1. Virgin/12-18 1. Same
* 2. Abduction 2. Sexual intercourse
* 3. Lewd design 3. Abuse of authority
* 4. Consent of victim
* THERE DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.. THE ELEMENTS OF BOTH OFFENSES ARE CLEARLY
DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT.. HENCE, THE CRIME OF QUALIFIED SEDUCTION MUST PROCEED !!
* 2000, No. 15: Charged with libel, Pablo was arraigned on January 3,2000 . Pre-trial was dispensed
with and continuous trial was set for March 7, 8 and 9, On the first setting , the prosecution moved for its
postponement and cancellation of other settings because its principal and probably only witness, the private
complainant Francisco, suddenly had to go abroad, to fulfill a professional commitment . The judge
instead dismissed the case for failure to prosecute (ON THE GROUND OF SPEEDY TRIAL) .
Would the reversal of the trial court’s order of dismissal of the case place the accused in double jeopardy?
* no, because the judge committed grave abuse of discretion by not giving the
prosecution fair opportunity to prosecute.. THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED THE
MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME.. INVOCATION OF SPEEDY TRIAL IS
PREMATURE..
* no, because the dismissal was on motion, and therefore with the consent, of accused
* yes, because the dismissal was based on speedy trial so that the case cannot be reopened.. HAD THE
CASE BEEN DRAGGED FOR LONG PERIOD WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN
THE CORRECT ANSWER!!
* yes, because the dismissal was without the expressed consent of accused
106 | P a g e
* 2001, No. 10
* For the death of Joey, Erning was charged with the crime of homicide before the RTC. He was arraigned.
Due to numerous postponements at the instance of the prosecution, on the ground that its witnesses cannot
be found or located, the criminal case has been pending trial for a period of 7 years. Upon motion of
Erning who invoked his right to speedy trial, the court dismissed the case .
* Eventually, the said prosecution witnesses surface and a criminal case for homicide, involving the same
incident was filed anew against Erning. Can he invoke double jeopardy?
* no, because the judge committed grave abuse of discretion by not giving the prosecution fair
opportunity to prosecute
* no, because the dismissal was on motion, and therefore with the consent, of accused
* yes, because the dismissal was based on speedy trial so that the case cannot be
reopened.. THE CASE DRAGGED FOR 7 YEARS… A DISMISSAL OF CASE BASED ON
SPEEDY TRIAL CANNOT BE REVIEWED EVEN IF THE SAME IS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE
ACCUSED!!
* yes, because the dismissal was without the expressed consent of accused
* 2002, No. 9
* A Tamaraw FX driven by Asiong Cascasero, who was drunk, sideswiped a pedestrian along Edsa in Makati,
resulting in physical injuries to the latter . The public prosecutor filed 2 informations against him
for reckless imprudence resulting in physical injuries under the RPC and the second for
violation of an ordinance in Makati penalizing driving under the influence of liquor.
* After his conviction for reckless imprudence, Cascacero filed a motion to quash the charge under the
ordinance on the ground of double jeopardy. Is he correct?
* yes, because Asiong is being charged of the same offense
* yes, because he is being charged for the same act…SO THIS IS FOR THE SAME ACT
PUNISHABLE UNDER THE STATUTE AND ORDINANCE... YOU NEED TO CONSIDER THE
ACT IN TIME AND PLACE.. HOW MANY ACTS DID THE ACCUSED PERFORMED! HENCE,
DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME ACT..
* no, because the two offenses are not the same
2008, No. 7: Assume that upon being arraigned [murder], JC entered a plea of guilty and was allowed to
present evidence to prove mitigating circumstances of self-defense because the latter was
strangling him and that he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities . Subsequently, the trial
court rendered a decision acquitting JC. Would an appeal by the prosecution from the decision of acquittal
violate JC’s right against double jeopardy? Why or why not? BALISACAN CASE
107 | P a g e
