CONSTI2 SAMPLEX

1. General Carlos Garcia was charged of plunder in the Sandiganbayan. The Ombudsman through its
prosecutors entered into a plea bargaining agreement because they aver that the evidence is weak.
Gen. Garcia pleaded guilty to Direct Bribery and promised to return part of the money. As a legal
counsel, Pnoy asks for your advice if there can be other offenses that can be charged to prosecute
Garcia if the evidence for plunder is weak. Does double jeopardy attach?
Where the offenses charged are penalized either by different sections of the same statute or by different statutes,
the important inquiry relates to the identity of offenses charged. The constitutional protection against double
jeopardy is available only where an identity is shown to exist bewteen the ealier and the subsequent offenses
charged. Since there is identity between plunder and Direct Bribery, and the accused has pleaded guilty to the
lesser offense, then double jeopardy has already attached.
2. Willy and Maria had sex inside the elevator in ABC Building. The building has a lot of CCTV cameras.
Mario who was in the control room saw the lewd acts and recorded the same. Could the record be
used as evidence in a case for grave scandal? Will not Mario be liable for recording the scandal?
Yes, the record may be used as evidence in the case for grave scandal. The right to be let alone or the right to
privacy is not absolute, since it allows intrusion upon lawful order of the court or when public safety and order so
demands. Although none of the limitations are present in the case at bar, these restraints only apply against the
government and its agencies. The Bill of Rights does not protect its citizens from unreasonable searches and
seizures made by private individuals, whom in this case, is Mario.
Mario on the other hand, may not be liable for recording the scandal since Willy and Maria have a diminished
expectation of privacy rights. According to the two-part test to determine reasonableness of such expectation, an
individual must be let alone where: by his conduct, he exhibited an expectation of privacy; and whether this
expectation is one that soceity recognizes as reasonable. In the case at bar, Willy and Maria performed an intimate
act in a public place. They cannot reasonably expect to be let alone in such environment. Hence, Mario could not
be said to have treaded on their rights.
3. R.A. 7160 provided that dual citizens cannot seek public office. The SC declared it unconstitutional.
R.A. 9225 was subsequently passed requiring candidates running for public office to renounce their
foreign citizenship. Does it mean now tha R.A. 9225 is unconstitutional?
What R.A. 9225 is allows is dual citizenship to Filipino citizens who have lost Philippine citizenship by reason of
their naturalization in another country. By swearing to the supreme Authority of the Republic, the person implicitly
renounces his foreign citizenship. There is no longer a venue for dual loyalty. Since what it allows is dual citizenship
and not dual allegiance, the staute is valid.
4. X was charged of the crime of estafa punishable under Presidential Act 1016 of life imprisonment to
death. X now asks for your advice if he could be granted bail because he is suffering from a disease
which requires him to be hospitalized. As a judge, will you grant the bail?
Bail is discretionary when a person is charged with an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment
or death. However, the excercise of discretion of the court is only limited in the determination of the gravity of guilt
of the accused. If after the summary hearing, it is determined that the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong,
the court has no choice but to deny the application for bail. Inversely, if the court finds that the evidence of guilt of
the accused is weak, the court has no discretion but to grant bail. Hence, the discretion of the court would not
depend on the medical needs of the accused, but on the evidence of his guilt.
5. X was charged for acts of lasciviousness by A in a complaint-affidavit. In his answer, X admitted that
he had sexual relationship with A, but it was voluntary since they were sweethearts. A in her
counterclaim denied it and averred that it was against her will. The prosecutor, after finding probable
cause filed a case for rape. X contends that his right of being informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him was violated. Decide on the case.
6. Barangay X in Alabang passed an ordinance that artificial contraceptives in the pharmacies shall not
be sold without prescription. Residents of the barangay assails the validity of the ordinance. Is it
constitutional?
