Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda 2014

BILL OF RIGHTS What if the policeman asks a civilian to conduct a search for
him, is this circumvention of the law? The victim can still
invoke his right found in the Bill of Rights. If the search is done
Bill of Rights It is the list of rights that the State cannot
by an individual who is acting as an agent for the policeman, it
interfere with. It does not exhaust all rightsof the citizens as
is as if the policeman himself is conducting the search. The
other rights are embodied in statutes and laws. Affirmative
policeman must first obtain a search warrant to make a valid
rights are not included in the Bill of Rights only negative rights.
search. If the issue concerns private individuals as the parties,
they can invoke ordinary statutes, like the civil or penal code.
Limitations on State Power:
1. Provisions of the Bill of Rights are self-executing;
3. Basic human rights are superior to property rights.
2. They can only be invoked against the State
3. Basic human rights are superior to property rights
PBMLO vs. PBMCI - The Union wanted to participate in a
4. Its provisions have no retroactive application.
demonstration. The management allowed them on the
condition that it should not be during their shift so that
1. The provisions of the Bill of Rights are self-executing.
operation will not be hampered. But the unionwanted all of the
members to participate at the same time and they did. As a
It is immediately effective. Self-executing means that there is
consequence, the management dismissed the officers of the
no more need of an implementing legislation before it can be
union.
invoked. This is the distinction between other rights found in
the Constitution and rights found in the Bill of Rights.
Held: The court ruled in favor of the workers. Human rights
enjoy primacy over propertyrights. Not all rights are equal.
The provisions of the Bill of Rights are self-executory because
There is a hierarchy of rights in the Bill. The test for limiting
even in the absence of any legislation, the Bill of Rights can be
property rights Reasonable Standard Test (reasonable
used as a defense or may be invoked as a cause of action in
relationbetween the means employed by the law and its
litigation without the need of any statute from Congress. So
object).
meaning, you can automatically go to court and have them
enforced.
4. Provisions of the Bill of Rights have no retroactive
application.
2. The Bill of Rights can be invoked solely against the State.

The Bill of rights gives rights. It does not punish unlike penal
The Bill of Rights can only be invoked against the state and not
laws. If the law is favorable to the accused, the provisions of
against private individuals. Why? Lets go back to the function
the Bill of Rights have no retroactive application.
of the Constitution. The provisions of the Constitutions are
intended only to govern a relationship between the individual
Filoteo, Jr. vs. Sandiganbayan Accused committed a crime on
and the state. The provision governs a relationship in another
May 3, 1982. He was investigated by the police during which he
individual is the Civil Code, Revised Penal Code or other laws
waived his right to a lawyer in writing but without the
made by the Congress but NOT the Constitution.
assistance of counsel. He is now before the Supreme Court
challenging the admissibility of his confession on the ground
People vs. Marti Andre Marti and his wife wanted to have
that under the 1987 Constitution, the waiver of the right to
some packages delivered to Switzerland by a forwarding
counsel can only be made with the assistance of counsel.
company. In accordance with the SOP of the company, the
company inspected the package. It turned out that the package
Held: Petitioners contention that Art. III, Section 12 of the
contained marihuana which was neatly stashed to avoid
1987 Constitution should be given retroactive effect for being
detection. A case was filed against Marti by the State for
favorable to him as an accused, cannot be sustained. While Art.
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Marti contested that
22 of the RPC provides that penal laws shall have a retroactive
there was an illegal search and invoked his right against
effect insofar as they favor the person guilty of a felony who is
unreasonable search, therefore, the evidences should be held
not a habitual criminal, what is being construed here is a
inadmissible in court.
constitutional provision specifically contained in the Bill of
Rights which is obviously not a penal statute. The Bill of Rights
Held: The court ruled that he cannot invoke this right because
is a declaration of the individual rights and privileges which the
the Bill of Rights can only be invoked against the State. It
Constitution is designed to protect against violations be
governs the relationship of the State and its citizens. It does not
government, or by individuals or groups of individuals.
apply to issues between two individuals (Marti and the
forwarding company). The search was conducted by a private
People vs. Domantay Accused was charged with rape with
individual and not a peace officer. The police were just looking
homicide. While detained in a municipal jail, he was
as the proprietor did the search of the package.
interviewed by a radio reporter during which he confessed to
the crime. Two or three meters away from the reporter were

Page | 1 Edited by: Chaz Llanes

 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
policemen, but no lawyer assisted the accused. Is the
confession of accused to the reporter admissible?
Held: Yes. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between
the individual and the state. The presence of the police officers
2-3 meters away did not exert undue pressure or influence on
accused or coerced him into giving his confession. Accused
could have refused to be interviewed, but instead he agreed.
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 Emilio.
Enclosed in the letter was a check for P50,000.00 drawn against
the account of Randy and payable to Alvin. Emilio then
dismissed Alvin from his employment. Emilios proof of Alvins
perfidy are the said letter and check which are objected to as
inadmissible for having been obtained through an illegal
search. Alvin filed a suit assailing his dismissal. Rule on the
admissibility of the letter and check.
As held in People v. Marti (G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991),
the Constitution, in laying down the principles of the
government and fundamental liberties of the people, does not
govern relationships between individuals. Thus, if the search is
made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private
establishment for its own and private purposes and without the
intervention of police authorities, the right against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only
the act of private individuals, not the law enforcers, is involved.
In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private
individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government. Accordingly, the letter and check
are admissible in evidence. (Waterous Drug Corp. vs. NLRC,
G.R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997)
Alternative: Zulueta vs. CA Generally, the right to privacy of
communication and correspondence is inviolable. The only
exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a
lawful order from the court or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of this
provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible.
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 ka na ba ng kinse anyos? Very soon, activist
groups promoting womens and childrens rights were up in
arms against the advertisement.
(a) 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. In response to the protests, the council orders the pull-
out of the kinse anyos advertising campaign. Can Destilleria
Page | 2
2014
Felipe Segundo claim that its constitutional rights are thus
infringed?
Destilleria Felipe Segundo cannot claim that its constitutional
rights were infringed. In this case, a private association formed
by advertising companies for self-regulation was the one who
ordered that the advertisement be pulled out. The guarantee
of freedom of speech is a limitation on state action and not on
the action of private parties. The mass media are private
enterprises, and their refusal to accept any advertisement does
not violate freedom of speech. Further, the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of speech is a guarantee only against
abridgment by the government and does not apply to private
parties.
(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?
No. Since they are government entities and officers, they are
bound by the guarantee of freedom of speech. The mere fact
that an advertisement is offensive cannot justify its
suppression. The blocking of advertising funds is a threat
intended to prevent the exercise of freedom of speech of
Destilleria Felipe Segundo through the fear of consequences.
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 he was the killer in an unsolved homicide committed 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 right to counsel of choice took effect on Feb. 2, 1987 so it
will not apply to Ramos. Is that correct?
a. yes, because Art. III of the Constitution has no
retroactive effect
b. no, because being favorable to Ramos, the provision
must be given retroactive effect
c. no, since the Constitution does not distinguish to
which confession it applies, the courts should not also
distinguish
d. 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
Solidaridad Films. The film company undertook to promote her
career and to feature her as the leading lady in at least 4
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
movies. In turn, Sheila promised that, for the duration of the
contract, 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.If Solidaridad Films tries to enforce this
contract judicially, will Sheilas constitutionally protected right
prevail?
Yes, the constitutionally protected liberty of Sheila will prevail,
because it involves basic human rights. The waiver of these
basic human rights is void. What Solidaridad Films is seeking to
recover are promotion expenses. These involve property rights.
As held in Philippine Blooming Mills Employees Organization
vs. Philippine Blooming Mills, Inc., civil rights are superior to
property rights.
The Fundamental Powers
These fundamental powers are inherent in the national
government, exercised by the legislature, and are only
bestowed upon others, like the local government units, as a
result of delegation.
1. Police Power
In the exercise of police power, there must be compliance with
the requirements of legitimate ends being accomplished
through legitimate means. This power is the most pervasive,
illimitable and plenary, affecting liberty and property of
individuals for the advancement of the common good. It
essentially embodies the right of the State to enact laws for the
purpose of promoting the public welfare by restraining and
regulating liberty and the use of property. It has also been said
that the test of constitutionality of a police power measure is
limited to an inquiry on whether the restriction imposed on
constitutional rights is reasonable, and not whether it imposes
a restriction on those rights, and that it does not rely upon
the existence of definitive studies to support its use. Indeed, no
requirement exists that the exercise of police power must first
be conclusively justified by research. Scientific certainty and
conclusiveness, though desirable, may not be demanded in
every situation. Otherwise, no government will be able to act in
situations demanding the exercise of its residual powers
because it will be tied up conducting studies.
Guadines v.Sandiganbayan (2011) This case involves a
prosecution for violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act, the petitioner having supplied illegally cut lumber
which were subsequently confiscated after she delivered them
for the repair of a public bridge, thus defrauding the
government. It is her defense that she already complied with
her undertaking so she should not be held liable for what
happened after that. The Court did not agree, for basic is the
rule that provisions of existing laws and regulations are read
into and form an integral part of contracts, moreso in the case
of government contracts. Verily, all contracts, including
Government contracts, are subject to the police power of the
State. Being an inherent attribute of sovereignty, such power is
Page | 3
2014
deemed incorporated into the laws of the land, which are part
of all contracts, thereby qualifying the obligations arising
therefrom. Thus, it is an implied condition in the subject
contract for the procurement of materials needed in the repair
and construction of the Navotas Bridge that petitioner as
private contractor would comply with pertinent forestry laws
and regulations on the cutting and gathering of the lumber she
undertook to supply the provincial government.
2. Eminent Domain
The Constitution already provides the allowable standards for
its exercise public use and just compensation. But then note
must be taken of the expanded meaning of the term public
use the concept of public use is not limited to traditional
purposes. Here as elsewhere the idea that public use is strictly
limited to clear cases of use by the public has been
discarded.
With respect to the difference in taking under police power
and under eminent domain, note what the Court said in Social
Justice Society v. Atienza, Jr. (2007): In the exercise of
policepower, there is a limitation on or restriction of property
interests to promote public welfare whichinvolves no
compensable taking.
3. Taxation
Taxation, of course, must not be exercised in an unreasonable,
oppressive and confiscatory manner.
Or, in the language of Philippine Health Care Providers, Inc. v.
CIR (2009), legitimate enterprises enjoy the constitutional
protection not to be taxed out of existence. Also, it must not
be forgotten that the exercise of the power of taxation
constitutes a deprivation of property under the due process
clause, and the taxpayers right to due process is violated when
arbitrary or oppressive methods are used in assessing and
collecting taxes. It is also a basic principle that an inherent
limitation on the power of taxation is public purpose. Taxes are
exacted only for a public purpose. They cannot be used for
purely private purposes or for the exclusive benefit of private
persons. The power to tax exists for the general welfare; hence,
implicit in its power is the limitation that it should be used only
for a public purpose. It would be a robbery for the State to tax
its citizens and use the funds generated for a private
purpose.16 And, in regard to the delegation by the
Constitution itself of the taxing power to the Local Government
Units, Congress is not stripped of its power to exempt certain
entities from local taxation.
Chamber of Real Estate and Builders Inc. v. Romulo (2010) In
this case, even as the Court upheld the validity of the assailed
tax measures, it came up with someinteresting tidbits about
the nature of the taxing power and the limitations attendant to
it. It referred, forinstance, to the shopworn reality that taxes
are the lifeblood of the government. Without taxes,
thegovernment can neither exist nor endure. The exercise of
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
taxing power derives its source from the veryexistence of the
State whose social contract with its citizens obliges it to
promote public interest and thecommon good. Taxation is an
inherent attribute of sovereignty. It is a power that is purely
legislative. Essentially, this means that in the legislature
primarily lies the discretion to determine the nature
(kind),object (purpose), extent (rate), coverage (subjects) and
situs (place) of taxation. It has the authority toprescribe a
certain tax at a specific rate for a particular public purpose on
persons or things within itsjurisdiction. In other words, the
legislature wields the power to define what tax shall be
imposed, whyit should be imposed, how much tax shall be
imposed, against whom (or what) it shall be imposed andwhere
it shall be imposed.
While the Court recognized that, as a general rule, the power
to tax is plenary and unlimited in its range, acknowledging in its
very nature no limits, so that the principal check against its
abuse is to be found only in the responsibility of the legislature
(which imposes the tax) to its constituency who are to pay it,
the same is circumscribed by constitutional limitations. The
constitutional safeguard of due process is embodied in the fiat
no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without
due process of law. The due process clause may properly be
invoked to invalidate, in appropriate cases, a revenue measure
when it amounts to a confiscation of property. Nevertheless,
t]here must be a factual foundation to such an unconstitutional
taint. This merely adheres to the authoritative doctrine that,
where the due process clause is invoked, considering that it is
not a fixed rule but rather a broad standard, there is a need for
proof of such persuasive character. Also, an income tax is
arbitrary and confiscatory if it taxes capital because capital is
not income. In other words, it is income, not capital, which is
subject to tax. In the case under consideration, however, the
subject tax minimum corporate income tax (MCIT) is not a
tax on capital but on income.
Section 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.
Person includes both citizens and aliens, natural and juridical.
It may not encompass, however, the fetus, or the unborn child.
As for life, liberty and property, while all of these are protected,
the extent of the care and importance they get are not the
same some things are simply worth much more than others.
And, if there is a hierarchy of rights, there is also a hierarchy of
evidentiary values which calls into play the guarantee of the
Due Process Clause if the inappropriate quantum of proof is
demanded by the adjudicator in a particular proceeding.
Property As for property, aside from those normally owned,
it must not be overlooked that a final judgment vests in the
prevailing party a right recognized and protected by law under
the due process clause of the Constitution it is a vested
interest which the government should recognize and protect,
Page | 4
2014
and of which the individual could not be deprived arbitrarily
without committing an act of injustice.
Not covered as property:
1. permits and licenses
2. private employment
3. public office one cannot insist on staying in office if the
office has already been abolished
Note: The extent that ones right to security of tenure may be
implicated, due process may be called upon for assistance.
Unduly long preventive suspension could also be assailed on
due process grounds.
2006, VI.Does a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence
(PTCFOR) constitute a property right protected by the
Constitution?
No, it is not a property right under the due process clause of
the Constitution. Just like ordinary licenses in other regulated
fields, it may be revoked any time. It does not confer an
absolute right, but only a personal privilege, subject to
restrictions. A licensee takes his license subject to such
conditions as the Legislature sees fit to impose, and may be
revoked at its pleasure without depriving the licensee of any
property.
Licenses While merely in the nature of a privilege, licenses
are not also insulated from the checking effects of the Due
Process Clause, especially if abuse attended their withdrawal or
discontinuance. The mere fact that ones claim to something
might be based on a privilege and not a right is not
determinative of the appropriateness of invoking due process
reliance on the right privilege dichotomy has long been
denigrated by leading lights in administrative law as too crude
for consistent application by courts. Under traditional form of
property ownership, recipients of privileges from the
government could be said to have no property rights because
they possessed no traditionally recognized proprietary interest
therein. But the right-privilege dichotomy came to an end
when courts realized that individuals should not be subjected
to the unfettered whims of government officials to withhold
privileges previously given to them. Indeed to perpetuate such
distinction would leave the citizens at the mercy of State
functionaries, and worse, threaten the liberties protected by
the Bill of Rights.
Board of Medicine v. Ota (2008) The Board of Medicine and
PRC refused to grant a license to Ota, a Japanese who took
medical education in the Philippines and who thereafter passed
the Board exam, on the ground that there is no real reciprocity
between Japan and the Philippines conditions for practice in
Japan are not practical or attainable (practically impossible for
a Filipino), and that, in any event, the grant is discretionary
with Board. It must be stressed however that the power to
regulate the exercise of a profession or pursuit of an
occupation cannot be exercised by the State or its agents in an
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
arbitrary, despotic, or oppressive manner. As the legislature
cannot validly bestow an arbitrary power to grant or refuse a
license on a public agency or officer, courts will generally strike
down license legislation that vests in public officials discretion
to grant or refuse a license to carry on some ordinarily lawful
business, profession, or activity without prescribing definite
rules and conditions for the guidance of said officials in the
exercise of their power.
CONSTITUTIONAL DUE PROCESS
The Due Process Clause is a handy legal tool for the protection
of the valued rights to life, liberty and property, and all other
freedoms and liberties that inhere or adhere to them. It
provides both a safeguard to ensure fairness in the proceedings
that may be taken towards the deprivation of any liberty or
property interests, or the impairment of any other right or
freedom, as well as the guarantee of reasonableness in the
enactment of laws and other regulations which impact life,
liberty and property.
Procedural vs. Substantive:
1. 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.
2. The former is essentially directed at officers who
adjudicate while the latter is directed basically at those who
enact the laws.
3. The former refers to the guarantees of fairness in the
process of determining whether a right, liberty or freedom is to
be impaired or otherwise taken away while the latter goes to
the very power of the authorities to come up with rules and
other strictures under which man may live and enjoy the
blessings of a civilized society, including the price that he has to
pay to stay.
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS It simply means that the process
is due under the circumstances. It is with regard to the
procedure for implementing a law. It is a mode of procedure
which must be followed in the enforcement and application of
laws.
Procedural due process requires a determination of what
process is due, when it is due, and the degree of what is due.
What may be required for purposes of judicial proceedings
would not be the same in administrative proceedings. Those
that satisfy the requirements of due process in the
investigation of local appointive officials would not suffice for
elective officials, and so on.
Basic to the idea of procedural due process is the presence of
an impartial magistrate or tribunal, if fairness is to be had. In
OCA v. Floro, Jr.(2006), it was heldthat where a judge
entertains an unorthodox belief system such as believing in
psychic visions, andin dwarfs, and in being able to write while
Page | 5
2014
on trance, of having been seen by several people in two
placesat the same time, and of foreseeing the future because
of his power of psychic phenomenon the sameindubitably
shows his inability to function with the cold neutrality of an
impartial judge.
Procedural Due Process must be applied in:
1. Judicial Proceedings
2. Administrative proceedings
3. Discipline of students
4. Rule-making by Administrative bodies
5. Summary Dismissal
Other proceedings:
1. Deportation and Extradition
2. Publication Laws
3. Vague Laws
4. Appeals
Elements of Due Process
Judicial Due Process:
1. There must be a court or tribunal to hear and determine
the matter before it (a court with power and jurisdiction).
2. Jurisdiction must be acquired over the person of the
defendant and over the property which is the subject
matter of the proceeding.
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard.
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
Administrative Due Process: (Ang Tibay vs. CIR)
1. The right to a hearing which includes the right of a party
interested or affected to present his on case and submit
evidence insupport 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 in such a manner that the parties to the
proceeding can know the various issues involved and the
reason for the decision.
OCA v. Indar (2012) This case is about the administrative
investigation of a judge in Cotabato who was involved in
coming up with fictitious marriage annulment decisions which
were thereafter registered in the Civil Registries of Manila and
Quezon City. Since the respondent judge had moved to an
unknown address, he could not be served with notice and he
did not appear in the investigation. Is this fatal to the
determination of the case?
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Held: No! He was given the opportunity but he tried to evade
service. The investigating justice noted that all possible means
to locate the respondent judge and to personally serve the
court notices to him were resorted to. The SC also said that the
notice of its Resolution preventively suspending the judge was
mailed and sent to him at his court. It is settled that technical
rules of procedure and evidence are not strictly applied to
administrative proceedings. Thus, administrative due process
cannot be fully equated with due process in its strict judicial
sense. It is enough that the party is given the chance to be
heard before the case against him is decided. Otherwise stated,
in the application of the principle of due process, what is
sought to be safeguarded is not lack of previous notice but the
denial of the opportunity to be heard.
Deportation Proceedings:
1. There must be a preliminary investigation.
2. The charge must be sated with precision.
3. The requirements in criminal cases must be followed, not
just a summary procedure. (e.g. bail, trial, etc.)
Discipline of Students ADM vs. Capulong (The Lenny Villa
Case) There was a hazing conducted as part of the initiation
rites of the Aquila Legis Fraternity of ADM where the victim,
Villa, was an applicant, and was killed as a result thereof.
Students who acted as master auxiliaries were refused
admittance to the school after having been found guilty of
participating in hazing. The decision of the school to dismiss the
students was based on the findings submitted by the Board.
The accused contested that they were not given copies of the
schools rules and regulations. They were not warned on the
conduct to avoid, thus, they were not afforded due process.
Held: The court held that this is an exception to due process.
Since they are law students, they cannot use that argument. It
was presumed that they have received a copy or have diligently
asked for one. If they were undergraduates, they would have
been treated differently. Hazing was not defined in the manual
but is the same punishable.
Rule Making by Administrative Bodies PHILCOMSAT vs.
Alcuaz PHILCOMSAT was given franchise to operate facilities
for satellite communications. After a few years it was placed
under the jurisdiction of the NTC which had the power of fixing
rates. NTC ordered the petitioner to reduce its rate by 15%.
Since the order was issued without notice and hearing, it was
challenged as a violation of due process.
Held: The order issued by NTC applies to one individual. It is
quasi-judicial in nature. Hence, notice and hearing are essential
for due process. If the order applies to all, it is rule-making and
therefore quasi-legislative. It does not need notice and hearing.
In this case, since it is only PHILCOMSAT that is affected by the
order, it is entitled to notice and hearing to have due process. It
is quasi-judicial. Likewise, the order was based on petitioners
financial statement. Therefore, it should have been given an
Page | 6
2014
opportunity to dispute the findings. Generally, rate-fixing is
quasi-legislative, but in this case it is quasi-judicial because
there was only one entity to be affected by the rate fixing.
1. Quasi-Legislative when rules are applicable to all, there
is no need for the requirement of notice and hearing
(RULE-MAKING).
2. Quasi-Judicial when the rule is applicable only to one
individual, notice and hearing is required (ADJUDICATION).
Vague Laws If a law lacks the comprehensive standards that
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its
meaning and differ as to its application, then it is a vague law.
People vs. Nazario One of the issues raised was whether the
lower court erred in not declaring the that the ordinance of
which he was accused of violating is null and void for being
ambiguous and uncertain (thus, a vague law).
Held: The court held that a law is vague if it cannot be clarified
by either a saving clause or by construction and if you do not
know what conduct to avoid. Vague laws will give authorities
unbridled discretion in enforcing it, and the victims will never
know how or why they violated the law. I almost all cases,
courts will resort to the rules of statutory construction to find
the meaning of a statute, which is why it is very rare when it
cannot find any meaning to the statute.
Publication of Laws Taada vs. Tuvera The case involves
the requirement that all laws must be published in order to
take effect. The court stated that publication of laws is an
element of due process because how can it be effective if
people do not know about its existence. Laws would entail
publication of all laws, including statutes of local application
that are of public interest. Only regulations which are internal
in nature or which regulate the personnel of an administrative
agency are not required to be published.
Exempted from procedural due process:
1. Rule-making/quasi-legislative power
2. Abatement of nuisance per se
3. Preventive Suspension
4. Provisional Rate Increases
5. Direct Contempt
Abatement of nuisance per se which may be abated
summarily without the necessity of judicial authorization
Nuisances per accidens need due process but nuisance per se
does not need due process. There are some instances wherein
we can define what is nuisance per se. The former is the
nuisance at all times and under all circumstances. Another way
to define it is by saying that this is a kind of nuisance that poses
danger of threat or immediate danger to life and property. On
the other hand, nuisance per accidens is the opposite. It is
solely by reason of place and time, it becomes a nuisance. For
instance, the noise during late at night is considered as
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
nuisance per accidence only by reason of time. However, if it is
in the morning, there would be no problem. Therefore, you
have no right to go to your neighbor and break the karaoke,
radio, or anything that is makes noise.
Estate vs. CA Petitioner owned a Quonset building located on
a lot of the PPA. The Quonset was being used to store copra
and petitioner had a lease contract over the lot with PPA.
Respondent, the mayor, demolished the building on the ground
that it did not conform with the zoning ordinance which
located the zone for warehouse elsewhere.
Held: The court held that while the zoning ordinance authorizes
the removal of any property which does not conform to it, such
should not be interpreted as authorizing the summary removal
of the Quonset building. If it does, it would be a contravention
of the requirements of due process. Violation of an ordinance
does not empower the mayor to avail of extrajudicial remedies.
On the contrary, the LGC imposes upon him the duty to
institute judicial proceedings for violation of ordinance. The
authority to abate nuisances without judicial proceedings
applies to nuisances per se. While the Sangguniang Bayan may
provide for the abatement of a nuisance per se when it is not,
the nuisance can only be so adjudged by a judicial
determination. Petitioner was entitled to an impartial hearing
to determine whether the Quonset building was a nuisance per
se.
Preventive Suspension of students/workers Suspension as a
preventive measure does not require notice and hearing;
however, suspension as a penalty must require notice and
hearing. Notice means to inform you that changes have been
filed against you. Hearing means giving opportunity to defend
yourself. In a case, the SC stated that only opportunity to be
heard and not actual hearing is necessary. Hearing can be done
in different ways because it involves administrative bodies. If
there is no actual hearing done, then it is already hearing in its
broader sense even if only the papers are being submitted.
Five requirements to satisfy due process in the discipline of
students:
1. The students must be informed in writing of the nature
and cause of any accusation against them;
2. They shall have the right to answer the charges against
them with the assistance of counsel if desired;
3. They shall be informed of the evidences against them;
4. They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own
behalf;
5. The evidences must be duly considered by the
investigating committee or official designated by the
school authorities to hear and decide the case.
Preventive suspension of a civil servant facing administrative
charges Preventive suspension is not a penalty, but a
measure to enable the disciplining authority to investigate
charges against the respondent by preventing the latter from
intimidating or in any way influencing witnesses against him.
Page | 7
2014
Provisional Rate Increases It is not a final decision. It is
merely temporary. Hence notice and hearing is not required.
1994, No. 9.A complaint was filed 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 witnesses 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. Stevies 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, Stevie is not correct. As held in Adamson A Adamson, Inc.
vs. Amores, administrative due process does not require that
the actual taking of testimony or the presentation of evidence
before the same officer who will decide the case. In American
Tobacco Co. vs. Director of Patents, the SC has ruled that so
long as the actual decision on the merits of the cases is made
by the officer authorized by law to decide, the power to hold a
hearing on the basis of which his decision will be made can be
delegated and is not offensive to due process.
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?
