Midterm Exam Possible Answers:

1
Bolas contention is not tenable.
The Law punishing the practice of medicine unless one passes the board exams for
physicians is constitutional. It is a valid exercise of police power to promote general welfare and
preserve public health.
The practice of medicine is not a right but a mere privilege. Even if Bola had been practicing
it for last 20 years and had treated most patients, the fact remains that he is not licensed to practice
medicine.
Moreover, the Court enunciated in the case of PRC vs De Guzman that the law is valid
exercise of police power to protect the public from the potentially deadly effects of the
incompetence and ignorance.
2a
Yes. The constitutional basis to declare PD 97 unconstitutional is Sec. 1, Art III of the
Constitution which states, NO person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
In the case at bar, there are no real and substantial distinctions established to justify
Dianas disqualification to take the examination.
2b

If I were the judge, I will declare PD 97 constitutional.

I will base my decision on what Justice Ssagani Cruz stated in his Constitutional Law book.
Physical differences may, in some instances, be the basis of valid classifications. Thus,
women, tending to be weaker are substantially distinguished from men, in specifying working
conditions, like in the case at bar.
2c

The requisites of valid classification are the following:

1. There must be real and substantial distinctions.
2. It must be germane to the purposes of the law.
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only.
4. It must apply equally to all members of the same class.

The requisites of a valid search warrant are:

1. There must be a probable cause.
2. The probable cause must be determined by the judge.
3. The judge must personally determine probable cause after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and witnesses he may produce.
4

The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things
to be seized.
In addition to this, Rule 176 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure requires that no warrant
shall be issued for more than one specific offence. The implementation of the warrant in the case
the respondent is not present it requires the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age.

Lastly, SC Circular No. 17 requires that no warrant shall be issued during the night,
weekends and holidays except in exceptional circumstances.
5
The valid warrantless search and seizures are the following:
1. custom searches
2. search of a moving vehicle
3. seizure of evidence in plain view
4. consented search
5. search incidental to a lawful arrest
6. stop and frisk measure
These were provide in the case of People vs. Aruta
Moreover, searches in:
1. Checkpoints, and
2. Hotlogs under the Forestry code are also allowed.
The following exceptions are allowed because of the exigency of the situations and the
circumstances.
In the search of a moving vehicle for instance, the vehicle can move out quickly in the
vicinity or the place where the warrant is applied even before the warrant will be issued.
The court also recognised the fact that a warrant is not needed if there is no sufficient time
to apply for it and the accused might escape. This was enunciated in the case of People vs. Belen
Mariacos.
6.
It is a well-settled rule that in order that consent may be invoked to justify the admissibility of
an evidence, the consent contemplated by law is the consent of the person who could be put in jail.
In the case of People vs. Damaso, the Court abandoned the ruling in the case of Lopez vs.
Commission. It held that the land lady or caretaker cannot give the consent to allow the
enforcement to search the room of the person they intended to search.
Consent must be personal. It should be given by the person directly affected by the search
and seizure.
7.

The requisites of plain view doctrine are the following:

1. There must be a prior valid intrusion and the law enforcement officer must be in a
position where he has a view of a particular area.
2. The evidence must be inadvertently discovered by the officer who has a right to be in the
position where he was.
3. The evidence must be immediately apparent.
The following requisites justified the mere seizure of evidence without further search.
Emphasis must be placed in the word inadvertently. The law enforcement officer must find the
evidence without actually looking for it. This was the ruling in the case of People vs. Go.
8.
The fact that the things were illegally seized does not mean that they must be returned
where they came from.

The court ruled in Bagalihog vs. Fernandez if the object is not prohibited, it must be
returned.
However, if they were prohibited articles, the owner cannot ask for the return of said
prohibited goods. Under the Revised Penal Code, the government can confiscate such
instruments.
This was supported by the ruling in Alih vs Castro where the court ruled that if the object is
contraband, they can be confiscated.
9a

First, I will assail the validity of the search. There was no search warrant to speak of.
Hence, it is invalid.
Moreover, it does not fall under the warrantless search and seizures allowed by law.
In the case at bar, a beautiful young woman was the one who gave the consent and allowed
to search the room of Mr. Baino. The same cannot be considered as a consented search.
Well-settled is the rule that, the one who could give his consent is the one who could be
put in jail
While it is true that the court, in the case of Lopez vs. Commissioner, accepted and
believed that the manicurists consent was enough to allow the search, such decision was later on
abandoned in the case of Burgos and in the case of Damaso.
The controlling doctrine now is that the consent must be given only by the one personally
affected, in this case, only Mr. Baino can give his consent. And because he did not give his
consent; he was not present, the search is invalid.
9b
If I were the judge, I will declare the search invalid.
Again, there was no search warrant to justify their acts. The search does not also fall
among the valid warrantless search and seizures allowed by law.
The court ruled in People vs. Damaso that only the person who could go to jail is the one
who could give his consent.
In the present case, Mr. Baino is not in the room when the search was conducted.
Therefore, there was never a consent in his part.
The consent given by the beautiful young woman cannot justify such search because she is
not personally affected.
Since the search is not valid, the dried marijuana leaves confiscated are considered fruits
of a poisonous tree.
Hence, they are inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
10.
Yes. The following guidelines must therefore be observed:
1. It must be true and fair report of the proceedings.
2. It must be made in good faith.
3. No remarks or comments shall be made by the writer.
11.

If I were the lawyer of Baino, I will invoke Sec. 3, Art, III of the Constitution which states,
the privacy of Communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Said letters are inadmissible in Court. Sec. 3 (2), Art. III of the Constitution adds, Any
evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding sections shall be inadmissible as evidence
for any purpose in any proceeding.
In the case at bar, there was no lawful order of the court. The order only came from the
Chief of Police.
The public safety or public order do not also require such because the reason was merely
personal. It was only the Chief of Police belief that those letters contain instructions against
national security, that prompted the order.
Hence, the letters are inadmissible as evidence.
12.
Yes. My answer will still be the same.
It is clear from the constitutional provision that it must be a lawful order from the court.
Moreover, Baino is only suspected as one of the members of Alex Moncayo Brigade.
There was no sufficient evidence to support that public safety or order requires to get all letters of
Bob Baino. It clearly infringes his right to privacy.