A law enacted in the excercise of police power to regulate or govern certain activities or transactions may impair
vested rights or contracts. However, such excercise must be valid. As a an excercise of police power, for municipal
ordinances to be valid, they (a) must not contravene the Constitution or any statute; (b) must not be unfair or
oppresive, (c)must not be partial or discriminatory; (d) must not prohibit, but may regulate trade; (e) must not be
unreasonable; and (f) must be general in application and consistent with public policy. Based on these, the
ordinance cannot be said to be constitutional since it is unreasonable and inconsistent with public policy since it
would be absurd to have to obtain a prescription for artificial contraceptives, since its purchase does not bring any
harm.

7. A garment in Bahrain was used to cover the bodies of women from face to toes as part of their dogma
in Muslim religion which symbolizes purity and dignity. In other countries, it was prohibited due to
threats of terrorism. Senator X asks for your advice. If a law can be passed to prohibit such use of
garment in the Philippines.
No, the law cannot be passed since this would constitute a violation to the freedom of religious belief and worship.
Although the objective was to quell threats of terrorism, this would infringe the rights of those whose religion
requires them to wear such clothing. The Senator must take note of the principle of Benevolent Neutrality, that the
govenrmnet must pursue its secular goals and interest but at the same time strive to uphold religious liberty to the
greatest extent possible within the flexible limits of the Constitution. Although the morality contemplated by law is
a secular one, it may allow for accomodation of morality based on religion, provided it does not offend compelling
state interests. Furthermore, the legislative act would have the effect of inhibiting religion, and would foster an
excessive government entanglement with religion-which would be a violation of the rights non-establishment
clause.
8. X was charged of falsification of documents. During the trial, the prosecutor asked him to sign in a
paper in order to compare his signature with the falsified documents. The prosecutors also asked him
questions regarding the estafa case in which X was involved. As a judge, what will be your ruling?
The act of the prosecutor in asking X to sign such paper was invalid. An order requiring the accused to write so
that his handwriting may be validated with the documentary evidence is covered by the constitutional proscription
against self-incrimination. The privilege protects the accused not only from verbally incriminating himself, but also
from any attempt to compel him to furnish a specimen of his handwriting in connection with a prosecution for
falsification.
Moreover, the prosecutor may not assert that the X waived his right to against self-incrimination because he has
waived such right by testifying on his own behalf. X may invoke his right because such questions are incriminating
in nature, with regards to an offense other than that charged. He may only be asked with regards to matters that
are covered in his direct examination. Any deviation from this would allow him the right to refuse such answer.
9. A was murdered in January 1, 2011. Because there were no suspects, the case was set aside. On
March 1, 2011, X presented himself before the police station and admitted that he was the culprit in
the killing. After that, he said that he needs to go because he will be flying abroad in two hours. The
police officer asks your opinion: What will he do if X insists to go?
10. Rustom Padilla, a self-confessed gay wants to apply for membership in the Boy Scouts of the
Philippines. BSP however, rejected him because he will not be a good model for the younger
generation. Was any constitutional right of Mr. Padilla wiolated?
No right of Mr. Padilla was violated. It cannot be said that he was discriminated against due to his danger since the
Right to Association is not absolute. It does not preclude the imposition of relevant qualifications for membership
in any organization. As such, any person who does not meet the qualifications of a particular organization cannot
invoke his right to association if membership is denied. Hence, the BSP cannot be said to have violated the rights
of Mr. Padilla.
11. X bank manager admitted in legislative hearings about the scheme he knowingly implemented in
order to attract depositors. A case for estafa was thereafter filed against him. Can his admission be
used as evidence against him even though he was not afforded his right to remain silent, have
counsel, and be informed of those rights?
The Miranda Rights cannot be availed of in all cases. The rights under custodial investigation are not available in
adminsitrative proceedings. He could have admitted of his right against Self-incrimination since this applies in
legislative investigations but he has already waived such right by failing to invoke it, and such admission was
knowingly, understandingly and intelligently made by him.
12. As daughter was kidnapped by several men who demanded ransom. In a police raid, the kidnappers
were arrested. Police X, Y, Z who had the ransom money, returned 4M of the 16M ransom. Threafter,
they went AWOL. When Mayor Lim issued a shoot to kill order against the police officers, the
surrendered. They were presented to the media by Mayor Lim with posas. Is any of their
constitutional rights violated?