No, Stevie was not denied due process simply because the
complainants, the prosecutor, and the hearing officers were all
subordinates of the Commissioner of the BID. In accordance
with the ruling in Erianger & Galinger, Inc. vs. CIR, the findings
of the subordinates are not conclusive upon the
Commissioners, who have the discretion to accept or reject
them.
Which of the following violates procedural due process?
a. A decision rendered by a tribunal based on the
transcript of the hearing conducted by a subordinate
officer authorized to receive evidence
b. A decision rendered by a judge, who took over after
the judge who actually tried the case retired
c. A decision of an agency after hearing where the
prosecutor, the witnesses and the officer deciding are
all belonging to said agency
d. A unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals where
the third member who concurred was the one who
penned the RTC decision before he was promoted
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
2000, No 3: The MARINA issued new rules and regulations
governing pilotage services and fees, and the conduct of pilots
in Philippine ports. This it did without notice, hearing nor
consultation with harbor pilots or their associations 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.
a. Unconstitutional, for failure to comply with notice and
hearing when an administrative rule substantially
increases the burden of those directly affected, they
should be accorded the chance to be heard before its
issuance.
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
2010, XIV.ABC 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
complaint 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 Sangguniang
Panlungsod 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.
The city government has no power to stop the operations of
the plant. Since its operation is not a nuisance per se, the city
government cannot abate it extra-judicially. A suit must be filed
in court.
Alternative: Petition will not prosper. The obnoxious odor
emitted from the processing plant is a nuisance per se which
can be summarily abated by the city government. Even if we
consider it a nuisance per accidens, the cease and desist order
to stop the operations of the plant is still valid because there
had been compliance with due process, that is, the opportunity
to be heard has been given.
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.
Page | 8
2014
2011 Bar Exam: 48. An ordinance prohibits notorious street
gang members from loitering inpublic places. The police are to
disperse them or, if they refuse, place themunder arrest. The
ordinance enumerates which police officers can make arrestand
defines street gangs, membership in them, and public areas.
The ordinancewas challenged for being vague regarding the
meaning of notorious street gangmembers. 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.
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Substantive due process requires the intrinsic validity of the
law in interfering with the rights of the persons to his life,
liberty and property. It is not whether or not the law being
enforced is in accordance with the prescribed manner, but
whether or not, to begin with, it is a proper exercise of
legislative power.
Determining whether thereis sufficient justification for the
governments action depends very much on the level of
scrutiny used. This simply means that if the liberty involved
were freedom of the mind or the person, the standard for the
validity of governmental acts is much more rigorous and
exacting, but where the liberty curtailedaffects what are at the
most rights of property, the permissible scope of regulatory
measures is wider. Thus, under deferential review, laws are
upheld if they rationally further a legitimate governmental
interest, without courts seriously inquiring into the
substantiality of such interest and examining the alternative
means by which the objectives could be achieved.
Under intermediate review, thesubstantiality of the
governmental interest is seriously looked into and the
availability of less restrictive alternatives are considered. Under
strict scrutiny, the focus is on the presence of compelling,
rather than substantial governmental interest and on the
absence of less restrictive means for achieving that interest.
Strict scrutiny is a judicial standard for determining the quality
and the amount of governmental interest brought to justify the
regulation of fundamental freedoms. It is used today to test the
validity of laws dealing with the regulation of speech, gender,
or race and facial challenges are allowed for this purpose.
If the person who decides the case is not the same person
who conducted the hearing or investigation, does it violate
due process? In the seven elements of administrative due
process, there is no requirement that the same person who
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
conducted the hearing should also decide the case. The
testimonies of the witnesses do not necessarily have to be
given to the same person who will decide on the case. What is
important is that all the facts should be considered by the
deciding authority to satisfy due process.
Is there a requirement that the deciding officer must be the
one who should hear the case? The court held that due
process does not require that the actual taking of testimony
must be by the person who will decide the case. What it
requires is that the deciding officer should consider all the
evidences presented.
What if the lawyer prosecuting the case, the witnesses to the
case, and the agency as the decision maker belong to the
same agency, will it violate due process? No, there is no
violation as long as the seven elements are met. In fact, this is
what is being done in most agencies, where the judge, jury and
executioner are from the same agency. What is important is
that there is no violation of the seven elements enumerated in
the Ang Tibay case.
Policemen are conducting drunk-driving tests at random, with
the use of a breathalyzer gadget. If you fail to pass the test,
your license to drive shall be suspended for 90 days. Does it
violate due process? The taking of something (the license)
from somebody should also be considered here. There is a
violation. UP suggested that a post-suspension hearing should
be conducted immediately. Of course, they are aware that this
is for the welfare of the people against drunk-driving, which
could make the governments conduct reasonable. There is
compelling interest against drunk-driving. The purpose of the
post-suspension hearing is for determining whether the person
is guilty or not. The suspension of the license shall, in effect, be
provisional or temporary. It should not be considered as a
penalty. Post-suspension hearings are very important so there
would be no violation of due process.
Another view would be, the license is just a privilege granted by
the State which may be revoked anytime. On the contrary, the
suspension of the license for a long time can also deprive a
jeepney driver of his property right. It is not just a license to
him but also a means of livelihood. Therefore confiscations
should have due process.
The ERB, in response to public protest, issued a decree
containing a schedule of lowering the price of petroleum
products for a period of one year. The oil company objected
stating that the period is too long. Is the conduct of the ERB
proper? The conduct of the ERB is not valid because there was
no hearing conducted. The decree cannot be considered also as
provisional in nature because the period covered is too long.
Rate-fixing When it comes to rate fixing, due process is
required after determining if the exercise of power by the
authority was judicial, quasi-judicial or quasi-legislative because
Page | 9
2014
it affects all oil companies. There should be notice and hearing
first.
Test of substantive due process:Whether the law is a
reasonable exercise of Police Power, or an undue interference
on the life, liberty and property.
General Rule: If an administrative body exercises quasi-
legislative function, there is no need of notice and hearing.
Exception: If the rules of that body requires notice and hearing
and also if there is an opposition to the decree or provision
made by a legislative body. If there is a law which states that a
student caught cheating can be shot immediately, the question
of procedural process cannot be invoked. What should be
invoked is substantive due process as there is obviously
something wrong with the law itself.
Kuwait Airways Corporation vs. PAL An officer of the Civil
Aeronautics Board, acting in behalf not of the Board but of the
PH government, had committed to a foreign nation the
immediate abrogation of PALs commercial agreement with
Kuwait Airways.
Held: The CAB has ample power under its organizing charter, to
compel PAL to terminate whatever commercial agreements the
carrier may have. However, CAB, in this case, did not exercise
its regulatory authority over PAL in order to implement or
further government air policy. While CAB may represent the PH
government in signing the CMU, the CAB could not have bound
PAL in a manner that can be accorded legal recognition by our
courts. The PH Government, through the CAB, or any of its
officials, cannot unilaterally terminate an air agreement
between a private Philippine air carrier and a foreign airline.
Unless and until due process is observed, it does not have legal
effect in this jurisdiction.
Statutory due process distinguished from constitutional due
process In Serrano v. NLRC (2000), the SC held that the
dismissal of an employee who was separated for cause without
affording him the notice required by law was considered
ineffectual until validated by final judgment. In effect, the
employee would be deemed still an employee in the meantime,
and accordingly entitled to his wages until his dismissal would
have been affirmed. The Court majority in that case was also
emphatic that such dismissal was not a violation of due process
as the guarantee in the Bill of Rights is directed against
governmental action, not private acts. Then, in Agabon v. NLRC
(2004), the Court characterized the dismissal without
complying with the notice requirement as a violation of due
process. How did it turn around in a manner that is not entirely
contrary to what it said four years earlier? Simple. It came up
with something new two concepts of due process: (a)
constitutional due process, and, (b) statutory due process.
While under the former, its violation would lead to the nullity
of the action made, in the latter, it would not necessarily be the
case, depending on what the statute itself provides.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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.
Basic principles attached to police power:
1. It is inherent in the government With or without any law
or constitutional provision, the State can exercise police
power because it is part and parcel of the definition of a
Government.
2. It is primarily exercised by the National Legislature but it
can also be delegated to local governments e.g.
Ordinances by the city government is an exercise of police
power
3. It is the least limitable of all powers It is the most
compelling of all governmental powers.
4. It enjoys a presumption of validity and constitutionality
The burden of proof is on those who dare to challenge its
validity.
Tests for Valid Exercise of Police Power:
1. Lawful subject That the interest of the public generally as
distinguished from those of a particular class requires such
interference.
2. Lawful method That the means are reasonably necessary
for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals. (US vs. Toribio)
The law must pass two tests:
1. Rational Connections Test the reasonable relation
between the means and the end. If that is the law, what
should be the method used or the means employed for the
purpose?
2. Unduly Oppressive Test The law should not unreasonably
burden the rights. They shall not be unduly oppressive of
others rights. It must conform to the safeguards embodied
in the Bill of Rights
Example: What if there is a law punishing smoking with death
after trial?
1. Lawful Subject: Health
2. Rational Relation Test: To promote health, smoking must
be discouraged
3. Unduly Oppressive Test: The penalty is very harsh. The law
does not satisfy the test because it is unduly oppressive.
White Light Corporation vs. City of Manila Following City of
Manila v. Laguio, in which the Court invalidated an ordinance
which provided for the phasing out of motels and similar
establishments in the Ermita-Malate are, the Court again
rebuffed the City in the latters continuing fight crusade against
the practices of motels and similar establishments in offering
short time admissions and wash-up rate schemes, a case
presenting an instance of balancing between police power and
substantive due process.
Page | 10
2014
Held: The Ordinance prevents the lawful uses of a wash rate
depriving patrons of a product and the petitioners of lucrative
business ties in with another constitutional requisite for the
legitimacy of the Ordinance as a police power measure. It must
appear that the interests of the public generally, as
distinguished from those of a particular class, require an
interference with private rights and the means must be
reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose
and not unduly oppressive of private rights. It must also be
evident that no other alternative for the accomplishment of the
purpose less intrusive of private rights can work. More
importantly, a reasonable relation must exist between the
purposes of the measure and the means employed for its
accomplishment, for even under the guise of protecting the
public interest, personal rights and those pertaining to private
property will not be permitted to be arbitrarily invaded. Lacking
a concurrence of these requisites, the police measure shall be
struck down as an arbitrary intrusion into private rights.
Note: The tests for the valid exercise of police power are
applicable only to those affecting property rights. All laws tend
to interfere with property rights but it will only be
unconstitutional if the rights of a person are unduly burdened.
Taxicab vs. BOT The law concerns the phasing out of
dilapidated taxicabs. The lawful subject here is public welfare.
The lawful method is to phase out old taxis to ensure public
safety. Taxicab owners and operators challenged this by saying
that it affects their property rights. Held:: The court held that
the law is not unduly oppressive, therefore valid. Six years cut-
off time is sufficient for the owners to have substantial return
of their investment.
1987, V:Is an ordinance prohibiting barbershop operators from
rendering massage service to their customers in a separate
room valid?
The ordinance is valid. In Velasco vs. Villegas (1983), such
ordinance was upheld on the ground that it is a means of
enabling the City of Manila to collect a fee for operating
massage clinics and of preventing immorality which might be
committed by allowing the construction of separate rooms in
barber shops.
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 ro movies or
other public exhibitions which would charge children between 7
12 years of age the full price of admission tickets instead of
only of the amount. Would you hold the ordinance a valid
exercise of legislative power?
The ordinance is void. As held in Balacuit vs. CFI of Agusan del
Norte (1988), the ordinance is unreasonable. It deprives the
sellers of the tickets of their property without due process. A
ticket is a property right and may be sold for such price as the
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
owner of it can obtain. There is nothing pernicious in charging
children the same price as adults.
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 pilot
positions shall be only for a term of one year. Pilotage as a
profession may be practiced only by duly 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?
Yes. The right of the harbor pilots to due process was violated.
As held in Corona vs. United Harbor Pilots Association of the
Philippines (1997), pilotage as a profession is a property right
protected by the guarantee of due process. The pre-evaluation
cancellation of the licenses of the harbor pilots every year is
unreasonable and violated their right to substantive due
process. The renewal is dependent on the evaluation after the
licenses have been cancelled. The issuance of the
administrative order also violated procedural due process,
since no prior public hearing was conducted. As held in CIR vs.
CA (1998), when a regulation is being issued under the quasi-
legislative authority of an administrative agency, the
requirements of notice, hearing and publication must be
observed.
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 ground of exercise of police
power. Decide the case discussing the grounds raised.
As held in DECS vs. San Diego (1989), the rule is a valid exercise
of police power to ensure that those admitted to the medical
profession are qualified. The arguments of Cruz are not
meritorious. The right to quality education and academic
freedom are not absolute. Under Section 5(3), Article XIV of the
Constitution, the right to choose a profession is subject to fair,
reasonable and equitable admission and academic
requirements. The rule does not violate equal protection. There
is a substantial distinction between medical students and other
students. Unlike other professions, the medical profession
directly affects the lives of the people.
2008, VI.The PNP issued a circular to all its members directed at
the style and length of male police officers' hair, sideburns and
moustaches, as well as the size of their waistlines. It prohibits
beards, goatees and waistlines over 38 inches, except for
Page | 11
2014
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.
Although the PNP is civilian in character, it partakes of some of
the characteristics of military life, thus permitting the
imposition of reasonable measures for discipline, uniformity in
behavior and presentableness. The circular does not go beyond
what is reasonable and therefore passes the test of due
process (Gudani vs. Senga). In Kelly vs. Johnson (1976), the US
SC said that the regulations of personal appearance of
policemen could be justified so long as there was a rational
connection between the regulation and the promotional safety
of persons and property. The requisite connection was present
since the government had a legitimate interest in policemens
appearances so that they would: (1) be readily recognizable to
the public and (2) feel a sense of esprit de corps that comes
from being similar.
2009, V. 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.
Yes. Although the Congress has the plenary power to enact law
and interfere with the personal liberty and property in order to
promote the general welfare, the exercise of police power is
subject to two tests:
1. Lawful subject refers to the interest of the General Public
requiring the interference of the State and
2. Lawful means refers to the reasonable means employed
necessary for the accomplishment of its objective and not
duly oppressive upon individuals.
Basis of the exercise of police power:
1. Sic utere tuo et alienum non laedas use your property so
that you do not injure that of another;
2. Salus populi est suprema lex the welfare of the people is
the highest law
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
rights
d. No, there is no rational relation between the method
chosen and the purpose of the law
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
2010, XXI.The Sangguniang Panlungsod 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.
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
2011 Bar Exam: 83. A law interfering with the rights of the
person meets the requirements of substantive due process
when
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.
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 competitor
companies.
d. patronizing the product of competitor companies.
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.
EQUAL PROTECTION
Equal protection pertains to the requirement that laws must
treat all persons or things similarly situated alike, both as to
similarities conferred and liabilities imposed. The law does not
demand absolute equality but it merely requires that all
persons shall be treated alike under like circumstances and
conditions, both as to rights conferred and responsibilities
imposed. Otherwise stated, the guarantee of equal protection
Page | 12
2014
is no argument for absolute equality, for what it only assures is
legal equality.
Two ways of violating the equal protection clause:
1. Classifying without basis (Jalosjos)
2. Failure to classify when distinction exist
Two ways of justifying the equal protection clause:
1. When the Constitution allows it; or
2. When it passes the four (4) tests for a valid classification
Inherent in the application of the equal protection clause is the
need for valid classifications to determine who or what could
properly be grouped together for particular treatment, and
excluding all others. Classification must be related to the very
purpose of the law and that there should be substantial
distinctions which make for real differences.
With regard to criminal cases, the case of Santos vs. People
(2008) reiterated that the prosecution of one guilty person
while others equally guilty are not prosecuted, is not, by itself,
a denial of the equal protection of the laws. While all persons
accused of crime are to be treated on a basis of equality before
the law, it does not follow that they are to be protected in the
commission of crime. It would be unconscionable, for instance,
to excuse a defendant guilty of murder because others have
murdered with impunity. The remedy for unequal enforcement
of the law in such instances does not lie in the exoneration of
the guilty at the expense of society. Protection of the law will
be extended to all persons equally in the pursuit of their lawful
occupations, but no person has the right to demand protection
of the law in the commission of a crime.
Class legislation These are laws which tend to violate the
equal protection clause.
Classification The grouping of persons or things similar to
each other in certain particulars and different from all others.
These are laws that set apart a group of persons. However, this
does not necessarily mean that all laws which tend to classify
are unconstitutional. Not all violates the equal protection
clause. Example: The RPC classifies criminals from other
persons but it does not violate the clause.
Requirements for a valid classification (Test of
Reasonableness):
1. It must rest on a substantial distinction.
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law. It should be
relevant to the purpose of the law.
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only. It must
apply indefinitely, as long as the problem sought to be
corrected continues to exist.
4. It must apply equally to all members of the class.
If the law passes the tests, then it passes the test for equal
protection. If any test is missing, it is unconstitutional. Some
classifications may pose some problems, like gender. But we
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
cannot question the law outright, such as the maternity law. It
is important that when you classify, it must be relevant some
purpose and the method used must have some logical bearing
to the purpose. It must also apply indefinitely while the
problem continues to exist.
1989, No. 18: An ordinance of the City for Manila requires every
alien desiring to obtain employment of whatever kind, including
casual and part-time employment, in the city to secure an
employment permit from the City and to pay a work permit fee
of P500. Is the ordinance valid? When is classification
permissible?
No, the ordinance is not valid. In Villegas vs. Hiu Chiong Tsai
Pao Ho, it was held that such ordinance violates equal
protection. It failed to consider the valid substantial differences
among the aliens required to pay the fee. The same among it
being collected from every employed alien, whether he is
casual or permanent, part-time or full-time. The ordinance also
violates due process, because it does not contain any standard
to guide the mayor in the exercise of the power granted to him
by the ordinance. Thus, it confers upon him unrestricted power
to allow or prevent an activity which is lawful per se.
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
recommendations 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?
Held: Yes.Although the purpose of the Truth Commission falls
within the investigative power of the President, the Court finds
EO No. 1 as unconstitutional in view of its apparent
transgression of the equal protection clause.The equal
protection of the laws is embraced in the concept of due
process, as every unfair discrimination offends the
requirements of justice and fair play. EO No. 1 should be struck
down as violative of the equal protection clause. The clear
mandate of the envisioned truth commission is to investigate
and find out the truth concerning the reported cases of graft
and corruption during the previous administration only. The
intent to single out the previous administration is plain, patent
and manifest. The Arroyo administration is but just a member
of a class, that is, a class of past administrations. It is not a class
of its own. Not to include past administrations similarly
situated constitutes arbitrariness which the equal protection
clause cannot sanction.
1987, No. 6:Marina Neptunia, daughter of a sea captain
wanted to become a full-fledged marine officer but she was not
Page | 13
2014
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?
a. No, because it discriminates against women
b. Yes, because there is a substantial distinction between
men and women
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
1994, No. 12: The DECS issued a circular disqualifying anyone
who fails for the 4th time in the National Entrance Tests from
admission to a College of Dentistry. X who was thus
disqualified, questions the constitutionality of the circular.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 professions are the same and should
be treated similarly
d. void, because it discriminates against mentally
deficient students
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 the Executive Order in any way
constitutionally infirm? Explain.
The Executive Order is constitutionally infirm. The 1987
Constitution states that no person shall be denied the equal
protection of the laws. The loss of access of poor city women to
family planning programs is discriminatory and creates suspect
classification. It likewise constitutes an invalid exercise of police
power and violates substantive due process by depriving
people of the means to control their reproductive processes.
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.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
2011 Bar Exam: 100. X, a Filipino and Y, an American, both
teach at the International Institute inManila. The institute gave
X a salary rate of P1,000 per hour and Y, P1,250 perhour plus
housing, transportation, shipping costs, 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 otherforeign
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.
Ormoc Sugar Company vs. Treasurer An ordinance was
passed imposing tax specifically on sugar produced by Ormoc
Sugar Co. It violated the equal protection clause because there
is a possibility that somebody might put up a new sugar
company. In effect, the law will still apply singly to Ormoc Sugar
Company because it was specifically stated so. The SC held that
the ordinance violated the equal protection clause. It did not
satisfy requirement #3. The law was only limited to existing
conditions. Although Ormoc Sugar was the only sugar miller at
the time, the ordinance should also cover for other future
sugar millers. Presently, the law does not cover other future
millers.
Nuez vs. Sandiganbayan Nuez claimed that the PD termination of overseas employment without just, valid or
minimizes the constitutional rights of the public officers. What
the law imposes is that public officials are to be tried by the
Sandiganbayan for cases concerning their position or office. If
an appeal is made by the official, it goes straight to the SC
unlike ordinary citizens, whose cases can still be appealed in
the CA. Nuez claimed that the law is discriminatory since
public officials have only one chance to appeal (certiorari),
while others have more remedies. It should be noted that the
SC only deals with appeals with questions of law.
Held: The court held that the law did not violate the equal
protection clause. There is a substantial distinction since public
officers occupy a position different from others. Public office is
a public trust. It is also germane to the purpose of the law. It
can also apply indefinitely and it applies to all members of the
class.
Chua vs. CSC An early retirement law was enacted. The law
covered regular, temporary, casual and emergency government
employees who have rendered at least two years of
consecutive service. Chua, who was hired and rehired four
times, has worked with the government continuously for 15
years as a contractual employee. She applied for early
retirement, but was refused the benefits of the law because
Page | 14
2014
under existing civil service law, she was classified as a
contractual, and her tenure is co-terminous with the project.
She was not considered as included in the law.
Held: The court ruled in favor of Chua, the law violates the
equal protection clause. However, the court did not declare the
law null and void for being unconstitutional. Usually, it will. The
court merely explained the law in another manner, it injected
contractual workers as included in the law. There is no
substantial distinction between a co-terminous employee and a
casual employee when in fact the former should enjoy better
treatment than the casuals since they are in plantilla.
Nicolas v. Romulo (2009) If foreign troops charged with the
commission of crimes in the country are treated differently
from other persons similarly charged, is there violation of the
equal protection clause? Here, the petitioners argue that to
allow the transfer of custody of an accused foreign soldier to
the custody of a foreign power is to provide for a different rule
of procedure for that accused.
Held: The Court said there is no violation of the equal
protection clause because there is a substantial basis for a
different treatment of a member of a foreign military armed
forces allowed to enter our territory and all other accused. The
rule in international law is that a foreign armed forces allowed
to enter ones territory is immune from local jurisdiction,
except to the extent agreed upon.
Serrano v. Gallant Maritime Services The issue here is the
constitutionality of the last clause of the 5th paragraph of 10
R.A. No. 8042. The 5th paragraph provides: In case of
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. Does this violate the guarantee of equal
protection among OFWs?
Held: Yes. The enactment of the subject clause in R.A. No. 8042
introduced a differentiated rule of computation of the money
claims of illegally dismissed OFWs based on their employment
periods, in the process singling out one category whose
contracts have an unexpired portion of one year or more and
subjecting them to the peculiar disadvantage of having their
monetary awards limited to their salaries for 3 months or for
the unexpired portion thereof, whichever is less, but all the
while sparing the other category from such prejudice, simply
because the latters unexpired contracts fall short of one year.
The SC concludes that the subject clause contains a suspect
classification in that, in the computation of the monetary
benefits of fixed-term employees who are illegally discharged,
it imposes a 3-month cap on the claim of OFWs with an
unexpired portion of one year or more in their contracts, but
none on the claims of other OFWs or local workers with fixed-
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
term employment. The subject clause singles out one
classification of OFWs and burdens it with a peculiar
disadvantage.
LCP vs. COMELEC The determination of the existence of
substantial distinction with respect to respondent
municipalities does not simply lie on the mere pendency of
their cityhood bills during the 11th Congress. The existence of
substantial distinction with respect to respondent
municipalities covered by the Cityhood Laws is measured by
the purpose of the law, not by R.A. 9009, but by the very
purpose of the LGC. Indeed, substantial distinction lies in the
capacity and viability of respondent municipalities to become
component cities of their respective provinces. Congress, by
enacting the Cityhood Laws, recognized this capacity and
viability of the municipalities to become the States partners in
accelerating economic growth and development in the
provincial regions, which is the very thrust of the LGC,
manifested by the pendency of their cityhood bills during the
11th Congress and their relentless pursuit for cityhood up to
the present. Truly, the urgent need to become a component
city arose way back in the 11th Congress, and such condition
continues to exist. In other words, Congress merely
recognized the capacity and readiness of respondent
municipalities to become component cities of their respective
provinces.
Quinto v. COMELEC (2010) - The issue is about the alleged
discrimination against appointive officials and employees in
regard to the effect of the filing of their Certificates of
Candidacy (CoCs) they are deemed immediately resigned
while elective officials are not so treated. The SC ruled that
there was no violation of the equal protection clause. The fact
that a legislative classification, by itself, is under-inclusive will
not render it unconstitutionally arbitrary or invidious. There is
no constitutional requirement that regulation must reach each
and every class to which it might be applied; that the
Legislature must be held rigidly to the choice of regulating all or
none.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers 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 or affirmation of
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
The guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures
upholds thatexpectation of privacy. Before any searches or
seizures be had, the samemust be, as a general rule,
accompanied by a warrant, issued by one who is disinterested
and detachedfrom the task of law enforcement. But even in the
Page | 15
2014
issuance of such warrants by a judge, the magistrateis not that
free to simply issue it for no reason at all or on flimsy grounds.
He must have probable causefor the same, which he must
determine personally by carefully examining the complainant,
his witnessesand other supporting documents for such
purpose. Further, reasonableness also goes to the manner
ofserving and executing it.
In considering the things and circumstances relative to the
question of whether a search orseizure was in accordance with
the Constitution, one must always remember that the
touchstone isreasonableness.
Anticipatory warrants They are applied for even before the
contraband is yet to be delivered to the place to be searched.
Anticipatory warrants require the magistrate to determine (1)
that it is now probable that (2) contraband, evidence of a
crime, or a fugitive will be on the described premises (3) when
the warrant is executed. In other words, for a conditioned
anticipatory warrant to comply with the requirement of
probable cause, two prerequisites of probability must be
satisfied. It must be true not only that if the triggering
condition occurs there is a fair probability that contraband or
evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place, but also
that there is probable cause to believe the triggering condition
will occur.