YES IT CAN BE APPEALED!! ONCE THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY AND HE PRESENTS EVIDENCE WHICH TENDS
TO EXCULPATE HIM, THE JUDGE SHOULD DISMISS THE CASE AND HAVE THE ACCUSED REARRAIGNED ON
THE VERY REASON THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE ACCUSED IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLEA
OF GUILTY.. THE ARRAIGNMENT HERE IS NULL AND VOID. THERE, THE FIRST JEOPARDY HAS NOT YET
ATTACHED…
* A. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the same offense as the first
* B. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the same act as the first
* C. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a different offense
* D. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a different act
* Bar Question 2011:
* 16. There is double jeopardy when the dismissal of the first case is
* A. made at the instance of the accused invoking his right to fair trial.
* B. made upon motion of the accused without objection from the prosecution.
* C. made provisionally without objection from the accused.
* D. based on the objection of the accused to the prosecution's motion to postpone trial. SO
THE ACCUSED IS INVOKING SPEEDY TRIAL HERE!! DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN WHEN THE
ACCUSED MOVES FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BASED ON SPEEDY TRIAL
* Sec. 22: Ex post Facto law- A criminal law with retroactive effect prejudicial to the accused.
* NOTE THE REQUISITES:
* IT MUST BE A CRIMINAL STATUTE
* IT IS GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT
* IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ACCUSED
ABSENT ANY OF THESE REQUISITES, A LAW CANNOT BE CONSIDERED EX POST FACTO LAW!!
SITUATIONS OF A EX POST FACTO LAW MEMO!!
* 1. A law which makes an action done before the passage of the law, which was innocent when done, criminal.
EX. A LAW PUNISHING SMOKING GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT.. I CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR
SMOKING YESTERDAY UNDER THE SAID LAW… AT TE TIME I SMOKE, IT WAS NOT STILL PUNISHABLE..
NOW THE ORDINANCE PASSED TODAY PROHIBITING SMOKING CANNOT PUNISH ME FOR SMOKING
YESTERDAY!!
* 2. A law which aggravates a crime or which makes it greater than when it was committed. THE PASSAGE OF
PLUNDER LAW CANNOT BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT
* 3. A law which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when committed. LAW PROVIDING DEATH PENALTY CANNOT BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT!!
* 4. A law which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in effect imposes a penalty, or the
deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful.
SITUATIONS OF A EX POST FACTO LAW MEMO!!
108 | P a g e
* 1. A law which makes an action done before the passage of the law, which was innocent when done, criminal.
EX. A LAW PUNISHING SMOKING GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT.. I CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR
SMOKING YESTERDAY UNDER THE SAID LAW… AT TE TIME I SMOKE, IT WAS NOT STILL PUNISHABLE..
NOW THE ORDINANCE PASSED TODAY PROHIBITING SMOKING CANNOT PUNISH ME FOR SMOKING
YESTERDAY!!
* 2. A law which aggravates a crime or which makes it greater than when it was committed. THE PASSAGE OF
PLUNDER LAW CANNOT BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT
* 3. A law which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than the law annexed to the crime
when committed. LAW PROVIDING DEATH PENALTY CANNOT BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT!!
* 4. A law which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in effect imposes a penalty, or the
deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful.
* 5. A law which deprives persons accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which they have become
entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of proclamation of amnesty.
* 5. A law which deprives persons accused of a crime of some lawful protection to which they have become
entitled, such as the protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of proclamation of amnesty.
* Cases:
* 1. Bayot v. Sandiganbayan – preventive suspension