Arrrest, Search and Seizure:
1. Search Warrant
2. Arrest Warrant
3. Warrantless Searches
4. Warrantless Arrests
5. Exclusionary Rule
Requisites for a Valid Search Warrant:
1. It must be based upon probable cause;
2. The probable cause must be determined personally by the
judge;
3. The determination must be made after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce;
4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be searched.
Probable Cause 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.
SEARCH WARRANTS
An order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the
Philippine Islands, signed by a judge or justice of peace and
directed to a peace officer commanding him to search for
personal property and bring it before court.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
A search warrant must specifically describe:
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;
2. If the place is a compound occupied by various persons,
the warrant must specifically indicate the unit to be
searched;
3. The police can only search the place described in the
warrant, not an adjoining one (Pp. v. CA);
4. Once the place is specifically described, there is no need to
name the occupant or owner. (Uy v. BIR; Quelnan v.
People)
Procedures in obtaining a search warrant:
1. Petition for a search warrant before a judge and such must
be supported by affidavit.
2. The judge should issue a warrant based on probable cause.
3. The judge must examine the witnesses personally.
4. The examination must be by means of searching questions,
in writing, and under oath.
5. The facts must be personally known to the witnesses.
Hearsay is not allowed.
6. The warrant must entertain specific descriptions as to
object, as to place and the requirement that it shall only be
for one crime or one offense.
Requisites of a valid search warrant:
1. It must be based on probable cause.
One should be reasonably convinced that the object to be
searched is that place and the object is there more likely than
not. It should not be based on suspicion. Proof beyond
reasonable doubt is not required.
Corro vs. Lising Search of the Philippine Times with search
warrant based on two affidavits of witnesses:
a. Affidavit of Col. Castillo submitted to the judge contained:
We found that the said publication in fact commenced
distrust and hatred against the government of the
Philippines and its duly constituted authorities defined and
penalized under Art. 142 ofthe RPC as amended by
PD1835.
b. The other witness, Lt. Ignacio stated in his affidavit: The
said periodical published by Corro contains article leading
to cite distrust and hatred for the authority of the
Republicof the Philippines or any of the duly concerned
authorities.
Held: The above statements do not amount to probable cause.
The statements do not contain facts for conclusions of law.The
statements are only conclusions determined by the witnesses
and not by the judge.
Page | 16
2014
2. The probable cause must be determined personally by the
judge.
This requirement is that it should be personal examination of
the judge to the witness. When the constitution says it is
personal, the constitution means it literally. In one case, I think
the judge was busy so he called the clerk of court. It was null
and void because the judge did not personally examine.
Yao Sr. v. People examination of complainant and witnesses
must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary, general,
peripheral, perfunctory or pro forma;
3. The determination must be made after the examination
under oath or affirmation on the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce (not after the investigation)
This requirement also means that the determination must be
by means of searching questions. And again, there are no clear
parameters. The only guideline is indirect. The court only
requires that do not ask leading questions. Leading question
is a question which suggests to the witness the answer.
4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.
The warrant must contain specific description as to objects, as
to place, and as to the offense. If a warrant fails in these
requirements, we call this as General Warrant and it is null and
void. It is useless. This means that the objects taken under that
warrant cannot be used as evidence.
Purpose: To prevent the peace officer from exercising
discretion as to what are to be seized, otherwise, he can seize
anything he wants.
Columbia vs. Flores The judge issued a search warrant for
violation of the Decree on Protection of Intellectual Property
against FGT Video Network, a licensed video tape distributor. In
addition to video tapes, posters, and journal, it is also ordered
the seizure of:
x x x c.) Television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders,
tape head cleaners, accessories, equipment and other
machines and paraphernalia or materials used or intended to
be used in the unlawful sale, lease, distribution, or possession
for purpose of sale, lease, distribution, circulation or public
exhibition of the above-mentioned pirated video tapes.
Held: The court ruled that these articles and appliances are
generally connected with, or related to a legitimate business
not necessarily involving piracy of intellectual property or
infringement of copyright laws. Hence, including these articles
without specification and/or particularly that they were really
instruments in violating the Anti-Piracy Law makes the search
warrant too general which could result in the confiscation of all
items found in any video store.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
People vs. CA VOID warrant the claim that the place actually
searched although not the one specified in the warrant is
exactly what they had in view when they applied for the
warrant is unacceptable. What is material in determining the
validity of the warrant is the place stated in the warrant, not
the one they had in their thoughts; particularization of
description may properly be done only by the judge and only in
the warrant itself
When search warrant should be served:
People v. CA The general rule is that search warrants must be
served during the daytime (to protect the public from the
abrasiveness of official intrusions).
Exception: A search at any reasonable hour of day or night may
be made when the application asserts that the property in on
the person or place ordered to be searched. Absence of abuse
of discretion, a search conducted at night where so allowed is
not improper.
General warrants are unconstitutional and are considered
inadmissible in the court. Failure to comply with the
restrictions of a valid search warrant is that it must alienate to
one specific offense only.
If in just one search conducted, the court issued a warrant
charging the accused of violation of PD1866 or the Illegal
Possession of Firearms, etc. Does it violate the Constitution
requiring that the warrant should be for one specific offense
only?
No. The reason given by the court pertaining to etc. is it stands
for ammunition. Others would object to the ruling made since
the judge was not the one conducting the search. It was not for
the judge to give his reason for issuing a warrant similar to a
general warrant. What is stated in the warrant should be
specific that the authority conducting the search will have little
chance of committing an error in the process.
Three types of a general warrant: When it fails to describe:
1. The object to be seized
2. The place to conduct the search
3. To what specific offense it is related to
Stonehill vs. Diokno The warrant stated: The above items
are subject to the offense, stolen or embezzled, or intended to
be used as a means to commit offenses violating CB laws, tariffs
and customs laws, The Internal Revenue Code, and the RPC.
Held: There was no specific offense mentioned. There is a need
to mention only one specific offense. Otherwise, it will be
considered a general warrant. In related offenses, there is no
need to mention specific provisions on offenses.
Page | 17
2014
To issue a search warrant, the judge shall: (Rule 112, Sec. 6,
Rules of Court)
1. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting
documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence
of probable cause and on the basis thereof.
2. If on the basis thereof, he finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
Note: While he could rely on the findings of the fiscal, he is,
nevertheless, not bound thereby. It is not the duty of the judge
to personally conduct the evaluation. It is sufficient that he
follows established procedures by personally evaluating the
reports and supporting documents submitted by the
prosecutor (Enrile vs. Salazar)
People vs. Dichoso The court issued a search warrant for
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. It directed the peace
officer to search and seize the following: (a)marijuana; (b)
shabu; (c) and paraphernalia. The accused challenged the
constitutionality of the warrant on the basis that it covers three
articles, and failed to specify the thing to be seized, making it a
general search warrant.
Held: The court ruled that this is not a general search warrant.
The offenses involved, or the objects subject for seizure, belong
to the same class. Therefore, the officer does not need one
warrant for each item.
2001, XI. Armed with a search and seizure warrant, a team of
policemen led by Inspector Trial entered a compound and
searched the house described therein as No. 17 Speaker Perez
St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, owned by Mr. Ernani
Pelets, for reported cache of firearms and ammo. However,
upon thorough 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 police found the unlicensed
firearms and ammunitions they were looking for.
As a result, Mr. Ernani Pelets was criminally charged in court
with illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions as
penalized under PD 1866. At the trial, he vehemently objected
to the presentation of the same in evidence for being
inadmissible. 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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Rules on Description of Objects:
1. Objects need not be described in precise details.
2. Minor discrepancies 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.
3. Where a warrant contains a specific description of some
objects and a general description of others, the entire
warrant is not voided.
4. Objects not specifically described in the warrant but are
considered contraband may be seized in plain view and are
admissible in court.
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, Metro Manila,
found, instead of firearms, ten kilograms of cocaine.
(1) May the said police operatives lawfullyseize the cocaine?
Explain your answer.
Yes, because it is an item whose possession is prohibited by
law, it was in plain view and it was only inadvertently
discovered in the course of a lawful search. The possession of
cocaine is prohibited by Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
As held in Magoncia vs. Palacio, an article whose possession is
prohibited by law may be seized without the need of any
search warrant if it was discovered during a lawful search. The
additional requirement laid down in Roan vs. Gonzales, that
the discovery of the article must have been made inadvertently
was also satisfied in this case.
(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.
Following Uy Keytin vs. Villareal, the unlicensed firearms found
in the house at 12 Shaw Boulevard may not be lawfully seized,
since they were not included in the description of the articles
to be seized by virtue of the search warrant. The search
warrant described the articles to be seized as firearms in the
house of X at No. 10 Shaw Boulevard, not No. 12.
Specific doctrines on one offense rule:
1. When related offenses are punished by different
provisions of the same law, issuance of a single warrant is
justified.
2. Where there are several counts of one specific offense,
issuance of one search warrant is sufficient.
Sy Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue, Dec. 15, 2010 After the SC 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
Page | 18
2014
information against the accused for Qualified Theft, may the
objects taken under the quashed warrant be used in evidence?
Held: No.Petitioner cannot use the items seized as evidence in
any other offense except in that in which the subject search
warrants were issued. A search warrant may be issued only if
there is probable cause in connection with only one specific
offense alleged in an application on the basis of the applicants
personal knowledge and his or her witnesses. Petitioner
cannot, therefore, utilize the evidence seized by virtue of the
search warrants issued in connection with the case of Robbery
in a separate case of Qualified Theft, even if both cases
emanated from the same incident.
Territorial Validity:
1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime
was committed;
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.
3. Any court, subject to the requirement of territorial
jurisdiction, can issue any warrant for any offense. (Regardless
of nature or imposable penalty)
Savage vs. Taypin (2000) - Petitioners seek to nullify the search
warrant issued, which resulted in the seizure of certain pieces
of wrought iron furniture from the factory, which were
allegedly the object of unfair competition involving design
patents.
Held: SC AO No. 104-96 was issued providing that jurisdiction
over all violations of IPR was confined to the RTCs. The
authority to issue search warrants was not among those
mentioned in the AO. The SC has consistently ruled that a
search warrant is merely a process issued by the court in the
exercise of its ancillary jurisdiction and not a criminal action
which it may entertain pursuant to its original jurisdiction. The
authority to issue search warrants is inherent in all courts and
may be effected outside their territorial jurisdiction. In the
instant case, the premises searched located in Biasong, Talisay,
Cebu, are well within the territorial jurisdiction of the
respondent court.
The AO merely specified which court could "try and decide"
cases involving violations of IPR. It did not, and could not, vest
exclusive jurisdiction with regard to all matters (including the
issuance of search warrants and other judicial processes) in any
one court. Jurisdiction is conferred upon courts by substantive
law; in this case, BP Blg.129, and not by a procedural rule,
much less by an administrative order.
In issuing a search warrant, the judge must:
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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
d. ensure that the order to search is in writing
ARREST WARRANTS
Procedures to obtain an arrest warrant:
1. A case must be filed before the city prosecutors office
against the accused. This must be supported by affidavits,
evidences, and other relevant documents to the case.
2. The fiscal will give the accused a chance to file his counter-
affidavit if he thinks that a crime was actually committed.
3. The accused submits his counter-affidavit.
4. The fiscal studies the documents and conducts a
preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation is
to find out whether there is probable cause to hold the
person accused for trial. If the fiscal believes that there is
probable cause, he will submit all the evidences, affidavits,
and other documents to the judge.
5. If the judge will agree that there really is probable cause,
he will issue the warrant of arrest. (The judge is allowed 90
days to study if there is probable cause)
Must the judge personally examine complainant and his
witnesses?People v. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010) The duty of
the judge to determine probable cause to issue a warrant of
arrest is mandated by Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.
But this constitutional provision does not mandatorily require
the judge to personally examine the complainant and her
witnesses. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive
and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy
himself of the existence of probable cause. The necessity arises
only when there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the
existence of probable cause.
In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.
Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1)
personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents
submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable
cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2)
if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may
disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of
supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
Can the judge rely on the certification of the prosecutor that
there is probable cause for the offense?
What the law requires as personal determination on the part of
a judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of the
investigating prosecutor. This means that the judge should
consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but
also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties,
the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well
as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the
preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the
investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information.
Page | 19
2014
Is the person subject to arrest entitled to notice and hearing
before the judge issues?
No. Section 2 of Article III of theConstitution does not require a
notice or a hearing before the issuance of a warrant of arrest.
To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest
warrants, the Constitution itself requires only the examination -
- under oath or affirmation -- of complainants and the
witnesses they may produce. There is no requirement to notify
and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest.
All that is required is that the judge must have sufficient
supporting documents upon which to make his independent
judgment, or at the very least, upon which to verify the findings
of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause.
Lim vs. Felix The killing of Congressman Espinosa happened in
Masbate. The fiscal conducted a preliminary investigation and
found that there was probable cause to hold the accused for
trial. During the pendency of the case before the RTC of
Masbate, the SC approved a petition for a change of venue to
Makati. The judge, on the certificate alone, which was issued
by the prosecutor, determined that there was probable cause.
The accused challenged the validity of the warrant. Can the
judge issue a warrant based on the certificate alone. Can it be
considered valid?
Held: No. The warrant is void. Before the judge can conclude
that there is probable cause, he should first examine all the
evidences presented to him, and all of those should be
attached on the certificate stating that there is sufficient
ground that the accused should be put on trial. In this case,
there was nothing attached to the certificate stating that there
is sufficient ground that the accused should be put on trial. In
the case of arrest warrant, the judge need not call the
witnesses for questioning. He may rely on the record submitted
to him by the fiscal. But he must not rely solely on the
resolution or certification of the fiscal. The resolution must be
supported by other evidence which led to the filing of the case.
Can the judge decide to disregard all evidences presented and
the certificate issued by the fiscal and order the witnesses to
testify before him? Can he also require more evidences before
he decide? The judge can because he has a wide discretion to
decide on the matter. He is not bound to decide on the
recommendation given by the prosecutor.
Pangandaman vs. Cesar Is a John Doe warrant valid?
Generally, a John Doe warrant is void. The Constitution
requires that there must be specific description or designation
of the person to be arrested. John Doe warrants are general
warrants.
Exception: Description Personae
People vs. Veloso Valid if the best description possible is
given in the arrest warrant it must be sufficient to indicate
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
clearly on whom it is to be served by stating his occupation,
personal appearance or peculiarities, place of residence or
other circumstances which he may be identified.
Note: The officer must identify the accused. Even a mistake in
the identification of the owner of the place does not invalidate
the warrant, provided the place to be searched is properly
described.
Can the President issue a warrant? Yes, but only for
deportation cases and after there has been final judgment by
the court against the alien. The arrest warrant is served for the
deportation of the alien, not for the purpose of conducting a
hearing or investigation.
Will it not go against the Constitution that only the judge can
issue an arrest warrant? It does not. The only exception to the
general rule is the President can also issue an arrest warrant.
The basis for this is his foreign relations as part of his executive
functions as stated in the Constitution. It is the final judgment
which grants him the power to issue the arrest and the
deportation.
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
Generally void:
1. Failure to object to evidence during trial results to waiver
2. Only the person whose right was invaded can invoke illegal
search (Stonehill case)
Exceptions: Valid warrantless searches
1. Incident to lawful arrest
2. Consented search
3. Plain view
4. Stop and frisk (Terry Search)
5. Moving vehicles
6. Enforcement of Custom laws
7. During exigency
8. Airport Security
9. Prison search
10. Private individuals
11. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the
enforcement of fire, sanitary and building regulations.
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 arrests.
Aliens are entitled to the right against illegal searches and
seizures and illegal arrests. As applied in People v. Chua Ho San
(1999), these rights are available to all persons, including
aliens.
1. Incident to Lawful Arrest
If the arrest is unlawful, the search is also unlawful.
Page | 20
2014
Search is valid only in the following cases:
a. If the search is in connection with an arrest by virtue of an
arrest warrant
b. If the search is in connection with a valid warrantless
arrest.
Rules:
a. The search should be contemporaneous to the arrest
simultaneously with the arrest (Immediately after or
during)
b. The search should be in the person or in the premises
where the person has immediate control.
People vs. Musa The police conducted a buy-bust
operation, an instance where in a warrantless arrest is
considered as legal (Selling marijuana is a valid ground for a
policeman to make an arrest, even without a warrant). The
incident took place in the sala of the accused. The policeman
used marked money during the operation. While they were
looking for the money, they found a plastic bag in the kitchen
which, after opening, contained marijuana.
Held: The search was not incident to a lawful arrest because
the marijuana was not obtained in the person of the accused
nor in the place within his immediate control. It would be valid
if Musa were in the kitchen when the bag was found.
People vs. Leangsiri Accused were validly arrested in Room
504 of the Las Palmas Hotel. The piece of paper bearing
Leangsiris name was obtained through a warrantless search of
Room 413 of the same hotel, and found tucked within the
pages of one of the accused's telephone and address book.
Clearly, the warrantless search is illegal and the piece of paper
bearing Leangsiris name cannot be admitted as evidence.
Note: The inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless
search incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspects person
and the premises under his immediate control admits of an
exception. The exception obtains when the Plain View Doctrine
applies (discussed later).
People vs. Che Chun Ting In an entrapment, Mabel (courier)
went to Unit 122. The door of the unit opened and a man went
out to hand a transparent plastic bag containing a white
crystalline substance. The agents immediately arrested the
man. The agents then made a search of Unit 122. During the
search, the agents seized a black bag with several plastic bags
containing a white crystalline substance in an open cabinet at
the second floor.
Held: The accused was admittedly outside unit 122 and in the
act of delivering to Mabel a bag of shabu when he was
arrested. It can hardly be said that the inner portion of the
house constituted a permissible area within his reach or
immediate control, to justify a warrantless search therein. The
warrantless search, to be valid, must have been conducted at
about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
at the place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or
surroundings under his immediate control. The purposes only is
to protect the arresting officer against physical harm from the
person being arrested who might be armed with a concealed
weapon, and also to prevent the person arrested from
destroying the evidence within his reach.
People vs. Tiu Won Chua The search of the car was not
incidental to a lawful arrest. To be valid, such warrantless
search must be limited to that point within the reach or control
of the person arrested, or that which may furnish him with the
means of committing violence or of escaping. In this case,
accused were arrested inside the apartment, whereas the car
was parked a few meters away from the building.
Valeroso vs. CA Valeroso was arrested and charged with
illegal possession of firearm and ammunition. Valeroso says
that the seizure of the subject firearm was invalid, as the
search was conducted after his arrest and after he was taken
out of the room he was occupying.
Held: Valeroso was arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest
allegedly for kidnapping with ransom. At that time, Valeroso
was sleeping inside the boarding house of his children. He was
awakened by the arresting officers who were heavily armed.
They pulled him out of the room, placed him beside the faucet
outside the room and tied his hands. The other police officers
remained inside the room and ransacked the locked cabinet
where they found the subject firearm and ammunition. With
such discovery, Valeroso was charged with illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition. The cabinet which was locked could
no longer be considered as an area within his immediate
control because there was no way for him to take any weapon
or to destroy any evidence that could be used against him.
2. Consented Search
It is also called a waiver. The person allows that a search can be
conducted. He waives his rights against unreasonable searches.
Note: This can only be applied if the search is on the house, as
a house is a mans castle. Therefore, they should not be
invaded by police authorities unless there is compelling reason,
and if they will comply with some stringent requirements.
General Rule: A waiver, before it can be considered as valid,
should be expressed (verbally or orally), Mere silence does not
constitute consent to a warrantless search. Courts indulge in
the presumption against waiver of a constitutional right. The
burden of proof that there was waiver of such right rests on the
prosecution.
Exception: People vs. Exala When the jeep carrying the
contraband passed through the checkpoint, it was flagged
down and the occupants were asked routine questions. In the
course thereof, Pfc. Galang noticed a black leather bag the
sides of which were bulging. He asked what the contents of the
Page | 21
2014
bag were. None of the accused answered. At that moment, the
demeanor of the accused changed; they became suspiciously
quiet and nervous as if they were concealing something. The
accused clearly appeared to be in abject fear of being
discovered. Such peculiar apprehensiveness if not restrained
reaction of the accused, which did not appear normal, provided
the probable cause justifying a more extensive search that led
to the opening of the bag and the discovery of the prohibited
stuff. Their submissive stance after the discovery of the bag of
marijuana, as well as the absence of any protest on their part
when arrested, not only casts serious doubts on their professed
innocence, but also confirms their acquiescence to the search.
Principles:
a. Only the person whose right has been invaded can give
consent
b. Consent has to be given expressly
c. The search cannot extend beyond the purpose for which
consent was given
People vs. Asis Accused were arrested without any warrant.
Neither was there any valid search warrant obtained against
them. They object to the introduction of the bloodstained pair
of shorts allegedly recovered from the bag of one of the
accused. They argue that the search was illegally done. The
prosecution, on the other hand, contends that it was the wife
of the accused who voluntarily surrendered the bag that
contained the bloodstained trousers of the victim. Her act, it
claims, constituted a valid consent to the search without a
warrant.
Held: The constitutional right against unreasonable searches
and seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by
anyone except the person whose rights are invaded or who is
expressly authorized to do so on his or her behalf. How could
the accused have consented to a warrantless search when, in
the first place, he did not understand what was happening at
that moment? The prosecution witnesses themselves testified
that there was no interpreter to assist him a deaf-mute
during the arrest, search and seizure.
People vs. Damaso The constitutional immunity from
unreasonable searches and seizures, being personal one,
cannot be waived by anyone except the person whose rights
are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his
or her behalf. Accused was not in his house at that time his
alleged helper allowed the authorities to enter it. No evidence
was presented that would establish the fact that the alleged
helper was given authority by the accused to open his house in
his absence. As a consequence, the search conducted by the
authorities was illegal. It would have been different if the
situation here demanded urgency which could have prompted
the authorities to dispense with a search warrant. But the
record is silent on this point.
Veroy vs. Layague The owner of the house, through a long-
distance call, allowed the policemen to enter his house because
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
they are searching for rebel soldiers, but when inside the
house, they instead seized an unlicensed firearm. There is no
consent to a warrantless search.
People vs. Evaristo The officers were in pursuit of one Rosillo,
who ran to Evaristo's house. Inquiring as to the whereabouts of
Rosillo, the officers were told by Evaristo and Carillo that he
had already escaped through a window of the house. One of
the officers observed a noticeable bulge around the waist of
Carillo who, upon being frisked, admitted the same to be a
revolver. On the other hand, Sgt. Romerosa was granted
permission by Evaristo to enter his house. In the sala, he found,
not Rosillo, but a number of firearms and paraphernalia.
Held: As to the firearms seized from Carillo, such was valid. The
peace officers, while on patrol, heard bursts of gunfire and this
proceeded to investigate the matter. Sgt. Vallarta then
discerned the bulge on the waist of Carillo. This visual
observation, along with the earlier report of gunfire, as well as
the peace officer's professional instincts, are more than
sufficient to pass the test. Consequently, the firearm taken can
be said to have been seized incidental to a lawful and valid
arrest (plain view).
As to the seizure of firearms from Evaristo, the officer's
purpose was to apprehend Rosillo whom he saw had sought
refuge in the former's house. Therefore, it is clear that the
search for firearms was not Romerosa's purpose in entering the
house, thereby rendering his discovery of the subject firearms
as inadvertent and even accidental.
3. Search in Plain View
Requisites for Search in Plain View:
a. a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest
in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of
their official duties;
Example:
(1) A crime is being committed
(2) There is consent to the search
(3) There is a valid search warrant
(4) There is a valid arrest warrant
b. the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police
who have the right to be where they are;
c. the evidence must be immediately apparent; and
d. plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without
further search
Comparing the case of People vs. Evaristo with the case of
Veroy vs. Layague In both cases, the police were looking for
persons. They were also able to recover firearms. In the
Evaristo case, the evidences were found in the sala which were
in plain view of the policemen. In the Veroy case, the gun was
found inside a closed drawer. The difference in the location of
the guns when they were found is very significant according to
the court. Meaning, in the Veroy case, it is implied that the
policemen were already looking for guns not just rebels. The
Page | 22
2014
policemen had no right to open the compartments when their
authority was only to look for rebels.
People vs. Musa The court ruled that this was not a search in
plain view. The police did not come across the evidences
inadvertently. There was prior justification for the intrusion but
it is limited only within the immediate vicinity. Also, the
illegality was not readily apparent since it was inside a plastic
bag in the kitchen.
People vs. Valdez The officers located the marijuana plants
first before accused was arrested without a warrant. There was
no valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search of the
premises. Note further that the police was dispatched to the
kaingin precisely to search for and uproot the prohibited flora.
The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where the
police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused,
but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.Clearly,
their discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent.
Also, upon arriving at the area, they first had to "look around
the area" before they could spot the illegal plants. Patently, the
seized marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and
a "further search" was needed. In sum, the marijuana plants in
question were not in "plain view" or "open to eye and hand."
Del Rosario vs. People The firearm was not found
inadvertently and in plain view. It was found as a result of a
meticulous search in the kitchen of accuseds house. This
firearm, to emphasize, was not mentioned in the search
warrant. The authority given by the court was only to obtain
the shabu and paraphernalia. Hence, the seizure was illegal.
True that as an exception, the police may seize without warrant
illegally possessed firearm or any contraband for that matter,
inadvertently found in plain view. However, the seizure of
evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer is
not searching for evidence against the accused, but
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
People vs. Go The police had a search warrant, commanding
them to make an immediate search of shabu. During the
search, they also seized assorted documents. The seizure does
not fall within the plain view exception. The assertions of the
police officers that said objects were inadvertently seized
within their plain view are mere legal conclusions which are
not supported by any clear narration of the factual
circumstances leading to their discovery. The supposed illegal
character of the items claimed to have been seized within the
plain view of the policemen was not readily and immediately
apparent.
People vs. Elamparo A buy-bust operation led the pursuing
officers of a drug runner into the house of his alleged
supplier/dealer. In the house, they witnessed the alleged
dealer repacking bricks of marijuana and arrested him. This
case falls squarely under the plain view doctrine. A peace
officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person, when in his presence, the person to be arrested has
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense.
People v. Nunez (2009) The search warrant commanded the
police to search for and seize shabu and paraphernalia found
in the house of the accused. In the course of the search,
believing that certain objects were bartered for shabu, they
also seized a ladys wallet, cash, grinder, camera, component,
speakers, electric planer, jigsaw, electric tester, saws, hammer,
drill, and bolo. Is the seizure valid?
Held: No.As a rule, only the personal properties described in
the search warrant may be seized by the authorities. In this
case, the search warrant specifically authorized the taking of
shabu and paraphernalias only.The above-stated items were
not encompassed by the word paraphernalia as they bear no
relation to the use or manufacture of drugs.
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 lawfully seize the cocaine? Is the cocaine admissible
in evidence?
Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize the cocaine,
because it is an item whose possession is prohibited by law, it
was in plain view and it was only inadvertently discovered in
the course of a lawful search. The possession of cocaine is
prohibited. An article whose possession is prohibited by law
may be seized without the need of any search warrant if it was
discovered during a lawful search.
4. Stop and Frisk (Terry Search)
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.
It is the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street,
interrogate him, and pat him for weapons or contraband. The
police officer should properly introduce himself and make
initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests
unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latters
outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons. The
apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in
accordance with the police officers experience and the
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to
be held has weapons (or contraband) concealed about him.
What is, therefore, essential is that a genuine reason must
exist, in light of the police officers experience and surrounding
conditions, to warrant the belief that the person who manifests
unusual suspicious conduct has weapons or contraband
concealed about him. Such a stop-and-frisk practice serves a
dual purpose: (1) the general interest of effective crime
Page | 23
2014
prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that
a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in
an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of
investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable
cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to
assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not
armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and
fatally be used against the police officer.
People vs. Mengote The police received a phone call that
there were three suspiciously looking men at a street corner in
Tondo. The police found two men looking side-to-side, and one
had his hand on his abdomen. When the police approached
them, the two tried to flee. The police caught up with them and
they were searched. The police found a .38 caliber pistol with 6
live ammunitions.
Held: The court ruled that the firearm was not admissible as
evidence. The search was not valid since there was no probable
cause. Looking side-to-side or holding ones abdomen does not
necessarily constitute acting suspiciously. As to the illegal
possession of firearm, the court ruled that the police had no
personal knowledge that the suspect was actually carrying a
gun at that time.
People vs. Posadas Posadas was carrying a buri bag. When he
was stopped by the police, he tried to run away buthe failed to
escape. The police found guns and ammunitions inside his bag.
The police reasonedthat he was acting suspiciously and that he
was acting suspiciously and that is why theysearched him.
Held: The court ruled that the search was valid. There was
probable cause(actingsuspiciously) for the police to conduct
the search. The suspect was looking side-to-side and hetried to
flee when the police stopped him.
People vs. Lacerna Probable cause is not evident. Lacernas
suspicious reactions of hiding his face and slouching in his seat
when PO3 Valenzuelas car passed alongside the taxicab might
have annoyed the latter, or any other law enforcer, and might
have caused him to suspect that something was amiss. But
these bare acts do not constitute probable cause to justify the
search and seizure of appellants person and baggage.
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 a 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 transparent
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
plastic sachet from the cigarette case. It turned out to be
shabu. Is the evidence admissible?
Held: Yes. The search and seizure of the suspected shabu
initially noticed in accuseds possession was undertaken after
she was interrogated on what she placed inside a cigarette
case, and after PO1 Cruzin introduced himself to petitioner as a
police officer. And, at the time of her arrest, petitioner was
exhibiting suspicious behavior and in fact attempted to flee
after the police officer had identified himself.
Bar Question: 2000, 14: Crack units of the Anti-narcotics Unit
were assigned on surveillance of the environs of the cemetery
where the sale and 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?
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
Bar Question, 1995: What is Terry Search?
A search whose object is to determine the identity of a
suspicions individual or to maintain the status quo while the
police seeks to obtain more information.
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.
5. Search in Moving Vehicles
Page | 24
2014
Searches of moving vehicles are considered legal. They are
regarded as one of the traditional exceptions to the
constitutional requirement for a search warrant. The reason for
this is because moving vehicles can easily be removed from one
locality to another. It will be difficult for the officer to obtain a
warrant because the vehicle may already be gone by the time
he gets one.
a. Vehicles may be stopped at check points and subjected to
visual search only;
b. The police can draw aside the curtain of a parked vehicle;
c. The police can flash a light inside the vehicle;
d. Extensive search is permissible only if there is probable
cause;
There is probable cause if:
(1) There is reasonable belief that the motorists is an offender
(2) The vehicle contains instruments of a crime
Examples of extensive searches: (These are prohibited if
without probable cause)
(1) Body searches
(2) Inspection of vehicles other than visual inspection, e.g.
opening of the compartments, ordering the passenger to
alight from the car
e. Probable cause can be a report that a contraband is being
transported, or it can be that the person is acting
suspiciously;
f. Failure to object is equivalent to consent, unless under the
circumstances, we cannot expect the person to object.
People vs. Malmstedt The police received a report that a
foreigner from Sagada will be riding a bus carrying marijuana.
The police immediately put up check points and inspected the
buses coming from that direction. During the checks, they saw
a Caucasian matching the description. The police noticed a
bulge on his waist. When they asked for his passport, he did
not comply. They then ordered him to turn over the pouch on
his waist. The police found it to contain marijuana.Is the
marijuana admissible?
Held: The court held that the search was legal. There was
probable cause based on the report; the accused acted
suspiciously since he refused to give his passport; and there
was a bulge on his waist.The search was also valid since this
was a search of moving vehicles.
People vs. Bagista The NARCOM received a report that a
person is transporting marijuana. The report described the
person as a woman, 52 in height, about 25 years of age, with
short curly hair. The agents put up check points and conducted
extensive searches on the buses. In one of the buses, they saw
a woman matching the description sitting quietly at the rear,
with a bag on her lap. When they searched the bag, they found
marijuana.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Held: The evidence is admissible. There was probable cause
based on the report which also gave a description of the
suspect.
People vs. Exala Accused were stopped in a checkpoint. The
police noticed a black leather bag with budging sides. An officer
asked what the contents of the bag were but nobody
responded. They become suspiciously quiet and nervous as if
they were trying to connect something. When the bag was
opened, the police found it to contain marijuana.
Held: The evidence is admissible. There was probable cause
since the accused were acting suspiciously. They did not seem
to be acting normally which gave the police a reason to an
exclusive search. Likewise, there were no protests and
objections regarding the search. It was an implied waiver of the
right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Aniag vs. COMELEC Pursuant to the "Gun Ban," Congressman
ANiag was requested to return the two firearms issued to him
by the Congress. Aniag immediately instructed his driver,
Arellano, to pick up the firearms from his house and return
them to Congress. The policemen manning a checkpoint
flagged down the car driven by Arellano. They searched the car
and found the firearms neatlypacked in their gun cases and
placed in a bag in the trunk of the car.
Held: Asthere was no evidence to show that the policemen
were impelled to do so because of a confidential reportleading
them to reasonably believe that certain motorists matching the
description furnished by theirinformant were engaged in
gunrunning, transporting firearms or in organizing special strike
forces, nor wasthere any indication from the package or
behavior of Arellano that could have triggered the suspicion of
thepolicemen. Absent such justifying circumstances specifically
pointing to the culpability of Aniag andArellano, the search
could not be valid.
People vs. Valdez A policeman was tipped off by a civilian
asset that a thin Ilocano person with a green bag was about
to transport marijuana from Banaue, Ifugao. Thus, faced with
such on-the-spot information, the law enforcer had to respond
quickly to the call of duty. The policeman together with the
civilian asset proceeded immediately to Hingyon, Ifugao, to
pursue the drug trafficker. In Hingyon, he flagged down buses
bound for Baguio City and Manila, and looked for the person
described by the informer. The target of the pursuit was just
the thin Ilocano person with a green bag and no other. When
the policeman inspected the bus bound for Manila, he just
singled out the passenger with the green bag. No search at all
was conducted on the baggage of other passengers.
Held: The police officer had probable cause to stop and search
the buses coming from Banaue in view of the information he
got from the civilian asset that somebody having the same
appearance as that of appellant and with a green bag would be
Page | 25
2014
transporting marijuana from Banaue. He likewise had probable
cause to search appellants belongings since he fits the
description given by the civilian asset.
People vs. Gonzales The police officers were tipped off only
on the evening of August 29, 1993. The contraband was to be
transported early in the morning of the following day.
Certainly, the law enforcers had no time to secure the needed
warrants. The only recourse left to the police was to arrest the
courier in flagrante. Note that the law enforcers had a definite
target for their arrest, that is, a woman with long hair, wearing
maong pants and jacket and Ray Ban sunglasses, carrying a
black traveling bag. There was a description about the identity
of the person engaged in transporting prohibited drugs at a
particular time and place.Accordingly, when the police officers
saw the woman who fitted the tipped description given earlier,
standing near a trisikad, along the national highway holding the
handle of a black traveling bag on a trisikad, they had probable
cause to apprehend the accused. The arrest was legal and the
search of her bag conducted by the police was not illegal.
People vs. Claudio There was a police officer who aboard a
bus bound for Olongapo. While he was riding, there was a
woman who boarded the bus and seated in front of the officer.
However, the woman placed her bag at the rear seat of the bus
she sat. This act of the woman raised the suspicion of the
policeman. At the next station, when the woman went down to
the bus maybe just to relieve herself in a CR. The policeman
went to the bag and placed his hand inside the bag. When he
smelled his fingers, it smelled like marijuana. He did not
immediately arrest the woman. At the next bus stop, the
policeman alighted the bus,he also invited the woman to the
police station. In short he arrested the woman. In the station
they searched the bag and they found marijuana. Is the
marijuana admissible based on the facts presented?
Held: In search of moving vehicle, you can only conduct
extensive search if there is probablecause. The evidence is
admissible since the search was done in the police station. The
police had reason to do the search and arrest because he
already knew that she is already committing a crime, she was
already carrying marijuana. The court ruled that it was a search
incident to a lawful arrest.
If you are the lawyer for the woman, what possible defenses
can you use to declare that the evidence was inadmissible?
You can argue that the search was not done in the station but
rather it was done on board the bus. When the policeman put
his hand inside the bag he was already conducting a search
which he has no right to do.
If you were the lawyer of the government, how will you argue
that the search is valid? Since the search conducted was an
extensive search, youll have to argue that there is a probable
cause. Probable cause will constitute the suspicious conduct
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
1992, No. 5: During the recent elections, 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, Antonios failure to object amounts to consent to
the search
d. No, because the police should have obtained a
warrant
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, Antonios failure to object amounts to consent to
the search
d. Yes, because it would now amount to search incident
to a valid arrest
1989, No. 7: Pursuing reports that great quantities of prohibited
drugs are being smuggled at nighttime through the shores 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 a moving
vehicle
2011 Bar 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 cars back seatcovered with blanket.
b. The police suspected an unfenced lot covered by rocks
and bushes wasplanted to marijuana.
Page | 26
2014
c. The police became suspicious when they saw a car
believed to be of thesame model used by the killers of
a city mayor.
d. The driver sped away in his car when the police
flagged him down at acheckpoint.
2011 Bar Exam: 40. An informer told the police that a Toyota
Car with plate ABC 134 would deliver an unspecified quantity of
ecstasy 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 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.
6. Custom Law Enforcement
A traditional exception to the search without a warrant for the
same reason as search in moving vehicles is the search in the
enforcement of custom laws because smuggled goods can
easily be transported and taken out, or brought to another
locality and out of the jurisdiction of one court. It would be
difficult to enforce the law if the police must first obtain a
search warrant.
Requisites for Search under Customs Laws:
1. It must be conducted by persons exercising police
authority under the custom laws; Only the customs
police. Ordinary police or military do not possess this
authority. Although ordinary police have been conducting
searches, under this, they have to be deputized by the
customs police.
2. There must be probable cause; A mere report is
sufficient to constitute probable cause. Acting suspiciously
is not necessary.
3. It is limited to persons, vehicles, vessels, aircrafts, land
enclosure, warehouse, stores, but not dwelling houses; In
dwelling house, the probable cause might require a more
stringent cause.
4. Only dutiable or prohibited goods can be seized. These
are items subject to tariffs duties and taxes, or goods
which are prohibited but are entering the country.
Papa vs. Mago Customs Authorities received information that
there were undervalued goods which were to be released in
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
the port of Manila. This prompted to put up surveillance. They
saw two trucks presumably full of goods and which they
immediately pursued. Without the benefit of a search warrant,
they seized the items loaded in the truck. Is the search
permissible? Is it legal?
Held: According to the court, it was a search under Tariffs and
Customs Code and it can be done without a search warrant
provided there is probable cause.
Bar Question: 1991, No. 8. On the basis of a verified report and
confidential information that various electronic equipment,
which were illegally imported into the Philippines, were found in
the bodega of the Tikasan Corporation located at 1002
Binakayan St., Cebu City, the Collector of Customs of Cebu
issued, in the morning of 2 January 1988, a Warrant of Seizure
and Detention against the corporation for the seizure of the
electronic equipment. The warrant particularly describes the
electronic equipment and specifies the
provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code which were violated
by the importation.
The warrant was served and implemented in the afternoon of 2
January 1988 by Customs policemen who then seized the
described equipment. The inventory of the seized articles was
signed by the Secretary of the Tikasan Corporation. The
following day, a hearing officer in the Office of the Collector of
Customs conducted a hearing on the confiscation of the
equipment.
Two days thereafter, the corporation filed with the Supreme
Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to set
aside the warrant, enjoin the Collector and his agents from
further proceeding with the forfeiture hearing and to secure the
return of the confiscated equipment, alleging therein that the
warrant issued is null and void for the reason that, pursuant to
Section 2 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, only a judge
may issue a search warrant. In his comment to the petition, the
Collector of Customs, through the Office of the Solicitor
General, contends that he is authorized under the Tariff and
Custom Code to order the seizure of the equipment whose
duties and taxes were not paid and that the corporation did not
exhaust administrative remedies. Should the petition be
granted? Decide.
The petition should not be granted. Under Sections 2205 and
2208 of the Tariff and Customs Code, customs officials are
authorized to enter any warehouse, not used as dwelling, for
the purpose of seizing any article which is subject to forfeiture.
For this purpose they need no warrant issued by a court.
Bureau of Customs vs. Ogario A regular court (RTC) has no
jurisdiction to quash a Warrant of Seizure and Detention issued
by the Customs Collector.The Collector of Customs sitting in
seizure and forfeiture proceedings has exclusive jurisdiction to
hear and determine all questions touching on the seizure and
forfeiture of dutiable goods. Remedy? Actions of the Collector
Page | 27
2014
are appealable to the Commissioner of Customs, whose
decision, in turn, is subject to the exclusive appellate
jurisdiction of the CTA and from there to the CA.
The customs authorities do not have to prove to the
satisfaction of the regular courts that the articles on board a
vessel were imported from abroad or are intended to be
shipped abroad before they may exercise the power to effect
customs searches, seizures, or arrests provided by law and
continue with the administrative hearings.
Harvey vs. Santiago The arrest of petitioners was based on
probable cause determined after close surveillance for three
(3) months during which period their activities were monitored.
The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and the
seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters
without warrant. Even assuming arguendo that the arrest of
petitioners was not valid at its inception, the records show that
formal deportation charges have been filed against them as
undesirable aliens.That petitioners were not "caught in the act"
does not make their arrest illegal. Petitioners were found with
young boys in their respective rooms. The agents had
reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners had committed
"pedophilia." While not a crime under the RPC, it is behavior
offensive to public morals and violative of the declared policy
of the State to promote and protect the physical, moral,
spiritual, and social well-being of our youth.
7. Search during Exigency
People vs. De Gracia Accused was charged with illegal
possession of firearms which was obtained from a warrantless
search. The search was conducted at the height of the coup
attempt in 1989. The authorities were conducting searches and
surveillance as counter-measures to stop the activities of the
rebel forces. In one of the searches, the officers were able to
obtain firearms from the accused.
Held: The Military operatives had reasonable ground to believe
that a crime was being committed. There was consequently
more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action.
Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding
team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search
warrant from the courts. In this case, the judge even testified
that his court was not always open because of the tension
existing at that time.
8. Airport Search
People vs. Johnson What is involved in this case is an arrest
in flagrante delicto pursuant to a valid search made on her
person. The shabu seized from her during the routine frisk at
the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport
security procedures. Persons may lose the protection of the
search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or
property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of
subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is
implicit in airport security procedures. Should these procedures
suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical searches
are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little
question that such searches are reasonable, given their
minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests
involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with
airline travel.
People vs. Canton Prior to the strip search in the ladies
room, the airport security personnel had no knowledge yet of
what were hidden on Susans body; hence, they did not know
yet whether a crime was being committed. It was only after the
strip search upon the discovery by the police officers of the
white crystalline substances inside the packages, which they
believed to be shabu, that Susan was arrested.
Held: The scope of a search pursuant to airport security
procedure is not confined only to search for weapons under
the "Terry search" doctrine. In the present case, the search was
made pursuant to routine airport security procedure, which is
allowed under Section 9 of RA No. 6235. Passengers are
notified through a notice in the airline tickets that they are
subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or substances
are found, such would be subject to seizure. After the metal
detector alarmed, Susan consented to be frisked, which
resulted in the discovery of packages on her body. The ruling in
People v. Johnson is applicable to the instant case. Armed with
the knowledge that Susan was committing a crime, the airport
security personnel and police authorities were duty-bound to
arrest her.
9. Jail Security/Prison Search
People vs. Conde Police recovered the weapons used in the
robbery, when Felicidad Macabare, Condes wife, went to the
police station to talk to the accused. These weapons were
discovered inside her bag after a routine inspection. However,
the police did not have a warrant when they inspected the bag.
Held: The search of the bag of Felicidad Macabare at the time
she was visiting her husband who was a detainee was valid.
This search is part of police standard operating procedure, and
is recognized as part of precautionary measures by the police
to safeguard the safety of the detainees as well as the over-all
security of the jail premises.
10. Private Persons
2002, No. 8: One day a passenger bus conductor found a mans
handbag left in the bus. When the conductor opened the bag,
he found inside a calling card with the owners 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 inadmissible in
Page | 28
2014
evidence being the product of an illegal search and seizure. Is
he correct?
No. They are admissible in evidence, since it was not the NBI
but the bus conductor who opened the bag and brought it to
the NBI. As held In People v. Marti, the constitutional right
against unreasonable search and seizure is a restraint upon the
government. It does not apply so as to require exclusion of
evidence which came into the possession of the Government
through a search made by a private citizen.
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 search was conducted in his
official quarters at Camp Crame. The search team found and
seized the murder weapon in a drawer of X. Can X claim that
the search and seizure was illegal and move for exclusion from
evidence of the weapon seized?
a. No, because the search was incident to a valid arrest
b. No, because the law does not require a search warrant
when officers of the 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
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 babayaran 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 Ramon 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.
The warrantless search and seizure was not valid. It was not
made as an incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. The
caretaker also had no authority to waive the right of the
brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona to waive their right against
unreasonable search and seizure. The warrantless seizure of
the ski masks and bats likewise cannot be justified under the
plain view doctrine, because they were seized after invalid
intrusion in to the house.
2008, IX.The search warrant authorized the seizure of
undetermined quantity of shabu. During the service of the
search warrant, the raiding team also recovered a kilo of dried
marijuana leaves wrapped in newsprint. The accused moved to
suppress the marijuana leaves as evidence for the violation of
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Section 11 of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
since they were not covered by the search warrant. The State
justified the seizure of the marijuana leaves under the plain
view doctrine. There was no indication of whether the
marijuana leaves were discovered and seized before or after the
seizure of the shabu. If you are the judge, how would you rule
on the motion to suppress?
The motion to suppress filed by the accused should be granted.
The warrant violates the constitutional and statutory
requirement that it should particularly describe the person or
things to be seized. The plain view doctrine cannot be invoked
because the marijuana leaves were wrapped in newsprint.
Besides the marijuana leaves are not the subject of the search
warrant. There was no evidence as to whether the marijuana
leaves were discovered and seized before or after the seizure
of the shabu. If they were discovered after the seizure of the
shabu, then they could not have been seized in plain view. The
confiscation of the marijuana leaves must be upheld; hence,
rendering the same inadmissible in evidence against the
accused.
The warrant ordered the police to search and seize a .45 caliber
firearm with Serial NO. 35287-A in the house of M located at
No. 17, Mayon St., Davao City. After finding the firearm on top
of the table in Ms 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?
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
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 locations. 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. l 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
Page | 29
2014
d. I will order the return because the illegality of the
object is not readily apparent
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 Garcias 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 there 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
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 the
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:
a. With the consent of accused
b. Done by a private person
c. A case of stop-and-frisk search
d. Made in plain view
COMELEC Resolution on Check Points:
Section 8.Searches at COMELEC 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 in 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 person/s 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 made in the following cases:
a. moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain
view;
b. as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its
occupant/s subjected to a body search, and the
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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.
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 a COMELEC checkpoint
d. NBI agents looking for a bomb at a mall
WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
In warrantless arrests, the general principles are basically the
same with warrantless searches. Meaning, all warrantless
arrests are illegal. One can be subjected to criminal prosecution
for doing warrantless arrests. However, there are also
exceptions to make warrantless arrests valid.
Exceptions for Valid Warrantless Arrests:
1. When in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense (Flagrante Delicto Rule);
2. 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(Freshly Committed Rule); and
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)
Time element:
People vs. Sinoc The police officers in this case were aware
that an offense had just been committed; i.e., that some 12
hours earlier, a Pajero belonging to a private company had
been stolen. Nor is there any doubt that an informer had
reported that the stolen Pajero was at the Bliss Housing
Project. The police officers went to that place and saw the
Pajero. The accused was immediately identified by a witness as
"the one who rode on that car Pajero." When the police
officers accosted him, Sinoc had the key to the stolen Pajero
and was in the act of moving toward it admittedly to take
possession of it. Sinoc's link to the stolen vehicle was thus
palpable. The foregoing circumstances left the police officers
Page | 30
2014
no alternative save to arrest Sinoc and take possession of the
Pajero. His arrest without warrant was justified.
People vs. Manlulu At about midnight of May 29, the accused
shot and stabbed and agent of the NARCOM to death. At
around 7pm of May 30, Manlulu was arrested by policemen
based on information given by an eyewitness. The police did
not have a warrant of arrest. Can the State argue that the crime
has just been committed, considering that 19 hours had
lapsed?
Held: The killing took place at one o'clock in the morning. The
arrest and the consequent search and seizure came at around
seven o'clock that evening, some nineteen hours later. This
instance cannot come within the purview of a valid warrantless
arrest. Neither did Pat. Perez had "personal knowledge," nor
was the offense "in fact just been committed." While Pat. Perez
may have personally gathered the information which led to the
arrest of Manlulu, that is not enough. The law requires
"personal knowledge." Obviously, "personal gathering of
information" is different from "personal knowledge." The rule
requires that the arrest immediately follows the commission of
the offense, not some 19 hours later.
Personal knowledge/Probable cause
Personal knowledge of probable cause can be made up of two:
1. That there were reasonable grounds of suspicion based on
actual facts. Basis:
a. There was a confidential information which led to the
arrest of the accused
b. There was actually a crime that happened
c. There was actually a wounded person, who happened
to be the accused, being treated in the hospital
2. That the police must be acting in good faith when
conducting the arrest. There is always a presumption that
the police are performing their duties regularly.
Umil vs. Ramos Dural Case: On Jan. 31, 1998, there were two
CAPCOM soldiers who were killed by Dural in a shootout in
Quezon City. On Feb. 1, Dural was arrested based on
information that he was a member of the sparrow unit. He was
arrested in a hospital while undergoing treatment. Only a few
hours had lapsed. Nazareno Case: Nazareno was charged with
the killing of a person which took place on Dec. 14, 1998. On
Dec. 28, he was arrested. 14 days had lapsed. The arrest of
Nazareno was based on the statement by an arrested suspect
who implicated Nazareno. In the 2 cases, have the crime just
freshly been committed? Did the officers have personal
knowledge of the facts to the crime to constitute the arrest as
valid? (Take note that there is a significant difference in the
time element)
Held: The court ruled the arrests as valid. In the Dural case, the
police got the identity of the killer at about 5am. The arrest was
made by 7am. The court said that the crime had just been
committed, or only 2 hours and 20 minutes had passed after
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
learning of the suspects identity. The authorities acted
immediately after having the knowledge. In this case, the court
ruled that personal knowledge can be made up of personal
knowledge of probable cause. It was not personal knowledge
of facts anymore.
Note: There seems to be an inconsistency here because the
personal knowledge given here in the Umil case is derived from
investigation and personal knowledge of probable cause.
Note also that it has been observed that personal knowledge in
non-political cases is usually derived from personal-sensed
perception. Also, the 14 days that passed in the Nazareno case
still considered that a crime was just freshly committed.
Continuing Offense Doctrine These are crimes which are not
instantaneous. Even without the requisites, this doctrine can
still be invoked in continuing offenses. An example of this is the
case of Garcia vs. Enrile. Under this doctrine, the offenses like
rebellion, insurrection, subversion, conspiracy, and proposal to
commit such crimes (Crimes against National Security), are
crimes in the mind. Meaning, you are in Flagrante Delicto at all
times as long as you are a rebel and you continue to follow that
belief, and you can be arrested at any time. Other examples of
this doctrine are squatting and tax evasion. This doctrine seems
to favor the accused at one point since he can only be charged
of one offense. On the other hand, the doctrine can also be
prejudicial to the accused since he can be arrested anytime in
his life.
Note: This doctrine does not clearly specify that it only applies
to crimes of national security. Therefore, there is a reason to
believe that this doctrine could be applicable to cases similar to
the above case. Remember the case where the accused stole
several roosters. The judgment was favorable to him since he
was convicted of a continuing crime because he had only one
criminal intent. But it also implied that he can be arrested even
after a long period of time, the crime being a continuous one.
For exam purposes only, if the case involves crimes against
national security, the Umil case shall be used the loose
interpretation of the time element.
People vs. Jayson At around 10:00 in the evening of March
16, 1991, while the police officers were patrolling in their car,
they received a radio message from their camp directing them
to proceed to the Ihaw-Ihaw on Bonifacio Street where there
had been a shooting. Accordingly, they proceeded to the place
and there saw the victim. Bystanders pointed to accused as the
one who had shot the victim. They then arrested accused.
Held: The warrantless arrest was valid. The policemen
summoned to the scene of the crime found the victim.
Accused was pointed to them as the assailant only moments
after the shooting. In fact accused-appellant had not gone very
far (only ten meters away from the Ihaw-Ihaw), although he
was then fleeing. The arresting officers thus acted on the basis
of personal knowledge of the death of the victim and of facts
indicating that accused was the assailant.