He committed a crime now.. Later on the congress passed a law amending the anti graft law providing that people
facing charges under the law shall undergoe preventive suspension.. It was made applicable to people who
committed prior to ammendment. HELD: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION IS NOT A PENALTY. THEREFORE IT CAN BE
GIVEN RETROACTIVE APPLICATION..
* 2. Binay v. Sandiganbayan –changing jurisdiciton

A LAW CHANGING COURTS JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CAN BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT SINCE IT IS
NOT A PENAL LAW!!
* 3. Katigbak v. Solicitor – forfeiture of wealth

A LAW WAS PASSED PROVIDING PROCEDURE FOR FORFEITURE OF WEALTH.. A FORFIETURE OF WEALTH
PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE KATIGBAK COUPLES.. THE IMPUGNED THE SAME TO BE EXPOST
FACTO LAW IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE SUCH WEALTH WAS STOLEN PRIOR TO THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE LAW..
HELD: IT IS AN EX POST FACTO LAW!! IT IS A law which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in
effect imposes a penalty, or the deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful. IT IS A LAW
WHICH IN EFFECT EVENTUALLY DEPRIVE THEM OF PROPERTY!!
* 4. P. v. Nitafan –Can a court without motion from the accused dismiss a case on the ground that the law on
which the charge is based in ex post factO?
NO! REMEMBER IN CONSTI 1.. A LAW MAY BE ONLY DECLARED UNCONSTITTIONAL IF THE REQUISITES OF
JUDICIAL INQUIRY ARE PRESENT IN THAT THERE MUST BE VALID ACTUAL CONTROVERSY, STANDING,ETC.. IF
NOBODY IS RAISING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, THE COURT HAS NO BUSINESS OF DISMISSING IT ON THE
GROUND OF IT IS EXPOSTFACTO LAW..
5. Fajardo v. CA. For issuing a bouncing check in 1981, accused was convicted of violation of BP Blg. 22 on May 26,
1988 by the Regional Trial Court. His appeal to the Court of Appeals resulted to the affirmance of the
conviction on Feb. 27, 1993. He applied for probation but it was denied because under the amendment to
PD No. 968 which became effective in 1986, one who has perfected an appeal is not eligible for probation.
Accused now contends that applying a 1986 amendment to a crime committed in 1981 violates the
prohibition against ex post facto laws.
a. correct, because the probation law is a penal statute
109 | P a g e
b. wrong, because the law is not being applied retroactively…. THE LAW WAS PASSED ON
1986.. HE WAS CONVICTED ON 1993.. SO THERE WAS NO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION!!
c. wrong, because the law is not unfavorable to accused
d. wrong, because the ex post facto laws have no application to amendments
* 2005, No. 2: The Philippines and Australia entered into a Treaty of Extradition on Sept. 10, 1990. It also took
effect in 1990.
* The Australian government is requesting the Philippine government to extradite its citizen. A, who has
committed the indictable offense of Obtaining Property by Deception in 1985. It is listed as an extraditable
offense.
* A claims that treaty violates the prohibition against ex post facto law. Decide. [1996, No. 6][2007/3]
a. correct, because the treaty is penal in nature
b. wrong, because the treaty is not being applied retroactively
c. wrong, because the treaty is not unfavorable to accused
d. wrong, because the ex post fact laws have no application to treaties
NO! THE TREATY IS NOT A CRIMINAL STATUTE!!!
* Which of the following would violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws if given retroactive
effect?
A. A law which makes the prescriptive period for a crime longer; IT IS PREJUICIAL TO THE
ACCUSED IF GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT!!
B. A law extending the allowable period of detention of persons under investigation;
C. A law expanding the territorial jurisdiction of a court;
* A law authorizing preventive suspension of public officers accused of crimes.
* When Congress enacted Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty
in the Philippines,” it provided that persons convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or
whose sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for
parole under Act No. 4103 , otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended. Does the
provision violate the prohibition against ex post facto law?
* IT IS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAW BECAUSE IT IS IN FACT
FAVORABLE TO THEM!!
OBSERVATION HOWEVER HAS IT THAT IT MAY CONSTITUTE LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF THE PLENARY
POWER OF PRESIDENT TO GRANT EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY INCLUDING PAROLE WHICH SOLELY BELONGS TO
THE PRESIDENT.. HOW CAN THEY HAVE THIS!! IT IS A FORM OF RESTRICITON TO THAT POWER OF THE
PRESIDENT
* BILL OF ATTAiNDER- a law which inflicts punishment without judicial trial.