Page | 31
2014
People vs. Alvario The personal knowledge of the arresting
officers in the case at bar was culled from the information
supplied by the victim herself who pointed to Alvario as the
man who raped her at the time of his arrest.
People vs. Vialon At around 1:00 A.M., a Jell Transport bus
was going to Fairview with at least 30 passengers on board.
Upon reaching Ever Gotesco, the accused announced a heist.
One of the hold-up men poked an ice pick at the driver while
his cohorts started divesting passengers of their jewelries and
other personal belongings. One of the passengers, a policeman,
engaged the hold-up men in a shoot-out, but sustained gunshot
wounds that led to his death. The driver and other passengers
immediately proceeded to the Litex Police Detachment where
they gave their statement to the police.
Held: A warrantless arrest may be made by police officers
based on their personal knowledge culled from the victim
herself who pointed to the suspect as the assailant at the time
of the arrest. The arrest of appellants done immediately after
the incident was valid for it was made by the arresting officers
after the victims of the robbery pointed to appellants as the
malefactors. Accordingly, the search and seizure that ensued
are valid as incidental to a lawful arrest.
Posadas vs. Ombudsman The victim, a member of Sigma Rho
at the UP, was killed in a rumble between his fraternity and
another fraternity on December 8, 1994. The NBI went to U.P.
on December 12, or after four days, and, on the basis of the
supposed positive identification of two alleged eyewitnesses,
attempted to arrest the assailants. Petitioners objected on the
ground that the NBI did not have warrants of arrest with them.
As a result of their intervention, the assailants were not
arrested by the NBI on that day.
Held: The NBI agents in the case at bar tried to arrest the
assailants four days after the commission of the crime. They
had no personal knowledge of any fact which might indicate
that the two students were probably guilty of the crime. What
they had were the supposed positive identification of two
alleged eyewitnesses, which is insufficient to justify the arrest
without a warrant by the NBI.
People vs. Kimura In the morning of June 27, 1994, the police
officers launched a buy-bust operation. One of the accused was
able to escape. On June 29, 1994, the accused, while having
dinner with his friends at the Nippon Ichi Restaurant, was
arrested by another NARCOM group.
Held: The alleged crime happened on June 27, 1994 and
accused was arrested on June 29, 1994 or two days after the
subject incident. At the time he was arrested, he was at a
restaurant having dinner with a group of friends, thus, he was
not committing or attempting to commit a crime. Neither was
he an escaped prisoner whose arrest could be effected even
without a warrant. It bears stressing that none of the arresting
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
officers was present on the night of June 27 where accused
allegedly sold and transported marijuana and escaped; thus,
the arresting officers had no personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that accused committed the crime.
Test: Report of victim and witnesses generally sufficient
People vs. Cubcubin On 26 August 1997, the police found the
victim slumped dead on his tricycle. A tricycle driver told the
police that accused and the victim were last seen together
coming out of the Sting Cafe. A waitress in Sting Cafe gave a
description of Cubcubin and who had on a white t-shirt and
brown short pants. Another tricycle driver, who knew where
Cubcubin lived, led the police to Cubucubin's house. There, the
police identified themselves and informed Cubcubin that he
was being sought in connection with the shooting near the
cemetery. The officers asked permission to enter and look
around the house. Upon entering the house, one of the officers
noticed a white t-shirt. Upon close examination, he said that he
found it to be "bloodied." When he picked up the t-shirt, two
spent .38 caliber shells fell from it. They then took the t-shirt
and the two bullet shells, and asked Cubcubin to go with them
to Sting Cafe for purposes of identification.
Held: The arrest of Cubcubin was effected shortly after the
victim was killed. There was no "probable cause, however, for
the two arresting officer to believe that Cubcubin committed
the crime. Their knowledge of the circumstances from which
they allegedly inferred that Cubcubin was probably guilty was
based entirely on what they had been told by others. They
merely relied on information given to them by others.
People vs. Sequino The victims, while riding a motorcycle and
carrying money in a bag, was nearing the hacienda, when the
accused, armed with guns, tried to block their path and
ordered them to stop. The victims heard a gunshot and the
motorcycle toppled over and pinned them to the ground. The
accused took the money from the money bag, and fled on foot
with his co-accused. At the crime scene, the police found a
piece of paper, which was a bio-data sheet with the name
"Melvida, Nenito." After finding Melvida, the arresting officer
asked Melvida to go with him to the barangay captain's house.
The barangay captain was not home, so the officer took
Melvida to the police station instead and was investigated.
Held: Melvida's voluntarily going with the officer upon the
latter's "invitation" was a submission to the officer's custody,
and the latter believed that Melvida was a suspect in the
robbery charged herein; hence, Melvida was being held to
answer for the commission of the said offense. The officer had
no personal knowledge of facts indicating Melvida's guilt; at
best, he had an unreasonable suspicion. Melvida's arrest was
thus illegal.
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
Page | 32
2014
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 Fort 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?
Held: Yes.The two stringent requirements before a warrantless
arrest can be effected is present in this case.The police officers
were able to witness the pay-off which effectively
consummates the crime of kidnapping. They all saw the
accused take the money from the car trunk. Such knowledge
was then relayed to the other police officers stationed in Fort
Bonifacio where accused was expected to pass by. Personal
knowledge of facts must be based on probable cause, which
means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.
The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when, in the absence
of actual belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion that the
person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the
offense is based on actual facts, i.e., supported by
circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. A
reasonable suspicion, therefore, must be founded on probable
cause, coupled with good faith on the part of the peace officers
making the arrest. The arresting officers need not personally
witness the commission of the offense with their own eyes. It is
sufficient for the arresting team that they were monitoring the
pay-off for a number of hours long enough for them to be
informed that it was indeed the accused who was the
kidnapper. This is equivalent to personal knowledge based on
probable cause.
People v. Martinez, Dec. 13, 2010 An informant told the
police that he had information that a pot session was being
conducted by the accused inside a house. Without a warrant,
the police raided the place and siezed 115 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?
Held: No.The arrest of the accused was illegal. The police
officers proceeded to, and entered, the house of accused based
solely on the report of a concerned citizen that a pot session
was going on in said house. Although the SC has ruled in several
dangerous drugs cases that tipped information is sufficient
probable cause to effect a warrantless search, such rulings
cannot be applied in the case at bench because said cases
involve either a buy-bust operation or drugs in transit, basically,
circumstances other than the sole tip of an informer as basis
for the arrest. None of these drug cases involve police officers
entering a house without warrant to effect arrest and seizure
based solely on an informers tip. Furthermore, the arresting
officers had no probable cause to enter the house of accused in
order to arrest them. Also, the tip originated from a concerned
citizen who himself had no personal knowledge of the
information that was reported to the police.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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
1997, No. 10. A, while on board a passenger jeep one night,
was held up by a group of 3 teenagers who forcibly divested her
of her watch, necklace and wallet containing P11. That done,
the trio fled. 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 the
station and made to identify C and D. Was the arrest of C and D
valid?
a. yes, because the information given by the victim
constitutes probable cause
b. no, the Rules require 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
EXCLUSIONARY RULE
Art. III, Section 3(2). Any evidence obtained in violation of this
or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose
in any proceeding.
When the Exclusionary Rule can be invoked:
1. When the search is warrantless and it does not fall in any
of the 7 exceptions.
2. When there is a warrant but it was void.
Note:Return the objects, unless they are contraband. Items
confiscated which are illegal per se will not be returned but are
forfeited in favor of the government.
Stonehill vs. Diokno The court issued several warrants, 42 in
all, to search the houses and business addresses of Stonehill
and of the members of his board. Stonehill was known to
engage in various illegal activities. Unfortunately, all the
warrants were declared null and void for the reason that they
Page | 33
2014
were general warrants. The warrant stated that the objects to
seize were to be used as evidence for violations of the Tariff
Laws, Internal Revenue Laws, Central Bank Laws, RPC, and etc.
Held: The court ruled that evidences obtained from Stonehills
residences cannot be held admissible in any proceeding against
him. The court however, declared that evidences obtained
from his offices can be used against him. The reason for this is
section 2 can only be invoked by the person whose rights have
been invaded. Evidences obtained from the corporation, being
a different person and entity from Stonehill, can be held
admissible in court.
Provisions with exclusionary rule: Sec. 2, 3, 12 and 17
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
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION
Section 3(1).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.
d. public safety or order requires otherwise as
determined by the President.
Privacy of communications may be restricted:
1. Upon lawful order of the court (court) The court can
order it in the manner provided under Sec. 3 of RA 4200 or
the Anti Wire-tapping Law.You apply before the judge and
prove that there is probable cause, and the judge can
order the conduct of wiretapping
2. When prescribed by law as public order and safety requires
(congress has to pass a law)
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
It applies to new of modes of communications such as text
messages, as it is also a form of communication.
RA No. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Law) punishes interception
and recording of conversation without the consent of both
parties. 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.
Alejano vs. Cabuay ISAFP officials opened and read the letters
handed by the detainees to one of the petitioners for mailing.
The letters were not in a sealed envelope but simply folded
because there were no envelopes in the detention center. Can
letters of detainees or convicts be opened and read? Is Sec. 3
available to them? Yes! The opening and reading of the
detainees letters did not violate their right to privacy of
communication. The letters were not in a sealed envelope. The
inspection of the folded letters is a valid measure as it serves
the same purpose as the opening of sealed letters for the
inspection of contraband. The letters alleged to have been read
by the ISAFP authorities were not confidential letters between
the detainees and their lawyers.The petitioner who received
the letters from the detainees was merely acting as the
detainees personal courier and not as their counsel when he
received the letters for mailing. Since the letters were not
confidential communication between the detainees and their
lawyers, the officials of the ISAFP could read the letters. If the
letters are marked confidential communication between the
detainees and their lawyers, the detention officials should not
read the letters but only open the envelopes for inspection in
the presence of the detainees. This is in view of the lawyer-
client privilege.
Ople vs. Torres On December 12, 1996, then President
Ramos issued AO No. 308 entitled Adoption of a National
Computerized Identification Reference System. The AO seeks
to have all Filipino citizens and foreign residents to have a
Population Reference Number (PRN) generated by the NSO
through the use of Biometrics Technology. The AO was
questioned by Ople on the ground that it violates the citizens
right to privacy.
Held: The AO violates the right to privacy since its main
purpose is to provide a common reference number to
establish a linkage among concerned agencies through the use
of Biometrics Technology. The data may be gathered for gainful
and useful government purposes; but the existence of this vast
reservoir of personal information constitutes a covert invitation
to misuse, a temptation that may be too great for some of our
authorities to resist. The AO does not even tell in clear and
unequivocal terms how the information gathered shall be
handled. It does not provide who shall control and access the
data and under what circumstances and for what purpose.
Page | 34
2014
These factors are essential to safeguard the privacy and
guaranty the integrity of the information.
Sabio vs. Gordon Senator Santiago introduced Senate Res.
No. 455 directing an inquiry in aid of legislation on the
anomalous losses incurred in various government entities due
to the alleged improprieties in their operations. Gordon wrote
Chairman Sabio of the PCGG inviting him to be one of the
resource persons in the public meeting to be jointly conducted
to deliberate on Senate Res. No. 455. Sabio and other
commissioners of the PCGG declined the invitation. Sabio was
arrested and brought to the Senate premises where he was
detained.
Held: In evaluating a claim for violation of the right to privacy, a
court must determine whether a person has exhibited a
reasonable expectation of privacy and, if so, whether that
expectation has been violated by unreasonable government
intrusion. In this case, Sabio was invited in the Senates public
hearing. Obviously, the inquiry focuses on petitioners acts
committed in the discharge of their duties as officers and
directors of the said corporations. Consequently, they have no
reasonable expectation of privacy over matters involving their
offices in a corporation where the government has interest.
Certainly, such matters are of public concern and over which
the people have the right to information. This goes to show
that the right to privacy is not absolute where there is an
overriding compelling state interest. Hence, the right of the
people to access information on matters of public concern
prevails over the right to privacy of financial transactions.
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 vs. CA Ortanez filed a complaint for
annulment of marriage against his wife.Among the exhibits
offered by private respondent were three (3) cassette tapes of
alleged telephone conversations between his wife and
unidentified persons. These tape recordings were made and
obtained when private respondent allowed his friends from the
military to wiretap his home telephone.
Held: The recordings of the telephone conversations are
inadmissible in evidence. RA 4200 expressly makes such tape
recordings inadmissible in evidence. Absent a clear showing
that both parties to the telephone conversations allowed the
recording of the same, the inadmissibility of the subject tapes is
mandatory under RA 4200.
Zulueta vs. CA Zulueta entered the clinic of her husband, a
doctor of medicine, and forcibly opened the drawers and
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
cabinet of her husband's clinic and took documents consisting
of greeting cards, cancelled check, diaries, passport, and
photographs with his alleged paramours. The documents and
papers were seized for use in evidence in a case for legal
separation and for disqualification from the practice of
medicine which Zulueta had filed against her husband.
Held: The documents in question are inadmissible in evidence.
The constitutional injunction declaring "the privacy of
communication and correspondence to be inviolable" is no less
applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself
aggrieved by her husband's infidelity) who is the party against
whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only
exception to the prohibition in the constitution is if there is a
"lawful order from the court or which public safety or order
require otherwise, as prescribed by law." Any violation of this
provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible "for any
purpose in any proceeding." A person, by contracting
marriage, does not shed her/his integrity or her/his right to
privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is
ever available to him or to her.
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?
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. 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
Page | 35
2014
b. no, because while a rule the letters of detainees may
be opened, a letter to ones 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
As 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 Wire-Tapping Law. The tape was
recorded without the consent of other party.
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. Thus, 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
husbands 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?
a. yes, because one cannot invoke the Bill of Rights
against a private person, in this case ones spouse
b. yes, because by entering into a contract of marriage,
one waives his right to privacy with respect to his
spouse
c. no, because there was no court order or a law
authorizing the seizure of the documentsZulueta case!
Note that you cannot invoke the Bill of Rights against a
private person. However, it must be noted that (1) by
entering into a contract of marriage, one does not
waive his right to privacy with respect to his spouse;
and (2) this doctrine applies only if the suit is between
spouses, in view of the fact that the Bill of Rights can
be invoked only against state. Sec. 3 is still covered by
the exclusionary rule.
d. 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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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.
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.
Is the evidence admissible?
Yes! Noteworthy is the fact that the Anti Wire-tapping law
applies even to private persons, not only states. It does not
violate the Anti Wire-tapping 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.
Please take note that the right to privacy to communications
may be limited by law:
1. Anti-wiretapping law (RA No. 4200)
2. Anti-terrorism law (RA No. 9372)
RA No. 9372,Section 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 a police officer, you can apply with the RTC or
MTC (because they are authorized to issue search warrants) to
tap the private conversations of terrorist groups.
Section 27. Judicial Authorization Required to Examine Bank
Deposits, Accounts, and Records. - The provisions of Republic
Act No. 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 that: (1) a person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or, conspiracy to commit
terrorism, (2) of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of persons; and (3) of a
member of such judicially declared and outlawed
Page | 36
2014
organization, association, or group of persons, may authorize
in writing any police or law enforcement officer and the
members of his/her team duly authorized in writing by the
anti-terrorism council 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.
How is this limitation balanced? It is now balanced with the
introduction of the Writ of habeas data.
A. M. No. 08-1-16-SC (The Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data),
SECTION 1. Habeas Data. 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.
If the abovementioned persons violate your right to privacy, as
when they got information about you without a court order,
you file a petition for the issuance of a writ of habeas data to
protect your 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 attacking 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 of writ of 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.She should go to
the NLRC as her cause of action has reference with
employment.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Section 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.
Five rights protected:
1. Speech
2. Expression
3. Press
4. Assembly
5. Petition
FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION AND OF THE PRESS
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. These are political rights as
they are enjoyed in order to participate in affairs of the
government.
Restraints on Expression:
1. Prior Restraint A government restriction on forms of
expression, in advance of actual publication or dissemination;
Forms of prior restraint: (1) Censorship; (2) Closures; (3) Court
injunctions; (4) System of Issuance of Permits and Licenses
2. Subsequent Punishment 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 (2008) Do press statements of high
officials threatening the press with prosecution (if they will
keep on airing Garcilliano tapes), even if not reduced to formal
orders or directives, forms of prior restraint? Yes! Even press
statements of high government officials can be considered as
form of prior restraint since it relates to their exercise of official
functions. It threatens people with punishment or closure of
establishment.
General Rule: The exercise of prior restraint bears a
presumption of unconstitutionality. It is because freedom of
expression is important to society. There should be public
debate on issues. Hence, any restriction to the same is
presumed illegal.
Exceptions: (when presumption of unconstitutionality does not
apply burden of proof is on government to prove
constitutionality)
a. In times of war
b. When the COMELEC exercises its power under Sec. 4, Art.
XI (c) regulation of franchise of mass media during
election period. Power is vested by the Constitution to the
COMELEC
c. When the restriction is content-neutral
Content-Neutral vs. Content-Based
Page | 37
2014
Content-Neutral restriction imposed not on the content of
the speech, but on the time, mode or manner of the exercise of
the right. There is no presumption of unconstitutionalityand a
deferential standard of review is required.
Intermediate review Is the restriction reasonable?Example:
Do not write graffiti on the wall. You are not restricting the
right to make graffiti but only the manner. You are not being
prohibited from expressing yourself. Express it some other
manner. You write it somewhere else but not on the wall.
Content-based restriction imposed on content; 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.
Example: Prohibition on air interviews involving BIFF. 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,
b. needs to be subjected to the clear and present danger
test applies only if it is content neutral
c. 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
Facial Challenge vs. As-applied Challenge Distinguished from
an as-applied challenge which considers only extant facts
affecting real litigants, a facial invalidation is an examination of
the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on
the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the
assumption or prediction that its very existence may cause
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally
protected speech or activities.
Challenges to restriction on free speech:
1. Overbreadth a law is overbroad which sweeps
unnecessarily broadly and invade an area of protected
freedom
2. Vagueness a law which lacks comprehensive standard so
that people would differ as to its meaning
OverbreadthDoctrine A law is overbroad when a
governmental purpose to control or prevent activities
constitutionally subject to state regulations is sought to be
achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and
invade the area of protected freedom. It applies both to free
speech cases and penal statutes. However, a facial challenge on
the ground of overbreadth can only be made in free speech
cases because of its chilling effect upon protected speech. A
facial challenge on the ground of overbreadth is not applicable
to penal statutes, because in general they have an in terrorem
effect. (Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs.
Anti-Terrorism Council)
Note: The word overbreath should read overbreadth but inevitably incidental to the doing of the criminalconduct
because breath has no limit especially if it is bad breath.
Void for Vagueness Doctrine A statute is vague when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence
that guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It
applies to both free speech cases and penal statutes. However,
a facial challenge on the ground of vagueness can be made only
in free speech cases. It does not apply to penal statutes.
(Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. vs. Anti-
Terrorism Council)
How is the doctrine of vagueness differentiated from the
doctrine of overbreadth? The confusion apparently stems from
the interlocking relation of the overbreadth and vagueness
doctrines as grounds for a facial or as-applied challenge against
a penal statute (under a claim of violation of due process of
law) or a speech regulation (under a claim of abridgement of
the freedom of speech and cognate rights). To be sure, the
doctrine of vagueness and the doctrine of overbreadth do not
operate on the same plane. 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. As distinguished from the vagueness
Page | 38
2014
doctrine, the overbreadth doctrine assumes that individuals
will understand what a statute prohibits and will accordingly
refrain from that behavior, even though some of it is protected.
(Southern Hemispere v. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 5)
Southern Hemispere v. Anti-Terrorism Council (2010) In
insisting on a facial challenge on the invocation that the law
penalizes speech, petitioners contendthat the element of
unlawful demand in the definition of terrorism must
necessarily be transmittedthrough some form of expression
protected by the free speech clause. The argument does not
persuade.What the law seeks to penalize is conduct, not
speech. Before a charge for terrorism may be filed underRA
9372, there must first be a predicate crime actually committed
to trigger the operation of the keyqualifying phrases in the
other elements of the crime, including the coercion of the
government to accedeto an unlawful demand. Given the
presence of the first element, any attempt at singling out
orhighlighting the communicative component of the
prohibition cannot re-categorize the unprotectedconduct into a
protected speech. Petitioners notion on the transmission of
message is entirely inaccurate,as it unduly focuses on just one
particle of an element of the crime. Utterances not elemental
alter neither the intent of the law to punish socially harmful
conduct nor the essence of thewhole act as conduct and not
speech. This holds true a fortiori in the present case where the
expressionfigures only as an inevitable incident of making the
element of coercion perceptible. In other words:Certain kinds
of speech have been treated as unprotected conduct, because
they merely evidence aprohibited conduct. Since speech is not
involved here, the Court cannot heed the call for a
facialanalysis.
If the government intends to restrict freedom of speech, it
must in such a manner that no other rights will be violated,
affected or burdened.
Examples 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 their 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 over his private
property. Hence, overbroad restriction!
ABS-CBN vs. COMELECThe COMELEC issued a Resolution
prohibiting exit polls on the premise that it will affect the
canvassing credibility of the COMELEC. Held: It is
unconstitutional for being overbroad. COMELEC cannot
prohibit the same but may only regulate (freedom of speech). It
is unduly oppressive to the right of expression. It may regulate
that only credible pollsters will conduct exit polls.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Examples of vague law:
Ople vs. Torres There was this AO involving the national ID
system, but such does not involve the right to free speech.
However, SC ruled that it was vague because it put no
parameters in the conduct of storing information of persons,
and as to what data should be stored in the system. The AO did
not also specify as to who are given access to the information.
Police may endup using the information to black mail people
and take advantage of the ID system.
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. It does not define what loitering is, leaving
authorities unbridled 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
three or more people 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 others. Also the
CSC circular prohibiting government employees from wearing
too much jewelry is vague, as it does not specifically define
what is too much jewelry. Similarly, the prohibition from
wearing mini-skirts is vague as it does not define what a mini-
skirt is. How short? LOL
Southern Hemishphere vs. Anti-Terrorism Council 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.
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.
Page | 39
2014
This was premised on an American jurisprudence wherein a
man was prosecuted for criminal offense for wearing a t-shirt
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 punish you for exercising the right
of expression but based on your conduct. Note the distinction
of conduct and expression!
Tests on Restrictions: (on freedom of expression to determine
whether or not 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.
Example: shouting fire or a bomb scare in an airport.
In RE: Declaratory Relief RE Constitutionality of RA 4880,
Gonzales vs. COMELEC Two new sections were included in
the Revised Election Code, prohibiting the too early nomination
of candidates and limiting the period of election campaign or
partisan political activity. Gonzales and Cabigao alleged that
the enforcement of said RA 4880 would prejudice their basic
rights, such as their freedom of speech, their freedom of
assembly and their right to form associations or societies for
purposes not contrary to law, and that therefore said act is
unconstitutional. May the freedom of expression be limited?
Held: Freedom of expression is not absolute. It would be too
much to insist that at all times and under all circumstances it
should remain unfettered and unrestrained. Two tests that may
supply an acceptable criterion for permissible restriction are
the "clear and present danger" rule and the "dangerous
tendency" rule. The Court is of the view that no
unconstitutional infringement exists insofar as the formation of
organizations, associations, clubs, committees, or other groups
of persons for the purpose of soliciting votes or undertaking
any campaign or propaganda or both for or against a candidate
or party is restricted and that the prohibition against giving,
soliciting, or receiving contribution for election purposes, either
directly or indirectly, is equally free from constitutional
infirmity. The other acts, likewise deemed included in "election
campaign" or "partisan political activity" tax to the utmost the
judicial predisposition to view with sympathy legislative efforts
to regulate election practices deemed inimical, because of their
collision with the preferred right of freedom of expression. The
scope of the curtailment to which freedom of expression may
be subjected is not foreclosed by the recognition of the
existence of a clear and present danger of a substantive evil,
the debasement of the electoral process.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
The clear and present danger rule has been applied in the
following cases:
a. Criminal prosecutions for opposition to war
b. Statutes penalizing the advocacy of the overthrow of the
government by force or violence
c. Attacks of courts or judges
d. Picketing
e. Regulation of prison inmates access to newspapers,
periodical, etc.
f. Incitement to crime
g. Breach of the peace or disorderly conduct
h. Requirement of education officials that public school
students should salute the flag.
By contrast, the clear and present danger rule has been held
not to be applicable in the following cases:
a. Antitrust actions
b. Obscenity
c. Libel
d. Statutes regulating conduct of labor union affairs
e. Statutes governing the use of school property for non-
school purposes.
f. Demonstrations in an inappropriate place, such as a
courthouse.
In later years, this doctrine has been superseded by its own
offspring, the weighting-of-interest standard also known as
the balance-of-interest test.
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.
The test rests on the theory that it is the Courts function in
cases before it, when itfinds public interests served by
legislation on the one hand, and guaranteedfreedoms affected
by it on the other, to balance one against the other and to
arriveat a judgment, where the greater weight shall be placed.
If on balance it appearsthat the public interest served by
restrictive legislation is of such a character that itoutweighs the
interest served by freedom, then the Court will find the
legislationvalid.
Instances where SC used the balancing of interest test:
1. Lagunzad vs. Soto Vda. de Gonzales This involved the
filmmaking of the life of Moises Padilla. Lagunzad, a
newspaperman, began the production of the movie entitled
"The Moises Padilla Story." The family asked for royalty fees
but Lagunzad refused the same for the reason that Moises
Padilla is a public figure; hence,they are only exercising their
right of expression by portraying the life of a public figure. The
parties then executed a Licensing Agreement.(Right to Privacy
vs. Freedom of Expression)
Page | 40
2014
Held: The right of freedom of expression occupies a preferred
position in the "hierarchy of civil liberties." It is not, however,
without limitations. The prevailing doctrine is that the clear and
present danger rule is such a limitation. Another criterion for
permissible limitation on freedom of speech and of the press,
which includes such vehicles of the mass media as radio,
television and the movies, is the "balancing-of-interests test."
The principle "requires a court to take conscious and detailed
consideration of the interplay of interests observable in a given
situation or type of situation." Herein, the interests observable
are the right to privacy asserted by Soto vda. de Gonzales and
the right of freedom of expression invoked by Lagunzad. Taking
into account the interplay of those interests, the Court holds
that under the particular circumstances presented, and
considering the obligations assumed in the Licensing
Agreement entered into by Lagunzad, the validity of such
agreement will have to be upheld particularly because the
limits of freedom of expression are reached when expression
touches upon matters of essentially private concern.
2. Ayer vs. Capulong Hal McElroy, an Australian film-maker,
wanted to join the Peoples Power Revolution in a movie
entitled The 4-day Revolution. The movie was a mixture of
fiction and history to that in addition to a love story, prominent
personalities, like Enrile, had to be portrayed. While the
production was in progress, Enrile argued that the film violated
his right to privacy.
Held: The SC held that the freedom of expression protects not
only citizens of the Philippines but also foreigners in our
country. Sec. 4 also extends to commercial media. Even if they
did it for profit, they are also protected. The reason is that most
media is privately owned and operates for profit. To prohibit
would render Sec. 4 useless. As to the contention of Enrile that
it violated his right to privacy, the SC ruled that the events that
were portrayed were of public interest and Enrile is also a
public figure. And because of this, the SC is constrained to rule
that his right to privacy shall give way to freedom of
expression. Only the balancing of interest was used by the SC in
deciding.
Distinction between the Ayer case and the Lagunzad case:
a. In the Ayer case, the movie was a historical portrayal of the
EDSA revolution and did not intrude into the private life of
Enrile. What was portrayed only was the role of Enrile played in
the revolution, whereas, in the Lagunzad case, the movie
intruded into the private life of the Padilla family as it portrays
the life of Moises Padilla.
b. The Ayer case constitutes a prior restraint, but in the
Lagunzad case, this is an ordinary case of enforcement of
contract. There was no restraint, but only an action for
payment of royalty. In the Balancing of Interests Rule, there is
no fixed formula for deciding. The Court will look at the
particular factors in order to come out with a decision. The
court will just examine all facts and evidences.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
3. Contempt by SCA person criticizes the SC, so the latter
holds that person in contempt using the balancing of interest.
Usually, SC uses this test in punishing people for contempt in
most criticism leveled against the Court. While a person has the
right of freedom of expression, the SC also has a right to proper
administration of justice. Hence, the SC would always prevail
and they could easily hold people in contempt for criticisms
leveled against them.
However, SC uses the clear and present danger rule to
determine whether or not 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.
Obscenity those which are offensive to chastity and decency
or delicacy, or those that deals with sex in a manner appealing
to prurient (lewd) interest, and those which have the tendency
to corrupt the minds of the people. (Limited only to Sexual
Obscenity)
Test to apply if a work is Obscene: (Miller vs. California)
1. Whether the average person applying contemporary
community standards would find that the work taken in its
entirety appeals to prurient interest.
2. Whether the work depicts or describes in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable law.
3. Whether the work taken as a whole lacks a serious literary,
artistic, or scientific value.
Note: All of the tests are still vague. These tests are a danger to
the freedom of artistic expression. The determination of the
meaning of Obscenity shall be done on a case-to-case basis.
The standard to apply is usually the Clear and Present Danger
Rule.
Pita vs. CA The City of Manila conducted an anti-smut
campaign. Pursuant to it, the police confiscated copies of
magazines and other publications from dealers, distributors
and newsstands. There was no court order authorizing the
seizure. The seized materials were later burned by the City
officials.
Held: The court held that before confiscating alleged obscene
materials, the authorities must: (1) first obtain a search
warrant; (2) it must be the judge, not the policeman who will
determine what is obscene and what is not (3) the warrant can
only be granted if there is a clear and present danger of a
substantive evil. Obscene materials cannot just be considered
as a nuisance per se. There must be judicial intervention
because it is a judicial function to decide. Hence, the procedure
adopted by the City of Manila was illegal.
Can you penalize people who are showing or selling obscene
materials? The city can pass an ordinance penalizing it.
Page | 41
2014
However, the State cannot pass a law preventing people from
watching bold movies privately inside their own house.
Libel Vasquez vs. CA Vasquez and other families from
Tondo Foreshore Area went to see then NHA GM Lito Atienza
regarding their complaint against Barangay Chairman Olmedo.
After their meeting, Vasquez and his companions were met and
interviewed by newspaper reporters. The next day, excerpts of
the news article appeared in a newspaper. In the article,
published were supposed allegations by Vasquez that
(1)nakipagsabwatan umano si Chairman Olmedo upang
makamkam ang may 14 na lote ng lupa; (2) ang mga lupa ay
ilegal na patituluhan, nagawa ito ni Olmedo sa
pakikipagsabwatan sa mga project manager at legal officers ng
NHA; (3) kasangkot din umano si Olmedo sa mga ilegal na
pasugalan sa naturang lugar at maging sa mga nakawan ng
manok. Olmedo filed a complaint for libel.
Held: Even if the defamatory statement is false, no liability can
attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public official
concerned proves that the statement was made with actual
malice that is, with knowledge that it was false or with
reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. A rule placing
on Vasquez the burden of showing the truth of allegations of
official misconduct and/or good motives and justifiable ends
for making such allegations would infringe on the
constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression. Such a rule
would deter citizens from performing their duties as members
of a self-governing community. Without free speech and
assembly, discussions of our most abiding concerns as a nation
would be stifled.
Note that if it is against a private individual, no constitutional
issue would arise because there is no public interest involved in
maligning a private individual. Note also 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. If the libelous
statement relates to official functions (or it relates to a crime),
truth is a defense. Example: When you 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 that (1) it was made with knowledge of its falsity, or (2)
there was reckless disregard whether it is true or not.
Borjal vs. CA The reverse presumption applies not only to
public officials, but also to a public figure, such as actors,
church leaders, etc. Even assuming ex-gratia argumenti that
one would not qualify as a public figure, it does not necessarily
follow that he could not validly be the subject of a public
comment even if he was not a public official or at least a public
figure, for he could be, as long as he was involved in a public
issue.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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.
Re: Letter of UP Law (2011) The ponencia of Associate
Justice Mariano del Castillo in Vinuya vs. Executive Secretary
was promulgated. Subsequently, counsel for the Malaya Lolas
filed a MR, where they posited for the first time their charge of
plagiarism as one of the grounds for reconsideration of the
Vinuya decision. Dean Leonen of UP submitted a copy of the
Statement of the UP Law Faculty to the SC. The SC then
issued a Show Cause Resolution, directing the UP law
professors, who are members of the Bar, to show cause why
they should not be disciplined for violations of the Code of
Professional Responsibility.
Held: The Show Cause Resolution does not deny respondents
their freedom of expression. It was the manner of the criticism
and the contumacious language by which respondents have
expressed their opinion in favor of the petitioners in the said
pending case. The facultys less than objective comments run
contrary to their obligation as law professors and officers of the
Court to be the first to uphold the dignity and authority of this
Court, to which they owe fidelity according to the oath they
have taken as attorneys, and not to promote distrust in the
administration of justice. The SC has held that the right to
criticize the courts and judicial officers must be balanced
against the equally primordial concern that the independence
of the Judiciary be protected from due influence or
interference. In cases where the critics are not only citizens but
members of the Bar, jurisprudence has repeatedly affirmed the
authority of the SC to discipline lawyers whose statements
regarding the courts and fellow lawyers, whether judicial or
extrajudicial, have exceeded the limits of fair comment and
common decency.
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 there actual malice in Stars report?Are
defendants liable for damages?
The burden belongs 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 is 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:
Page | 42
2014
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
c. 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 womens and childrens 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 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.
Guidelines to follow:
Rule 1 When two private individuals have conflicting claims
under the Bill of Rights, the Balancing of Interest Rule is used.
Rule 2 When suit is between a private individual and the
government, courts usually use the Clear and Present Danger
Rule.
RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE AND PETITION THE
GOVERNMENT FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES
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)
Procedures to Hold a Rally:
1. Must apply for a permit;
2. Must contain the date, time, and place of activity;
3. Permit is for the place;
4. Authorities can modify it if there is a Clear and Present
Danger;
5. If it is on private property, consent of the owner is
sufficient.
The permit must be filed:
1. At the Mayors office
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
2. At least 4 days before the activity
3. And acted within 2 days by the office (otherwise, it is
deemed granted by the Mayor)
Note: Whatever the result, decisions regarding the permission
of the rally are appealable in Court. Ideally, the test of a lawful
assembly should be the purpose for which it is held, regardless
of the auspices under which it is organized. Untoward incidents
during the assembly do not make it unlawful.
Bayan v. Ermita:
1. Is BP 880 constitutional?Public Assembly Act requires the
securing of permit before holding protests or demonstrations.
It is constitutional! It is content-neutral. It only restricts the
manner and mode of exercise of the right to hold
demonstration.
2. Is CPR constitutional?Calibrated pre-emptive response
isunconstitutional! Note that under BP 880, police are required
to make maximum tolerance in responding to demonstrations.
3. What if there is no freedom park? SC observed that LGUs
were not conforming to the mandate to put up freedom parks.
Hence, in its decision, SC mandated all LGUs to establish their
own within 60 days from the decision. Otherwise, all
government plazas will be considered freedom parks and
people can hold rallies in such places without the need of
securing permits 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 applied for a
permit three days before the intended rally, there is a
presumption that it has been granted. So the burden to prove
that it was not granted belongs to the authorities.
4. Who has the burden of proving that there is no
permit?The burden that it was not granted belongs to the
authorities.
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 the holding of a rally only in Luneta and not in
Mendiola, as what was applied for. That is unconstitutional!
You can only restrict the right, or change the terms of the
permit or venue of the rally, if you are able to establish that
there is a clear and present danger it is the standard that shall
be used to restrict or change the terms of the permit. Thus,
Atienza can only modify the terms of the application on the
ground that there is clear and present danger.
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?
a. yes, because as chief executive he has discretion
whether or not to grant the application
Page | 43
2014
b. yes, because the right to assembly is not an absolute
constitutional right but is subject to restriction
c. 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
d. no, because the constitutional right is not subject to
any limitation by local authorities
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.
While it is true that you have the right to peaceful assembly,
the students also have their right to education. It said that you
exercise your right in such a way that it will not affect the right
of the students. Hence, the SC validated the dismissal of the
teachers.
2006, No. II. 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.
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
SMs 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? No. It is content-
neutral (regulatory)
4. Assuming that despite the denial of the application for a
permit,its members held a rally prompting the police to arrest
them. Are the arrests without judicial warrants lawful? No.
Only the leader or organizer of the rally without a permit may
be arrested without a warrant while the members may not be
arrested, as they cannot be punished or held criminally liable
for attending the rally.
2007, VII. Batas Pambansa 880, the Public Assembly Law of
1985, regulates the conduct of all protest rallies in the
Philippines.
(a) 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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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. You may answer that because it is
without permit, the police can stop them once they entered
Manila. Also, Manila police may exercise maximum tolerance
by asking the protesters to disperse and if they refused, the
public assembly may be dispersed peacefully. You may also
answer that it was not a valid exercise of police power because
even without a permit, the law does not provide for outright
stopping of the march if the demonstrators, for example, were
marching peacefully without impeding traffic.
(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 BP 880, caravan is covered as exercise of public
assembly. While the protesters possess the right to freely
express themselves, their actuations may pose a safety risk to
other motorists;thus, may be the subject of regulation.The
police may undertake measures to prevent any hazard to other
motorists but not altogether prevent the exercise of the right.
While the protesters maybe asked to remove the banners and
prevent them from using the expressway as a venue for their
march, the police may not prevent them from proceeding to
where they might want to go.
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. 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?
Page | 44
2014
Wearing black t-shirts is only an exercise of free expression, not
necessarily freedom of assembly. It is not covered by this
section. Wearing of black shirts was neither tumultuous nor
disruptive. Thus, the substantive evil which the school
authorities were trying to suppress did not even occur. The
prohibition imposed by the circular violates freedom from prior
restraint while the threat of expulsion by the school authorities
violates freedom from subsequent liability.
Which one is an example of a Hecklers Veto?
a. Veto by the mayor of an ordinance penalizing the
writing of graffiti on the wall
b. Veto by the mayor of an ordinance designating a
freedom park where rallies without permit may be
held
c. Refusal by the mayor to issue a rally permit on the
ground that the applicant advocates views contrary to
that of the government
d. 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 for 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.
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Section 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.
Two parts:
1. Non-Establishment Clause
2. Free Exercise Clause
1. NON- ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
The non-establishment clause prohibits legislation which aid
one religion, aid all religions, or prefers one over another. The
idea is that the State shall be neutral with respect to all
religions. It applies to all governmental acts that seem to favor
one religion over another. It should allow religion to grow in its
own merits.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Related Provisions in the Constitution:
1. Art. VI, Sec. 29 (2). No public money or property shall be
appropriated, applied, paid, or employed, directly or
indirectly, for the use, benefit, or support of any sect,
church, denomination, sectarian institution, or system of
religion, or of any priest, preacher, minister, or other
religious teacher, or dignitary as such, except when such
priest, preacher, minister, or dignitary is assigned to the
armed forces, or to any penal institution, or government
orphanage or leprosarium.
2. Art. II, Sec. 6. The separation of Church and State shall be
inviolable.
Matters prohibited by the Non-Establishment Clause:
1. State cannot organize a church
2. State cannot promote one religion
3. State cannot impose taxes to support a religious activity
4. State cannot participate in the affairs of a religious
organization
Exceptions to the Non-Establishment Clause:
1. Art. VI, Sec. 28(3) exempts religious property from tax
2. Art. VI, Sec. 29(2) authorizes payment of public funds to
priests in the Armed Forces, any penal institution, or
government orphanage or leprosarium.
3. Art. XIV, Sec. 3(3) under certain conditions, allows religious
instructions in public schools.
Lemon Test(Lemon vs. Kurtzman) Tests for allowable aid to
religion:Whether it violates the non-establishment clause (all
must concur)
1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose; It has
no religious purpose; if no secular legislative purpose, it
violates the Non-Establishment Clause.
2. The principal or primary effect is neither one that advances
or inhibits religion; While other governmental acts may
have the incidental effect of advancing or inhibiting one
religion, the primary and principal purpose should not. If it
does, it violates the constitutional provision
3. It must not foster excessive government entanglement
with religion. ? If so, it violates the Non-Establishment
Clause. Factors:
a. Character and purpose of institution benefited
b. Nature of aid the state provides
c. Resulting relationship between government and
religious authority
Note here that these are not factors which are employed in
some balancing test, but rather, these are all requirements
which must be met for a law to pass review. There must be a
secular purpose, the primary effect must not be the aid or
inhibition of religion, and there must be no excessive
entanglement. If any of these requirements are not met, the
law violates the Non-Establishment Clause.
Page | 45
2014
Aglipay vs. Ruiz The government appropriated P60T for
design of new stamps which commemorated the 33rd
Eucharistic Congress in Manila. The design was the Map of the
Philippines. Monsignor Aglipay petitioned to stop the making
and sale of the stamps. He reasoned that this was a violation of
Section 5.
Held: The court ruled that the purpose of the stamp was to
attract tourist to the Philippines, not for the purpose of
promoting religion. The benefiting by the Catholic Church was
only incidental to the main purpose or the principal effect. It
was not intended to be the primary beneficiary. The stamp
emphasized Manila (as shown by the design), not the event or
a particular religion.
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. 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)
c. requirement of religious test (religious test clause)
d. intramural religious dispute
1. Manosca vs. Court of Appeals The expropriation of the
lot to preserve it as the birthplace of the founder of the
religious sect because of his role in Philippine history and
culture is for a public purpose, because public use is no longer
restricted to the traditional concept.
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:x x x (b) that those to
be benefited by the expropriation would only be the members
of the religious sect of its founder. Resolve the opposition.
Held: it does not violate the non-establishment clause.
1. The legislative purpose is to promote culture, and honor
the contribution of Manalo to our culture.
2. The principal effect is to enrich our culture which has
nothing to do with religion, though the incidental effect
might favor Iglesia.
3. There is no excessive entanglement of the government in
view of the fact that the property will be managed by the
national historical institute. (passes the Lemon Test)
2. Iglesia ni Cristo vs. CA The Iglesias TV program kept on
attacking the catholic church. MTRCB ordered for the halt of
the program.Held: Issuance of TRO will amount to favoring the
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Catholics which will violate the Non-Establishment Clause. Do
not interfere with 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 Quran provisions which condemned homosexuality. It
was impugned. Held: The SC said it violated the Non-
Establishment Clause. By applying the Quran provisions, you
are favoring said religion or its morals.
1992, No. 10 (Lemon Test): Recognizing the value of education
in making the Philippine labor market attractive to foreign
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?
a. yes, because the subsidy does not violate any law
b. no, because the subsidy has no secular legislative
purpose making the Philippine labor market
attractive to foreign investment
c. no, because the principal effect of the subsidy
promotes religion the effect is to promote quality
education and Philippine economy
d. no, because it can create entanglement between state
and religion because 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
equipment, it cannot create excessive government
entanglement since such equipment cannot be used for
religious 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.
But remember that the test whether a law is vague or
overbroad should be applied in free speech statutes only.
Without applying such doctrines, you may argue that the giving
of scholarship vouchers to students is valid because under
Section 2(3), Article XIV of the Constitution requires the State
Page | 46
2014
to establish a system of subsidies to deserving students in both
public and private schools.
2. FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE
Two-fold Aspect of the Free Exercise Clause:
1. The freedom to believe, which is absolute; and
2. The freedom to act, which may be restricted, in
accordance with ones beliefs
Freedom to act in accordance with ones belief has two
parts:
1. The State cannot compel a person to do something which
his religion prohibits.
2. The State cannot prohibit a person from doing something
which his religion commands.
Test: Clear and Present Danger
Freedom to believe It is not subject to 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 It is subject to the limitation by the Congress
by means of a law. Exercise of police power is a valid limitation
to the freedom to act. Example: No law can be passed
punishing one who believes in the devil; or one cannot be
prosecuted for believing in murder or raping other people.But
once you start to convert your belief into act, you can now be
prosecuted.
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
c. the religious test clause
d. intramural religious dispute
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.
[MTRCBs act is:
a. proper, because freedom to believe is subject to the
police power of the state
b. proper, because freedom to act may be restricted by
the state airing programs is already an action; thus, it
can be restricted
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
c. improper, because freedom to believe is absolute
d. improper, because of separation of church and state
1. Ebralinag vs. Division The DECS issued a circular requiring
all students to sing the national anthem, salute the national
flag, and recite the oath of allegiance. This was impugned by
the students, members of the Jehovas Witness, for being
violative to the freedom of religion as they are prohibited them
from doing so.
Held: The SC held in favor of the students and exempted them
from the mandate of the circular in view of their invocation of
freedom of religion. The Court ruled that there was no clear
and present danger posed if they were exempted from the
requirement. There was no danger that they will produce
disloyal citizens if the government allowed a religious
exemption. These are not only the ways of promoting loyalty to
the government. However, the Court did not rule that the law
is unconstitutional. It only exempted the Jehovahswitnesses
from the requirement. The Court also required them to stand
at attention during the flagceremonies, otherwise there might
become a clear and present danger to the public interest,
safety,moral, or public order.
2. Ang mga Kaanibvs. Iglesia ng Dios This involves Sorianos
religious group, where Soriano disassociated from the first one
and formed a new group. Soriano used the same name of the
original group with the new one formed. Hence, the SEC
ordered Soriano to change its name as there is already an
existing group using the same. Soriano opposed and argued
that it cannot be done as it violates his freedom of religion
freedom to act according to his belief.
Held: The SC said that the naming of the group has nothing to
do with religion. The SC emphasized that the freedom of
religion is the freedom to act according to your belief. Hence,
names have nothing to do with it.
Register of Deeds vs. Ung Siu Si Temple A foreign religious
group applied for the registration of a land with the ROD for
the construction of their church for religious purposes. The
ROD denied it because they are prohibited by law. This
prompted them to impugn the same on the ground of freedom
of religion. The SC held that 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 without owning property.
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 a union. Held: The 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.
Page | 47
2014
4. Estrada vs. Escritor This involved a married court
employee but separated in fact. 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. Members of Jehovas witness 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
hierarchy. Once they comply that, couples are allowed to live
together without the benefit of civil or religious marriage. Can
you invoke freedom of religion to live an adulterous life?
Held:SC allowed the same.
a. What should be the states attitude towards religion?
Benevolent neutrality The State should be neutral and not
hostile towards it because freedom of religion is protected by
the constitution.
b. What test should be applied? Compelling interest test
the state must show compelling state interest to justify state
intervention.
c. Has it discharged the burden? The problem in this case is
that the Solicitor General only presented its side based on the
provisions of Family Code, defining family as an inviolable
institution. The SC said that is not a compelling state interest.
The state was not able to show a compelling interest that
would justify the prohibition of the Jehovas practice in the
instant case. Moreover, the SC said they did not prosecute
them for adultery or concubinage. Further, it did not affect
other employees of the SC.
Note: If the state can discharge the burden of proving
compelling state interest, then the court can prohibit a practice
or arrangement (immoral) which may be exercised by invoking
the free exercise clause.
Observation: If that is the case, then annulment issued by the
Catholic Church to its members might be recognized in view of
the benevolent neutrality of the state towards religion.
Diba?Diba?
Soriano v. Laguardia (2009) In an episode of Ang Dating
Daan, Eliseo Soriano uttered the following statement: (in a TV
program against the INC): 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.
Held: The words uttered by Soriano have 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.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
What should be the attitude of the state when it comes to
religious quarrel/dispute?
1. As between religious groups no problem here
2. Among members of the same group:
a. Austria vs. NLRC 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 it is a religious matter. Held: It is
not a religious matter. What should be applied here is the
Labor Code. There is a need to determine whether or not there
was a valid ground for his dismissal. Hence, the NLRC should
take cognizance of the same.
b. Taruc vs. Dela Cruz A priest of a church was transferred
by their bishop because there was a quarrel between his
groups and other members. With that, the priest and his
loyalists were thrown out from the church by the bishop. So
the priest instituted an action for his reinstatement to the
church. 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, which involves
the power of excluding members from such associations.
Ecclesiastical or Religious Affair An ecclesiastical or religious
affair is one that concerns doctrine, creed or form of worship of
the 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
Creed or doctrine example is the correct day of going to
church, which cannot be decided by the court
Note: The court cannot decide ecclesiastical or religious affairs
because no law can be applied in resolving thes matter.
Remember that courts only decide based on law and the
constitution.
2009, XVI.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, 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.
Page | 48
2014
Yes! In Estrada vs. Escritor, the arrangement 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.
The court cannot decide ecclesiastical or religious affairs
because no law can be applied in resolving this matter.
American Bible vs. City of Manila The ABS was required to
obtain a license and pay the corresponding fee for being
engaged in the sale of merchandise. Held: It violated Freedom
of Religion. Payment of a license is a form of tax. If taxes were
imposed on religion, in the end, the exercise of religion will be
burdened, and only those who can afford may exercise it. This
is an undue restraint on Freedom of Religion. Just like in the
Ebralinag case, the ordinance was not struck down for being
unconstitutional, but the SC only exempted the ABS from its
coverage.
Did the Court make a constitutional defect in requiring
everyone, including religious groups, to pay for Mayors
permit? No, because it is not a tax but only a regulatory fee.
Everyone can be required to pay for permits, including the ABS.
Nevertheless, the Court stated that they cannot be required
because of the wording of the ordinance itself. There was no
constitutional defect here. The ordinance itself stated that
only those required to pay must pay the permit. Since the
ABS was exempted from getting a license, it is also exempted
from getting a permit.
Tolentino vs. Secretary (Compare with the American Bible
case) The Philippine Bible Society challenges the Expanded
VAT Law as a restraint on Freedom of Religion because it
removes the tax exemption previously enjoyed by religious
organization for the printing, importation and sale of books by
religious organizations, and because it requires the payment of
P1,000.00 for registration of all persons and entities subject to
the payment of the VAT tax.
Held: The court held that the Freedom of Religion does not
prohibit imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on
the sale of religious materials by religious organizations.
Similarly, the registration fee is only for the purpose of
defraying part of the cost or registration which is a central
feature of the VAT system. It is a mere administrative fee, one
not imposed onthe exercise of a privilege, much less a
constitutional right. The fixed law is of generalapplicability. It
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
does not discriminate any religion or group. The court held it to
be valid.
Can you refuse to render military service because it is against
your religion? InPeople vs. Zosa, the SC held that you can if
your religion prohibits it or if you are a conscientious
objector. However, this ruling is not applicable anymore as
this poses a clear and present danger. Under Article II, Sec. 4 of
the Constitution, the Government may call on the people to
render military service and defend the State. A conscientious
objector may be assigned non-military duties. Still, this might
raise questions of equal protection as those subjected to
combat duties and to the risk of death may claim
discrimination. The answer would probably lie in whether or
not there is substantial distinction between these citizens and
those whose religious beliefs prevent them from taking human
life.
Conscientious objector is defined as a person who need not
belong to any particular religion and who is against war and
hold his objection with the strength of a religious conviction.
(The SC does not recognize this. This is based on American
jurisprudence)
LIBERTY OF ABODE AND RIGHT TO TRAVEL
Section 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.
Two Rights Guaranteed:
1. Liberty of Abode freedom where to live
2. Right to travel
1. LIBERTY OF ABODE
Restricted by:
a. Congress (legislative enactment; within the limits
prescribed by law) This refers to law passed by Congress
and not by mere ordinance. Example: Persona non grata
passed by local sanggunian body is of no consequence. The
Congress has the greater discretion as to what grounds are
allowed for the restriction of such right.
b. Court lawful order of the court
Yap vs. CA 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 submitted before the CA relative to his residence. He
impugned this on the ground of liberty of abode. Held: Right to
Liberty 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
Page | 49
2014
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.
a. yes, because of the risk to the lives of the people that
might be caused by the military operation
b. yes, because executive officials, including the police
and the military, can restrict the liberty of abode
c. yes, because forcing people to transfer their residence
does not violate any law
d. no, because only the courts or Congress by means of a
law can restrict the liberty of abode
1998, 8. Juan Casanova contracted Hansens 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. The liberty of abode is subject to the
police power of the State. Judicial notice will be taken of the
fact that segregation of lepers as a means of preventing the
spread of the disease is supported by high scientific authority."
Also, there is a law requiring lepers to be isolated upon petition
of a City Health Officer.
2. RIGHT TO TRAVEL
When can be restricted or limited? In the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health as may be provided by
law.
Who can restrict? Silverio and Santiago cases It clarified the
issue as to whether or not courts and administrative officials
can restrict the right to travel. The SC ruled that despite the
wording of the Constitution 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
administration of justice. Otherwise, it would be hard for courts
to impose sentences because they will be now be out of the
courts jurisdiction. However, it applies to criminal cases only,
and not to civil ones.