BILL OF ATTAINDER IS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY A VIOLATION OF SEPARATION OF POWER!! IT IS
THE COURT WHO DETERMINES GUILT NOT BY CONGRESS BY MEANS OF A LAW!!
A GOOD EXAMPLE IS A LAWYER WAS ACQUITTED FOR TREASON.. SO WHAT THE CONGRESS DID, IT PASSED A
LAW CONVICTING HIM!! BILL OF ATTAINDER!!
ANOTHER IS WHEN PRESIDENT MARCOS PASSED A LAW PROVIDING THAT CHARGED WITH OFFENSES AGAINST
NATIONAL SECURITY SHALL BE NOT ALLOWED TO RUN OR CANNOT RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. HELD: THIS IS A
110 | P a g e
CLEAR BIL OF ATTAINDER!! AS IT ALREADY CONVICTS PEOPLE CHARGED ONLY (NOTE NOT YET CONVICTED
HERE) OF SAID OFFENSES.
* Republic v. RMDC [Mining permit]
* THE PRESIDENT WITHDREW THE MINING PERMITS.. IT WAS IMPUGNED FOR BEING BILL OF ATTAINDER.
HELD.. BILL OF ATTAINDER APPLIES ONLY TO CRIMINAL STATUTES.. WITHDRAWING MINING PERMITS IS
NOT A PUNISHMENT.. NOTE IT IS ONLY A PRIVILEGE GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH MAY BE
WITHDRAWN;.
Bar Question, 1988
* WHAT ARE THE LIMITS ON THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS IN PASSING CRIMINAL STATUTES?
* THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE LIMITATION OF THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT!! MEMO BILL OF RIGHTS!!
WE ARE TAKING THE BAR.. THIS IS A GOOD LEARNING FROM DEAN
CONGRESS CANNOT PASS A LAW
* PROVIDING INHUMANTE TREATMENT
* PUNISHING PEOPLE BY REASON OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
* EXPOST FACTO LAW
* BILL OF ATTAINDER
* IMPRISONMENT FOR NON PAYMENT OF DEBT!! AND SO ON!!!
* MEMO ALL THE BILL OF RIGHTS PROVISIONS!!!!!
* THANK YOU DEAN!!! OUR GREAT PRIVILEGE AND UTMOST GRATITUDE!!!
111 | P a g e

Consti 2

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Consti 2

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CONTITUTIONAL LAW II - BILL OF RIGHTS

* Petition and assembly

* Right to information on matters of public concern

* Yes, because Art. III of the Constitution has no retroactive effect

Exempted from procedural due process:

Section 1: Procedural Due Process

Due Process in Administrative Proceedings:(as laid down in ANG TIBAY DECISION)MEMORIZE!!

Bar Questions: Procedural

Which of the following violates procedural due process?

ANSWER: D (BASED ON RIVERA V. CSC)

a. Requires the tribunal to consider the evidence presented

a. No, it leaves the public uncertain as to what conduct it prohibits.

* Is the law reasonable or is it an undue interference on life, liberty or property?

Test for valid Exercise of Police Power:

DOES IT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE DEU PROCESS? YES. PILOTAGE IS A PROFESSION. IT IS

a. No, the ordinance is unduly oppressive of the right to privacy

a. Joining rallies during their work shift.

ANSWER: B (GLAXO CASE)

a. Power of subordinate legislation.

Section 1: due Process and Equal Protection

When is classification permissible?

Two ways of justifying:

ANSWER: A (VIOLATE ST ATE POLICY OF EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN)

a. The classification is based on superficial differences.

Arrest, search and Seizure

Section 2: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Requisities for a Valid Search Warrant:

Section 2: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

Probable Cause: (in the context of search warrant)

Rules on description of place illustrated:

Rules on Description of Objects

Bar Question: 1990, No. 9 Specific doctrines on “one offense” rule:

Section 2: SEARCHES AND SIEZURES

People v. Nunez, (2009)

4. Stop and Frisk

Esquillo v. People, Aug. 25, 2010

a. No, because there was no probable cause for the search

A. Yes, because there was a valid search in plain view

a. Yes, because there was a valid search in plain view

Answer: c (usual search; fit description)

6. Custom Law Enforcement

Requisites for Search under Customs Laws:

(PAPA VS. MAGO)

Custom laws- do not go to regular courts; regular courts have no authority

1. Warrant issued by custom authorities

9. Jail Security: (standard operating procedure; cannot complain; restricted rights)

a. No, because the search was incident to valid arrest

As judge, how would you resolve the motion?

Is the marijuana admissible in evidence?

a. Yes, because their was a valid stop and frisk

a. Moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain view;

a. A customs officer at the home of a known smuggler

4. Valid warrant less Arrests:

Requisites: Has just been committed]

Test: Report of victim and witness generally sufficient

People v. Uyboco , Jan. 21, 2011

People v. Marinez, Dec, 19, 2010

Exclusionary Rule: Meaning – evidence cannot be used in court

1. Illegal warrantless searches

2011 Bar Exam:

* A. public safety or public health requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

* B. dictated by the need to maintain public peace and order.

* C. public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

* Sec. 3. Privacy of Communications