2. Executive and administrative officials (if they do not act
arbitrarily) they do not act arbitrarily if:
a. There is a law authorizing them and
b. 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 by law
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Silverio vs. CA The bail bond he had posted had been
cancelled and warrants of arrest had been issued against him
by reason of his failure to appear at scheduled
arraignments.The foregoing condition imposed upon an
accused to make himself available at all times whenever the
Court requires his presence operates as a valid restriction of his
right to travel.
Marcos vs. Manglapus This involved former president Marcos
who was in Hawaii during his last days and wanted to return to
the Philippines. But he was prohibited by President Aquino. He
invoked the right to travel.
Held: The 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. However, the SC emphasized
that the right to return ones 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 at
that time authorizing President Cory to limit such right which
must be for public safety, national security and health. 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 vs. DPWH The DPWH issued an order prohibiting the
use of motorcycles along certain roads in Metro Manila. 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 your
destination. There is no guarantee as to the mode of
transportation.
GMA vs. De Lima This is not really an issue on the right to
travel. It was an issue on the validity of the TRO issued by the
court without hearing. But basically this case can be applied to
executive and administrative officials as there was no law at
that time authorizing them to issue hold departure orders, but
only a 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
1991, No. 6:Mr. Esteban Krony, a Filipino citizen, is arrested for
the crime of smuggling. He posts bail for his 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
Page | 50
2014
interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as
may be provided by law. Decide.
If you are out on bail for a criminal case filed against you, the
court may restrict your right to travel, even if not mentioned by
the Constitution.
Note: The practice now is that hold departure order is issued to
government officials facing administrative charges.
Which statement is legally correct? Sec. 6 of the Bill of Rights
with respect to the right to travel:
a. includes the right of citizens to enter another country
other countries may not allow you
b. covers the right of citizens to return to the Philippines
Marcos vs. Manglapus
c. guarantees the right of aliens to come to the
Philippines because they must apply for Visa
d. protects the right of citizens to leave the country
provided that other countries accept you
RIGHT TO INFORMATION
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, shall be afforded
the citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by
law.
Coverage:
1. Right to Information
2. Access to official records
These rights are necessary to bolster the right to free
expression. This is also related to the Policy of Full Disclosure
(Art. II, Sec. 28). In international law, this is called the Principle
of Transparency. The purpose of these rights is to prevent
abuse of government power.
1. RIGHT TO INFORMATION
Matters of public concern those which the public may want
to know because it directly affects their lives orbecause they
arouse the interest of a citizen.
Matters not covered by the right:
1. Closed-Door Cabinet Sessions
2. Deliberations of the Court
3. Matters pertaining to National Security
4. Trade Secrets
5. Military and Diplomatic Secrets
a. 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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
contended that party-list election is not person-oriented. Held:
True, the party-list is elected but it is the nominees who will be
sitting in Congress. Hence, this is a matter of public concern.
The name should be released before the election.
b. Legaspi vs. CSC The CSC refused to divulge information
as to whether a person is eligible or not. Held: While the
manner of examining public records may be subject to
reasonable regulation by the government agency in custody
thereof, the duty to disclose the information of public concern,
and to afford access to public records cannot be discretionary
on the part of said agencies. The information sought in this
case is the truth of the claim of certain government employees
that they are civil service eligible. Public office being a public
trust, it is the legitimate concern of citizens to ensure that
government positions requiring civil service eligibility are
occupied only by persons who are eligible. While refusing to
confirm or deny the claims of eligibility, the CSC has failed to
cite any provision in the Civil Service Law which would limit the
right to know who are, and who are not, civil service eligible.
The request is, therefore, neither unusual nor unreasonable.
c. Hilado vs. Reyes 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 concern. Exception: Cases 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 isalso not covered by the right.
Pleadings and evidences presented by the parties other
matters shall be decided on case to case (Example: Affidavits in
rape cases cannot be accessed)
d. Chavez vs. PCGG (1999) Not only consummated contracts
are included, but also steps leading to a contract. But not inter-
agency recommendations. This has reference with the
negotiation between PCGG and 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: The SC said that not only consummated contracts, but
also steps leading to a contract, are covered by the right to
information. Such information, though, must pertain to definite
propositions of the government, not necessarily to intra-agency
or inter-agency recommendations orcommunications during
the stage when common assertions are still in the process of
beingformulated or are in the "exploratory" stage. In other
words, the recommendations given by other agencies to PCGG,
as to the amount to be negotiated, are not covered by the right
to information. No access can be allowed. However, ifthe PCGG
accepts the recommendations of other agencies, it becomes a
step leading to a contract. Hence, it is covered already by the
right to information.
Page | 51
2014
Note: Information on foreign affairs is not covered by the
above principle. No access can be allowed. Notes and
documents leading to treaty making cannot be accessed.
e. Akbayan vs. Aquino Akbayan sought to compel DTI
Undersecretary Aquino to furnish the full text of the JPEPA
including the Philippine and Japanese offers submitted during
the negotiation process and all pertinent attachments and
annexes thereto. Akbayan emphasized that refusal to disclose
the said agreement violates their right to information on
matters of public concern and of public interest, while Aquino
invokes executive privilege.
Held: From the nature of the JPEPA as an international trade
agreement, it is evident that the Philippine and Japanese offers
submitted during the negotiations towards its execution are
matters of public concern. Aquino only claims that diplomatic
negotiations are covered by the doctrine of executive privilege,
thus constituting an exception to the right to information and
the policy of full public disclosure. The SC ruled that diplomatic
negotiations are recognized as presumptively privileged in this
jurisdiction, the JPEPA negotiations constituting no exception.
Note: In determining whether an information is covered by the
right to information, a specific showing of need for such
information is not a relevant consideration, but only whether
the same is a matter of public concern. When, however, the
government has claimed executive privilege, and it has
established that the information is indeed covered by the
same, then the party demanding it, if it is to overcome the
privilege, must show that that the information is vital, not
simply for the satisfaction of its curiosity, but for its ability to
effectively and reasonably participate in social, political, and
economic decision-making.
f. Chavez vs. PEA Chavez asked for copies of bids for the
sale of reclaimed lands of the government. Held: Information
on on-going evaluation or review of bids or proposals being
undertaken by the bidding or review committee is not
immediately accessible under the right to information. While
the evaluation or review is still on-going, there are no "official
acts, transactions, or decisions" on the bids or proposals.
However, once the committee makes its official
recommendation, there arises a "definite proposition" on the
part of the government. From this moment, the public's right to
information attaches, and any citizen can access all the non-
proprietary information leading to such definite proposition.
The right to information "contemplates inclusion of
negotiations leading to the consummation of the transaction."
Certainly, a consummated contract is not a requirement for the
exercise of the right to information. Otherwise, the people can
never exercise the right if no contract is consummated, and if
one is consummated, it may be too late for the public to
expose its defects.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
g. Bayan v. Ermita The order issued by GMA prohibiting all
members of the cabinet from appearing before a legislative
investigation is violative of the right to information.
Who has standing to enforce compliance in courts?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. You may file a petition for mandamus to
compel the disclosure of the information.
Exceptions: Cabinet sessions, court deliberations, diplomatic
and military and national security matters, trade secrets
2009, XIV.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 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. 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.
Information, while the treaty negotiation is ongoing, cannot be
disclosed. After ratification, it may be disclosed, unless covered
by 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? Why or why not?
Chavez case shall be applied. The SC said that not only
consummated contracts, but also steps leading to a contract
are covered by the right to information.
Aquino-Sarmiento vs. Morato The petitioner, a member of
the MTRCB, requested that she be allowed to examine the
voting slips of other members. It is on the basis of these slips
that the films are banned, classified or cut by the Board.
Petitioners request was refused on the ground that the votes,
which are purely personal, are private and confidential.
Held: The court held that they are not private because the
members of the Board occupy a public position. These are
actually public records and are therefore not private or
personal.
Valmonte vs. Belmonte A case was filed by Valmonte to
compel GSIS to furnish him with the list of members of the
Batasan who were able to obtain a loan at the
recommendation of the First Lady.
Page | 52
2014
Is the information sought a matter of public concern? Yes.
Since the GSIS is thecustodian of public funds, it shall be the
interest of the citizen which will determine as to how the
money must be disbursed.
Is the information excluded by law on the ground of
confidentiality? The right toconfidentiality involves privacy
which cannot be invoked by GSIS because matters about
privacyare not available to an artificial person.
What if the borrowers in the present case invoke the right to
privacy and confidentiality? They still cannot invoke the two
rights because the borrowers are public officials.
GSIS also argued that the documents involved were not public
records but private recordsfor the reason that GSIS was
performing only ministerial functions.The SC ruled that the
distinction between what is ministerial or constituent has
alreadydisappeared. This is relevant only to State immunity but
not in this case.Also the SC held that the intent of the framers
of the Constitution is to include within thescope of full
disclosure the GOCCs.
In the light of the above discussions, can Valmonte compel
GSIS to furnish him copies of the documents? No, what the
courts guarantee is only the access to the documents, not to
compel government officials or employees to provide or make
them copies of these documents.
Which statement is correct:
a. any citizen who questions in court the withholding
ofinformation 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
c. all information in the possession of the government
may be accessed by citizens under Sec. 7
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 on 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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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
c. 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
RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in
the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be
abridged.
What the Right to Association guarantees?
1. The right to join any association (positive)
2. The right to refuse to join (negative)
Exception: Closed-shop agreement You cannot refuse to join
if there is a closed-shop agreement. Close Shop Agreement is a
valid exercise of Police power. The State has an interest in
promoting unionism in order to protect labor (which is
mandated by the Constitution).
Exception to the exception: Freedom of religion you can
refuse to join even if there is a closed-shop agreement if you
are prohibited by your religion.
BPI v. BPI Employees In 2000, BPI consolidated with
FETBC.The BPI union had a closed-shop agreement. Now,
employees of the FEBTC do not want to join the BPI union. Can
they be compelled to join the BPI union pursuant to the closed-
shop agreement? Held: Yes! They can be compelled to become
members.
Note: If the purpose of forming is to promote property rights,
the test toapply in restricting it is the ordinary tests for a valid
exercise of police power. If the purpose is toadvance some
basic human rights, the test is the Clear and Present Danger
Rule.
Some principles:
1. The right to form an association is higher than the right to
assembly, since people not only assemble, but are already
Page | 53
2014
starting to form associations. And forming associations
already involves a purpose.
2. The 1987 Constitution emphasizes the right to form
unions, whether the office is private or public. However,
this right does not include the right to strike, which is
covered under another provision in the Constitution.
Other rights linked to this right:
1. This right is an aspect of liberty which is also protected by
the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
2. This right is also an aspect of the Freedom to Contract.
3. This right is also intimately linked with the Freedom of
Expression and Belief. Normally, people form associations
to advance some belief, and when they do so, they also
exercise their freedom of expression.
1. PAFLU vs. SecretaryA 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 the BLR. The registration is not a limitation to the
right of assembly or association, which may be exercised with
or without said registration. It is merely a condition sine qua
non for the acquisition of legal personality by labor
organizations, associations or unions and the possession of the
"rights and privileges granted by law to legitimate labor
organizations". The Constitution does not guarantee these
rights and privileges.
2. Occea vs. COMELEC Occea challenged a law which
prohibits a candidate of the barangay election from
representing himself as a member of a political party and also
prohibited the political parties from supporting a particular
candidate in the elections.
Held: No! It was not violative of Section 8 as he was already a
member of the party. Such right is subject to the police power
of the State. The law is a valid exercise of such power. What the
Constitution guarantees is the right to associate and form an
association. It does not guarantee that you may run under your
party.
3. Tarnate vs. Noriel There was this rule that only
employees/union members who have worked for at least one
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.
But take note of Bel Air vs. Dionisio This has reference to the
rules of the homeowners association requiring all homeowners
to be member of the association. The TCT covering the subject
parcel of land contains an annotation to the effect that the lot
owner becomes an automatic member.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Held: It is not violative to the right to associate. The transaction
between the parties is a sale and the conditions have been
validly imposed by the vendor. The fact that it has been
approved by the LCR did not make it a governmental act
subject to the constitutional restriction against infringement of
the right of association. The constitutional proscription that no
person can be compelled to be a member of an association
against his will applies only to government acts and not to
private transactions like the one in question. Also, the
limitation is imposed upon ownership of property. If he does
not desire to comply with the annotation in question, he can at
any time exercise his inviolable freedom of disposing of the
property and free himself from the burden of becoming a
member. The limitation and restriction is a limitation that
follows the land whoever is its owner. It does not inhere in the
person of the owner.
PADCOM v. Ortigas A provision or lien on automatic
membership is inseparable from the property as it is a right in
rem, a burden on the property whoever its owner may be. It
subsists notwithstanding a change in ownership; in short, the
personality of the owner is disregarded.
Sta. Clara vs. Gaston SCHAs Articles of Incorporation and By-
laws provide that all landowners of the Sta. Clara Subdivision
are automatically members of the SCHA. Held: The SC held that
the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of association includes
the freedom not to associate. It does not include the right to
compel others to form or join one. Memberships in
homeowners associations may be acquired in various ways
often through deeds of sale, TCT or other forms of evidence of
property ownership. There are even cases in which a party who
enters into a contract of sale is also bound by a lien annotated
on the certificate of title, such as in Bel Air vs. Dionisio. The said
ruling, however, does not apply to the case at bar because
there was no annotation showing their automatic membership
in the SCHA. Other than the said Articles of Incorporation and
By-laws, there is no showing that they agreed to be SCHA
members. Thus, no privity of contract arising from the TCT
exists between the parties.
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 by virtue
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
Page | 54
2014
c. 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
EMINENT DOMAIN
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.The power of eminent domain is inherent in the
government. Even without any constitutional grant, the
government enjoys the power because it is essential for the
existence of the government. Thus, the provision is not a grant
of power, but rather a limitation of power.
Note: Eminent Domain is the power to take, while
expropriation is the procedure of taking.
Two situations where government is forced to exercise
expropriation:
1. When the property owner does not want to sell
2. When the person wants to sell but he does not agree to
the price proposed by the government.
Who may exercise? General rule: This power is primarily
vested with the Congress.
Exception: It may be delegated to the following:
1. The President of the Philippines
2. The various local legislative bodies
3. Certain Public corporation
4. Quasi-public corporations, e.g. public utilities
Note: The power of the local government to expropriate comes
from the Local Government Code.
Who cannot expropriate?
a. the City of Davao LGU can expropriate
b. Davao City Water District
c. Globe Telecom it is a public utility;granted by law to
expropriate under its charter
d. Commission on Elections it has no power
COMELEC cannot expropriate
PPI vs. COMELEC The COMELEC issued a Resolution directing
newspapers to provide free print space to be allocated, free of
charge, among all candidates. Note that spaces in newspapers
are considered property right. Hence, just compensation must
be had. However, it was surprisingly held that COMELEC, under
the provision of the constitution, has no power to expropriate.
It is an inherent power of Congress.To compel print media
companies to donate Comelec-space amounts to taking of
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
private personal property for public use or purposes without
the requisite just compensation. The element of necessity for
the taking has not been shown by COMELEC.
TELEBAP vs COMELEC The COMELEC asked for air space from
television and radio networks for 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 a franchise from the government. All broadcasting,
whether radio or by television stations, is licensed by the
government. They do not own the airwaves and frequencies
through which they transmit broadcast signals and images.
Requisites for valid expropriation:
1. Taking
2. Public Use
3. Just compensation
1. Taking
Two concepts of taking:
a. Physical possession expropriator gets the land, and
ownership and possession is transferred to it
b. Impairment of use there is no transfer of ownership and
possession but there is impairment of use of property
NPC vs. Gutierrez NPC installed transmission lines, which
would necessarily pass through private properties. NPC
negotiated for the acquisition of right of way easements over
the lots but was unsuccessful. NPC filed eminent domain
proceedings, which prohibited Gutierrez from planting anything
above 3 meters.Is the acquisition of a mere right-of-way an
exercise of the power of eminent domain? Yes!
Held: The easement of right-of-way is definitely a taking under
the power of eminent domain. While there is no transfer of
possession and ownership, the installation of the transmission
linesimposes a limitation against the use of the land for an
indefinite period, which deprives the owners of its ordinary
use.
NPC vs. IbrahimThe NPC, by stealth,took possession of the
lands and constructed underground tunnels. After 13 years, it
was discovered by the owners. Held: This is a form of taking
which requires the payment of just compensation. NPC was
liable to pay the full compensation for land becausethe owners
were deprived of its normal beneficial use.
Republic vs. Andaya (2007) 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.
Solicitor General vs. Ayala Land (2009) Ayala collects parking
fee within the area of its malls. The Solicitor General filed a
case prohibiting Ayala from collecting parking fees. Held: The
Page | 55
2014
case must fail, as prohibiting Ayala from collecting parking fees
amounts to taking of property without just compensation.
There is impairment of use of property.
How much should expropriator pay?NPC v. Purefoods (2008)
It has to be ascertained by the courts. While Sec.3(a) of RA No.
6395 states that only 10% of the market value of the property
is due to the owner of the property subject to an easement of
right-of-way, said rule is not binding on the court. Well-settled
is the rule that the determination of just compensation in
eminent domain cases is a judicial function.
In expropriation for a right of way by the NPC, just
compensation is equivalent to:
a. the full market value of the property as described in
the owners 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:
1. Expropriator must enter the private property (e.g.
improvement of roads, etc.)
2. Entrance must be for more than a limited period (must be
a permanent period)
3. Entrance should be under a warrant or color of authority
(government must not be a squatter;entry 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.
Note: The value may be set at the time of taking or at the time
of filing.All these elements must concur to constitute taking.
Otherwise, the just compensation may be valued at the time of
filing.
Republic vs. Castellvi In 1947, The PAF leased the property of
Castellvi renewable year to year. The lease was renewed yearly.
Until 1956, Castellvi refused to renew the contract with PAF. In
1959, the government instituted an action to expropriate the
property previously leased. Also, in the same year, the property
was placed under the possession of the government by virtue
of a court order. What is being disputed in this case are two
issues: (1) Castellvi and the government cannot agree on the
price; and (2) on the date which will be the basis for the
determination of the value of the land.
Held: The SC held that the value should be determined at the
time of the taking. The taking here would mean 1959, where all
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
the elements of taking were present. It cannot be 1947 since it
did not satisfy the 2nd and 5th elements.
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
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 are paid here
2. Public Use
Those that are to be used by the public, whether for a fee or
for free; results to its indirect advantage or benefit to the
public
Sumulongvs. Buenaventura The NHA wanted to use
Sumulongs property for socialized housing for the lower and
middle class. The owner contended that socialized housing is
not public use because not everyone can benefit from this, only
the handful of people who to be given the houses.
Held: The court held that the socialized housing is within the
context of public use. Public use has acquired a more
comprehensive meaning, that is, whatever would result to
indirect public benefit or welfare is also public use. It also ruled
that it will benefit everyone in the sense that it will affect the
safety, health and environment.
Manosca vs. CA The birthplace of Felix Manalo, founder of
INC, was expropriated by the government. It is still public use
as it is aimed at promoting and enriching our history and
culture.
Page | 56
2014
Manotoc vs. DFA President Marcos issued a decree
expropriating the Tambunting Estate for the purpose of
building a housing project. Since the area was also a valuable
commercial property, the decree provided that the portions
thereof will be used for commercial purposes to defray the cost
of the housing project. The government would use the
proceeds from the lease of this commercial property to finance
the housing project. Is it still for public use? No!
Held: This is no longer public use because it would be for
commercial purpose already.
Note: The distinction between the Sumulong and the Manotoc
case is that in the latter, there is an intervening step between
the taking and use by public which is the operation of a
commercial venture.
Masikip vs. City of Pasig Masikip is the registered owner of a
parcel of land, which the City of Pasig sought to expropriate a
portion thereof for the sports development and recreational
activities of the residents of Barangay Caniogan. Masikip
refused. City of Pasig sought to expropriate said portion of
land.
Held: There is already an established sports development and
recreational activity center at Rainforest Park in Pasig City.
Evidently, there is no genuine necessity to justify the
expropriation. The records show that the Certification issued by
the Caniogan Barangay Council which became the basis for the
passage of the ordinance authorizing the expropriation,
indicates that the intended beneficiary is the Melendres
Compound Homeowners Association, not the residents of
Caniogan.
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,
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.
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??
Vda.de Ouano v. Republic (2011) The MCIAA had not
actually used the lots subject of the final decree of
expropriation for the purpose they were originally taken by the
government. In fact, the Lahug Airport had been closed and
abandoned. The National Airport Corporation,MCIAAs
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
predecessor, had given assurance to the affected landowners
that they would be entitled to repurchase their respective lots
in the event they are no longer used for airport purposes.
Held: In the event the particular public use for which a parcel of
land is expropriated is abandoned, the owner shall not be
entitled to recover or repurchase it as a matter of right, unless
such recovery or repurchase is expressed in the condemnation
judgment. The decision enjoined MCIAA, as a condition of
approving expropriation, to allow recovery or repurchase upon
abandonment of the Lahug airport project. In effect, the
government merely held the lands condemned in trust until the
proposed public use or purpose for which the lots were
condemned was actually consummated. Since it failed to
perform the obligation that is the basis of the transfer of the
property, then the lot owners can demand the reconveyance of
their old properties after the payment of the condemnation
price.
Heirs of Moreno vs. MCIAA The government agreed with
Moreno, the owner, that in the event it will abandon the
purpose of the property for which it was expropriated (to be
used as airport), the owner may recover the property.
Held: Return of the condemned properties of could be readily
justified as the manifest legal effect or consequence of the
courts underlying presumption that Lahug Airport will
continue to be in operation when it granted the complaint for
eminent domain and the airport discontinued its activities.
As to the amount of repurchase price when the State reconveys
land, it should not profit from sudden appreciations in land
values. Any increase or decrease in market value due to the
proposed improvement may not be considered in determining
the market value. Thus, reconveyance to the original owner
shall be for whatever amount he was paid by the government,
plus legal interest.
Must the condition be expressed in the decision?No. Nothing
in jurisprudence that bespeaks that there should foremost be
an express condition in the dispositive portion of the decision
before the condemned property can be returned to its former
owner after the purpose for its taking has been abandoned or
ended.
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 play. There is really no occasion to apply the
fee simple concept if the transfer is conditional. The taking
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
Page | 57
2014
desires, may seek its reversion, subject of course to the return,
at the very least, of the just compensation received.
Hence, all expropriations are conditional! Once the purpose of
public use is abandoned, the property may now be recovered
by the owner.
Rights/obligations of parties:
1. Expropriator:
a. Return property
b. May give owner option to buy improvements, but if he
declines, remove them
c. Keep income and fruits of the property
2. Owner:
a. Return just compensation, without interest
b. Pay expropriator necessary expenses for maintenance
of property to the extent he got benefited
c. 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
c. 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
Just compensation is the fair and equivalent of the loss
sustained, not what the buyer might actually gain from the
expropriated property. According to Justice Cruz, it is the price
which the owner is willing to sell; without being forced to sell,
and the buyer to buy without being forced to buy. (best
definition) It is usually left to the forces of the Law of Supply
and Demand (Fair Market Value). The value is to be determined
at the time of filing or time of taking. The principle in the
determination of just compensation is judicial in nature.
Manner of payment:
General Rule: Must be in cash
Exception: Santos vs. Land Bank The lands of petitioner were
taken by DAR. Petitioner claimed that the payment in Land
Bank Bonds was not acceptable to him and that the said
amount should be paid in cash or certified check.
Held: This is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific
property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the
State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
The CARP Law is clear and leaves no doubt as to its
interpretation regarding the manner of payment of just
compensation. The proportion of cash payment to the other
things of value constituting the total payment, as determined
on the basis of the areas of the lands expropriated, is not
unduly oppressive upon the landowner.
Determination is a judicial function NPC vs. Purefoodsand
Republic vs. Libunao While Section 3-A of R.A. 6395 indeed
states that only 10% of the market value of the property is due
to the owner of the property subject to an easement of right-
of-way, said rule is not binding on the Court. Determination of
just compensation in eminent domain cases is a judicial
function.
Basis: Time of taking (all elements here must be complete) or
time of filing, whichever comes first(Rules of Court)
Exception:City of Cebu cs. CA In expropriations by LGUs, the
basis of just compensation is always at the time of taking. Sec.
19 of the LGC provides x x x That the amount to be paid for
the expropriated property shall be determined by the proper
court, based on the fair market value at the time of the taking
of the property. The Rules of Court does not apply.
What is the rate of interest if expropriator fails to pay on
time?Republic v. CA andReyes v. NHA 12%
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 legal
interest.
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
owners right to due 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
c. 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
Page | 58
2014
b. entitles the owner to the market value of the property
based at the time when payment is actually made
c. 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?
1. After filing of complaint,
2. With notice to owner
3. Deposit with authorized government depository
4. Amount equivalent to assess value for taxation purposes
(LGC 15%)
Note: This is not the final compensation. This amount is only
for the purpose of entering the property.
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. 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.
Which should prevail on this matter, the law or the rules of
court?
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.
Rules on expropriation by LGUs:
1. It must be based on an ordinance, not a resolution;
Municipality of Paranaque vs. VM Realty Under a city council
resolution, the Municipality of Paraaque filed a Complaint for
expropriation against V.M. Realty. The city previously
negotiated for the sale of the property but VM Realty didnt
accept.
Held: The following essential requisites must concur before an
LGU can exercise the power of eminent domain:
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council
authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU,
to exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
expropriation proceedings over a particular private
property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use,
purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the
landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under
Section 9, Article III of the Constitution, and other
pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the
owner of the property sought to be expropriated, but said
offer was not accepted.
In the case at bar, the LCE sought to exercise the power of
eminent domain pursuant to a resolution of the municipal
council. Thus, there was no compliance with the first requisite
that the mayor be authorized through an ordinance.
Note: A municipal ordinance is different from a resolution. An
ordinance is a law, but a resolution is merely a declaration of
the sentiment or opinion of a lawmaking body on a specific
matter. An ordinance possesses a general and permanent
character, but a resolution is temporary in nature.
Heirs of Suguitan vs. City of Mandaluyong Mandaluyong City
issued a resolution authorizing Mayor Abalos to institute
expropriation proceeding over the property of Suguitan.
Section 19 of the LGC requires an ordinance, not a resolution,
for the exercise of the power of eminent domain.
2. There is no need to secure DAR clearance even if property
is converted to non-agricultural
Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA The Province of Camarines
Sur passed a Resolution authorizing the Provincial Governor to
expropriate agricultural property. The CA ruled that the
Province of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the
DAR of the plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use
as a housing project.
Held: To sustain the CA would mean that the LGUs can no
longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the
construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc, without
first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the
DAR, because all of these projects would naturally involve a
change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the DAR to
scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or
public use. Thus, itwould amount to intrusion of the power of
the court to determine whether it is for public use or not.
3. Provincial board cannot disapprove on the ground of lack
of necessity
Estate of Reyes vs. City of Manila(2004) If the purpose is
socialized housing, follow the order of priority under RA 7279
(Urban Development and Housing Act):
Page | 59
2014
Sec. 9. Priorities in the acquisition of Land Lands for
socialized housing shall be acquired in the following order:
(a) Those owned by the Government or any of its sub-
divisions, instrumentalities, or agencies, including
government-owned or controlled corporations and their
subsidiaries;
(b) Alienable lands of the public domain;
(c) Unregistered or abandoned and idle lands;
(d) Those within the declared Areas of Priority Development,
Zonal Improvement sites, and Slum Improvement and
Resettlement Program sites which have not yet been
acquired;
(e) Bagong Lipunan Improvement sites and Services or BLISS
sites which have not yet been acquired; and
(f) Privately-owned lands.
Private lands rank last in the order of priority for purposes of
socialized housing. In the same vein, expropriation proceedings
are to be resorted to only after the other modes of acquisition
have been exhausted. Compliance with these conditions is
mandatory because these are the only safeguards of
oftentimes helpless owners of private property against
violation of due process when their property is forcibly taken
from them for public use.
Generally, all ordinances passed by component cities and
municipalities are subject to review by the Sangguniang
Panglungsod to determine whether the same are in accordance
with law or not. Now, the provincial board cannot disapprove
the same on the ground of lack of necessity or ultra vires, as
LGC empowers the LGUs the power of eminent domain without
limitation.
Distinction between Police Power and Eminent Domain:
1. If the property is taken in the exercise of eminent domain,
the owner is entitled to 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 (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
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.
Petitioners argue that the discount given to senior citizens
(under RA 7432, as amended by RA 9257) will force
establishments to raise their prices in order to compensate for
its impact on overall profits or income/gross sales. The general
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
public, or those not belonging to the senior citizen class, are,
thus, made to effectively shoulder the subsidy for senior
citizens. This, inPetitionersview, is unfair.
IsPetitionerscontention correct?
Manila Memorial Park vs. Secretary of DSWD The validity of
the 20% senior citizen discount and tax deduction scheme
under RA 9257, as an exercise of police power of the State, has
already been settled in the Carlos Superdrug case.
Held: The tax deduction scheme does not fully reimburse
petitioners for the discount privilege accorded to senior
citizens. This is because the discount is treated as a deduction,
a tax-deductible expense that is subtracted from the gross
income and results in a lower taxable income. Being a tax
deduction, the discount does not reduce taxes owed on a peso
for peso basis but merely offers a fractional reduction in taxes
owed. The SC ruled that the law is a legitimate exercise of
police power. Police power as an attribute to promote the
common good would be diluted considerably if on the mere
plea of petitioners that they will suffer loss of earnings and
capital, the questioned provision is invalidated. Moreover, in
the absence of evidence demonstrating the alleged
confiscatory effect of the provision in question, there is no
basis for its nullification in view of the presumption of validity
which every law has in its favor.While it may be true that
pricing is a property right, and that the Constitution protects
property rights, petitioners must accept the realities of
business, and the State, in the exercise of police power, can
intervene in the operations of a business which may result in an
impairment of property rights in the process. The 20% discount
as well as the tax deduction scheme is a valid exercise of the
police power of the State.
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, 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% forbearance 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.
Police Power or Eminent Domain under the Land Reform
Program (CARP):
1. To the extent that the government imposes retention
limits (5 has./owner), it becomes an exercise of police
power because property rights are regulated.
Page | 60
2014
2. To the extent that the owner is forced to sell his land (in
excess of 5 has.) to the government, the concept is one of
eminent domain.
Requisites before the LGU can enter the property:
1. After filing of complaint,
2. With notice to owner
3. Deposit with authorized government depository the
amount equivalent to assessed 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 Ccompany, give 2 constitutional objections to the validity of
the ordinance.
1. Determination of just compensation belongs to the courts.
2. The purpose is not for public use.
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. AM, whose advertising agency owns and rents out
many of the 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 AMs 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.Can the landowner
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
successfully challenge the law in court? Discuss briefly your
answer.
Yes. 1. Determination as to what constitutes just compensation
is vested to the courts.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.
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! The
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.
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 whether the
purpose is for public use or not, which is within the domain of
the judiciary.
1987, No. 16: Pasay City filed 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, PPT,
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 companys
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 a
contract with you because it will violate the principle governing
contracts. There must be consent between parties. However,
you can file expropriation proceedings by compelling PPT to
allow access to the direct computer and fax linkup system
without transfer of ownership and possession. In this case,
there is impairment of use of property.
Page | 61
2014
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. Thus, the NHA
initiated expropriation proceedings against the store owner
who protested that his property could not be taken because it is
not residential or slum housing. He also contended that his
property is being condemned for a private purpose, not a public
one, noting the NHAs sale of the entire area except his
property to a private party. If you were the judge, how would
you decide the case?
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.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(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. 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.
2009, III.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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
needless expenditure of the people's money. Is the disapproval
of the ordinance correct? Explain your answer.
The Sangguniang Panlalawigan cannot review nor reject the
expropriation ordinance of a locality on the ground of
necessity. LGUs are authorized under the LGC to expropriate
without limitation by the provincial board.
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. 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.
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. Secondly,
since the purpose is socialized housing, the city government
should have followed the order of priority under UHDA. It
should have first expropriated other types of 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.
Delay in payment of the amount of just compensation is not a
ground for recovery of property. You are only entitled to
interest from the time of taking.
Suppose the expropriation succeeds, but the City decides to
abandon its plan to subdivide the property for 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?
All expropriations are considered condition. The moment the
government abandoned the public purpose for which it was
expropriated, recovery may be had by the owner, provided he
pays 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.
True! A valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre-
requisite to expropriation initiated by a LGU, because of
Page | 62
2014
necessity. If the owner would be willing, there is no need for
the institution of expropriation proceedings.
Judicial Review Matters that can be judicially reviewed for
determination in cases of eminent domain:
1. The amount of just compensation - It does not matter
whether it is fixed by law or by the executive branch. The
court can always change it. This is judicial in nature.
2. The choice of the property
3. Issues whether the expropriation is necessary
4. Issues whether the property falls within the concept of
public use according to the law.
De Knecht vs. Bautista This concerns the plan of DPWH to
extend EDSA to which the government had two choices: (1) to
put up a road which will run over the residential houses; or (2)
to another which will run over hotels. The government chose to
expropriate the property which will run over the residential
houses.
Held: The court held that the choice of which property to
expropriate cannot be exercised arbitrarily even if made by
Congress. The courts can review the decision on the choice of
property.
NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
Section 10.No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall
be passed.
Purpose: To safeguard the integrity of valid contractual
agreements against States unwarranted interference.
When does a law impair the obligation of contract?
1. When it changes the terms of the contract (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-air-conditioned dump truck. Later, a law was passed
requiring all units to be air-conditioned. The law cannot be
made to apply as it imposes a new condition.
3. Dispenses with those expressed or agreed upon Example:
The contract entered into stipulates 10% interest. Now, a
law provides for the annulment of any interest. That law
cannot be applied as it dispenses with those expressed in
the contract. (revokes conditions)
4. Withdraws remedies for the enforcement of the rights of
the parties Authorizes something differentfor its
satisfaction This happens when a law provides for the
satisfaction of a debt by service instead of payment of
cash.
Basic Principles
1. Police power, eminent domain and taxation are superior to
non-impairment
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Republic vs. Pagadian Timber (2008) The parties executed
the IFMA, authorizing PCT to utilize, develop, and manage a
land in Zamboanga del Sur according to the CDMP. It was
revealed that PCT failed to comply with the CDMP and thus,
IMFA was cancelled. PCT invoked the non-impairment clause
on the ground that IFMA was a contract.
Held: IFMA is a license agreement under PD 705, which defines
a license as a privilege granted by the State to a person and
such is evident in the IFMA itself. It is well-established that
license agreements are not contracts within the purview of the
due process and the non-impairment of contracts clauses.
Thus, the non-impairment clause cannot be invoked. Even
assuming the IFMA could be a contract, the alleged property
rights are not absolute. Moreover, all Filipino citizens have the
right to a balanced and healthful ecology, which has the
correlative duty to refrain from impairing the environment.
Republic vs. RMDC (2004) RMDC, after having been granted
permission to prospect for marble deposits in the mountains of
Biak-na-Bato, succeeded in discovering marble deposits of high
quality and in commercial quantities in Mount Mabio. They
then applied for a license to exploit said marble deposits, which
was subsequently issued. Thereafter, the license was cancelled,
on the ground that there was no more public interest served by
the continued existence or renewal of the license. Such was
confirmed by the language of Proclamation No. 84.
Held: The exploration and utilization of the countrys natural
mineral resources are matters impressed with great public
interest. Like timber permits, mining exploration permits do
not vest in the grantee any permanent or irrevocable right
within the purview of the non-impairment of contract and due
process clauses. It is also settled that provisions of existing laws
and a reservation of police power are deemed read into it,
because it concerns a subject impressed with public welfare. As
it is, the non-impairment clause must yield to the police power
of the state.
Siska vs. Office of the President The parties entered in a
contract to sell a lot on installment. On severaloccasions, the
buyer defaulted in their payments. Petitioner, without any
notice to the buyer, cancelled the contract. Under the contract,
notice of resistance is not required. However, the Maceda Law
was enacted which requires subdivision owners to send a
notice of rescission tothe buyer in case of default.
Held: The Maceda Law did not violate the non-impairment
clause. The requirement of notice under the Maceda Law does
not change the time or mode ofperformance or impose new
conditions or dispenses with the stipulations regarding the
binding effect ofthe contract. Neither does it withdraw the
remedy for is enforcement. At most, it merely provides for
aprocedure in aid of the remedy of rescission.
La insular vs. Go-Tauco La Insular entered into a contract to
sell cigarettes with Go-Tauco. While the contract was
Page | 63
2014
subsisting, the government increased a tax on the buyer of
cigarettes. Go-Tauco alleged that it impaired the contract.
Held: The SC held that taxation is superior to the non-
impairment clause. Also, there is actually no impairment of the
contract between the parties. It only creates an obligation on
the part of Go-Tauco to the Government. Their contract has
nothing to do with it.
2. Freedom of religion is superior
Victoriano vs. Elizalde Victoriano is a member of the INC and
had been in the employ of the Elizalde Rope Factory. He was a
member of the union, which had a CBA with Elizalde,
containing a closed shop provision. Under RA 875, prior to its
amendment by RA 3350, the employer was not precluded
from making an agreement with a labor organization torequire
as a condition of employment membership therein, if such
labor organization is therepresentative of the
employees.However, RA 3350 was enacted which states that
such agreement shall not cover members of any religious sects
which prohibit affiliation of their members in any such labor
organization.
Held: The non-impairment clause is not absolute and
unqualified. In spite of the constitutional prohibition, the State
continues to possess authority to safeguard the vital interests
of its people. The non-impairment clause has no application to
statutes relating to public subjects within the domain of the
general legislative powers of the state involving public welfare.
In this case, the purpose of the enactment of RA 3350 is to
insure freedom of belief and religion, and to promote the
general welfare by preventing discrimination against those
members of religious sects which prohibit their members from
joining labor unions
3. Can be invoked only against statutes, ordinances, but not
against (JUDICIAL) quasi-judicial acts
BPI vs. SEC BPI extended credit accommodations to ASB. ASB
then filed a petition for rehabilitation and suspension of
payments before the SEC. The Rehabilitation Plan provides a
dacion en pago by ASB to BPI of one of the properties
mortgaged to the latter. In turn, ASB would require the release
of the other property mortgaged to BPI. Meaning, the dacion
would constitute full payment of the entire obligation due to
BPI. BPI opposed the Rehabilitation Plan, contending that the
terms therein would impair its freedom to contract.
Held: The SECs approval of the Rehabilitation Plan did not
impair BPIs right to contract. The non-impairment clause is a
limit on the exercise of legislative power and not of judicial or
quasi-judicial power. The SEC, through the hearing panel that
heard the petition for approval of the Rehabilitation Plan, was
acting as a quasi-judicial body and thus, its order approving the
plan cannot constitute an impairment of the right and the
freedom to contract.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Other cases:
Alvarez vs. PICOP TLA 43 was issued to PICOP. It was with a
condition that DENR can amend the boundaries covered by the
license. President Marcos signed 1969 Document, purportedly
a Presidential Warrranty, assuring PICOP of the boundaries
covered by the TLA. However, PICOP claimed that such
warranty is a contract which guarantees perpetual renewal of
its license. PICOP applied for the conversion of its TLA to IFMA.
Held: There is no law enjoining the DENR to issue the IFMA
applied for because it is discretionary upon the Secretary after
proper evaluation. The 1969 Document is also not a contract
but a mere reassurance of the boundaries of TLA 43. It cannot
be construed to grant perpetual renewal of license because
that would contravene Sec. 2, Article XII.
Lim vs. Pacquing EO 392 was issued transferring the authority
to regulate jai-alais from local government to the GAB.
However, the Municipal Board of Manila passed an ordinance,
authorizing the mayor to allow and permit the ADC to operate
a jai-alai in the city. PPD 771 was issued by then President
Marcos, which expressly revoked all existing franchises and
permits to operate all forms of gambling. While ADC was
operating a Jai-Alai, the GAB invoked PD 771.
Held: A franchise is not in the strict sense a simple contract but
rather it is more importantly, a mere privilege specially in
matters which are within the government's power to regulate
and even prohibit through the exercise of the police power.
Thus, a gambling franchise is always subject to the exercise of
police power for the public welfare. There is a stronger reason
for holding ADC's permit to be a mere privilege because jai-alai,
when played for bets, is pure and simple gambling.
Caleon vs. Agus Agus leased to Caleon its lot. Caleon built a 4-
door apartment and sub-leased it without Agus consent. Agus
filed an ejectment suit under BP 25 after Caleon refused to
vacate the lot. Caleon argued that BP 25 cannot be applied
because there is a perfected contract of lease without any
express prohibition on subleasing.
Held: BP 25 is constitutional. The constitutional guaranty of
non-impairment of obligations of contract is limited by and
subject to the exercise of police power of the state. In spite of
the constitutional prohibition, the State continues to possess
authority to safeguard the vital interests of its people. BP 25
shows that the subject matter of the law is the regulation of
rentals.
Beltran vs. Executive Secretary A law was passed abolishing
private blood banks. This was impugned on the ground that it
will impair the contracts by PBB with hospitals. Held: Police
power is superior over the non-impairment clause.
Page | 64
2014
United BF Homeowners vs. City Mayor The Municipal
Council of Paraaque enacted an ordinance reclassifying El
Grande and Aguirre Avenues in BF Homes Paraaque from
residential to commercial areas. Petitioners questioned the
constitutionality of the ordinance, alleging that the
reclassification of certain portions of BF Homes from residential
to commercial zone is unconstitutional because it amounts to
impairment of the contracts between the developer of BF
Homes Paraaque and the lot buyers.
Held: The SC has upheld in several cases the superiority of
police power over the non-impairment clause. The
constitutional guaranty of non-impairment of contracts is
limited by the exercise of the police power of the State, in the
interest of public health, safety, morals and general welfare.
The ordinance is a legitimate exercise of police power and the
reclassification of El Grande and Aguirre Avenues in BF Homes
Paraaque is not arbitrary or unreasonable.
Hontanosas Usually, government employees obtain loans by
executing SPA authorizing lenders to get their salary as
payment thereof. Hence, CSC was alarmed, prompting it to
issue a circular declaring such SPA 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.
BANAT vs. COMELEC Petitioner assails the constitutionality of
the Sec. 34 of RA 9369, which fixes the per diem of poll
watchers of the dominant majority and dominant minority
parties.
Held: There is no violation of the non-impairment clause. The
non-impairment clause is limited in application to laws that
derogate from prior acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or
in any manner changing the intention of the parties.Also,it is
settled that police power is superior to the non-impairment
clause.While the contracting parties may establish such
stipulations as they may deem convenient, such stipulations
should not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public
order, or public policy. The role of poll watchers is invested
with public interest.
Serrano vs. Gallant The non-impairment clause is aligned
with the general principle that laws newly enacted have only a
prospective operation, and cannot affect acts or contracts
already perfected; however, as to laws already in existence,
their provisions are read into contracts and deemed a part
thereof. Thus, the non-impairment clause is limited in
application to laws about to be enacted that would in any way
derogate from existing acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging
or in any manner changing the intention of the parties thereto.
The enactment of RA 8042 in 1995 preceded the execution of
the employment contract in 1998. Hence, it cannot be argued
that RA 8042, particularly the subject clause, impaired the
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
employment contract of the parties. Rather, when the parties
executed their 1998 employment contract, they were deemed
to have incorporated into it all the provisions of RA 8042. Even
assuming arguendo that it has retroactive effect, police power
is superior to non-impairment clause.
Note: Remember that all laws have prospective effect, unless
expressly made to apply retroactively.
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 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. 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. The corporation contends that the
zoning ordinance cannot nullify the contractual obligation
assumed by the buyer. Decide.
a. The ordinance is void because it impaired a contract
b. The ordinance is valid because the contract has been
consummated and no longer exists between Smart
Corp and Pedro
c. 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
d. The ordinance is valid because it did not impair the
terms of the contract between Smart Corp and Pedro
FREE ACCESS TO COURTS
Section11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies
and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any
person by reason of poverty.
Acar v. Rosal This is a civil case which was filed by Sacada
workers against the Sugar Central. Complainants prayed that
they be authorized to sue as pauper litigants (to be exempted
to pay certain fees). The court denied their motion because
they were workers, and not paupers.
Held: The court held that there was a denial of access to courts
by reason of poverty. An indigent was defined as persons who
have no property or source of income sufficient for their own
labor, though self-supporting when able to work and in
employment.
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION
Section 12. (1) Any person under custodial investigation for
the commission of an offense shall have the right to be
Page | 65
2014
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.
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.
Coverage:
1. When right attaches
2. Counsel of Choice
3. Right to be informed
4. Waiver
5. Exclusionary Rule
Rights guaranteed:
1. The right to remain silent
2. The right to a competent and independent Counsel,
preferably his own choice
3. The right to be informed of these rights
4. When the right attaches
1. When right attaches
When right to counsel attaches? 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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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.
(People vs. Dimaano)
Requisites when right attaches:
1. He must be under the custody of law enforcers or is in jail
or deprived of freedom of action in a significant way.
2. He must be under investigation subjected to questioning
or interrogation by a law enforcer.
3. Such questioning must be on relation to a crime.
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 CSC 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 an
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?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, the right attaches.
2. Are voluntary admissions or res gestae statements
covered? People vs. Dy A person in Boracay voluntarily went
to the police station and admitted to have shot a tourist. Held:
The oral confession is competent evidence against him. It may
be regarded as part of the res gestae. An oral confession need
not be repeated verbatim, but in such a case it must be given in
substance. What was told by the accused to the police was a
spontaneous statement not elicited through questioning, but
given an ordinary manner. No written confession was sought to
be presented in evidence as a result of formal custodial
investigation.
Page | 66
2014
People vs. Arondain The confession made by the accused
admitting the crime cannot be admitted as part of res gestae. It
must be stressed that said statement, if it was made by
accused, was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights.
Said confession was given after he was arrested and without
the assistance of counsel. He was not even informed of his right
to remain silent or right to counsel.
3. Is a person placed in a police line-up entitled to counsel?
No! The accused does not enjoy the right to counsel during a
police line-up. The purpose of the line-up was only for
identification, and there was no investigation.
People vs. Macam The accused were brought to the Quezon
City General Hospital and made to line-up together with several
policemen in civilian clothes. The witnesses, who were confined
at the hospital for injuries sustained during the robbery, were
asked to pinpoint the perpetrators. At that time, accused were
handcuffed and bore contusions on their faces caused by the
blows inflicted on them by the police.
Held: After the start of the custodial investigation, any
identification of an uncounseled accused made in a police line-
up is inadmissible. This is particularly true in the case at bar
where the police officers first talked to the victims before the
confrontation was held. The circumstances were such as to
impart improper suggestions on the minds of the victims that
may lead to a mistaken identification. Accused were
handcuffed and had contusions on their faces.
4. Is an interview given to a TV or radio reporter covered by
the right to counsel?No! Admission given to a radio or TV
reporter (a private person) is admissible. You are not entitled to
the 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?People vs.Gomez This involved a person charged of
dangerous drugs violations. He was arrested and investigated in
Hongkong by Filipino investigators without the presence of a
counsel.
Held: Accused is entitled to a lawyer there. It is immaterial that
the sworn statement was executed in a foreign land. Accused, a
Filipino citizen, should enjoy these constitutional rights, like
anyone else, even when abroad. Hence, it is not admissible.
6. When a suspect is made to sign receipts of articles taken
from him, is he entitled to counsel? Yes! You are entitled to
counsel. This is a very easy and clever way for the police to
incriminate you or to have you admit a crime. For instance, the
police searched 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 inadmissible. Their
testimony can still be admitted against you.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
7. What about if he is made to sign a marked money taken
from him in a buy-bust 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? No! You are entitled to right to counsel
when there is reenactment. Forced re-enactments, like
uncounseled and coerced confessions, come within the ban
against self-incrimination. Hence, any pictures taken without
counsel is inadmissible.
9. In an administrative investigation, is a person entitled to
counsel?Lumiqued vs. Exevea No! There is nothing in the
Constitution that says that a party in a non-criminal proceeding
is entitled to be represented by counsel and that, without such
representation, he shall not be bound by such proceedings. The
assistance of lawyers, while desirable, is not indispensable.
10. Are you entitled to counsel when you are only invited or
interviewed?Yes! You are entitled to counsel. Otherwise, any
admission elicited from you without counsel shall be
inadmissible.As long as you are under the police custody, you
are entitled to counsel.
11. How about investigation by Barangay Tanod orby Bantay
Bayan?Investigation by a Barangay Tanod is covered because
they are agents of the state. You are entitled to counsel.
Summary: Custodial Investigation
1. Suspect must be in custody, either in jail or deprived of his
freedom in a significant way
2. Under investigation, questioning initiated by officers
having custody in relation to an offense 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.
People v. Bokingo (2011) Accused was charged with murder.
During the preliminary investigation, he admitted killing the
victim, which admission was taken down by the prosecutors
stenographer. Is the admission admissible?
Held: No! Note that in the preliminary investigation, for
purposes of determining whether 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 (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
Page | 67
2014
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 police stations are admissible
even without a lawyer because they are part of the res gestae.
It is not covered by the right to counsel. The requirement that
admissions must be made in writing applies only in custodial
investigation. In the instant case, the statements made were
voluntary and part of the res gestae.
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?
a. No since he has not been forewarned of his rights to
silence and to counsel
b. Yes, since he made his declaration before he could be
taken into custody and investigated most appropriate
answer
c. No, since he has entered the police station and came
within its jurisdiction
d. 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. Is
the receipt admissible?
No! The receipt is inadmissible. Since the receipt is a document
admitting the offense charged, Galang should have been
assisted by counsel
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?
Yes! They are entitled to counsel. Right to counsel does not
extend to police line-ups, because they are not part of custodial
investigations.However, after the start of custodial
investigation, if the accused was not assisted by counsel, any
identification of the accused in a police line-up is inadmissible.
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! The right to be informed of his right to remain silent and
his right to counsel is required only if a person is under
custodial investigation. Search warrant has nothing to do with
custodial investigation.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
1993, No. 14. 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 ships permit for shipping documents.
The vessel and its cargo were 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 ships
resident agent executed sworn statements before the customs
legal officer admitting that the contraband cargowere found
aboard the vessel. The shipping lines object to the admission of
the statements contending that the two were not assisted by
counsel? Are the statements admissible?
Yes! The statements are admissible. The assistance of counsel
is not indispensable to due process in forfeiture proceedings
since such proceedings are not
criminal in nature. This is an administrative proceeding or
investigation conducted by customs officer (not by a police) in a
seizure and detention proceedings. The statements made can
be used in any proceeding.
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?
a. No, since it amounts to a waiver of right to silence
without the advice of counsel note that re-enactment
amounts to admission
b. Yes, since the reenactment was voluntary
c. No, since it is irrelevant evidence
d. 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 of counsel:
1. Suspect can choose his lawyer.
2. If police chooses someone, and he expressly agrees to the
lawyer given to him, he is deemed the counsel of choice of
the suspect.
3. Likewise, if police chooses someone and you agree to be
investigated without objection, counsel is deemed the
choice of accused.
Lumanog v.People (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 lawyers assistance.
Was the lawyer a counsel of choice by the accused? Yes! If the
police chooses someone and you agree to be investigated
without objection, said counsel is deemed the choice of
accused.
2005, No. 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
Page | 68
2014
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 Marianos statement,
made with the assistance of Atty. Barroso, admissible in
evidence?
a. yes, because the right to choose counsel belongs to
the investigator
b. 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.
c. yes, because the lawyer assigned to him was a Bar
Topnocher
d. 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(not working for the police), effective and vigilant.
Who are not deemed independent?
1. Prosecutors People vs. Matus-Viduya A fiscal cannot
exercise the function of defense counsel even during
custodial investigation. To allow such a happenstance
would render illusory the protection given to the accused
during custodial investigation.
2. Those conducting preliminary investigations Lawyers of
the Ombudsman, while they are not prosecutors, conduct
preliminary investigation. COMELEC lawyers also conduct
preliminary investigations. They are prohibited under RA
7438.
3. City, Municipal and Provincial attorneys [Espanola, Culala]
Theyassist the Mayors or the LCEs in the peace and order
in their respective locality. They are not expected to be
neutral (may even be presumed to be working for the
police)
4. Mayors and Barangay Captains who are lawyers (also
governors)
5. Those directly affected by the case
6. Policemen who are lawyers
Who can choose a lawyer?
1. The accused
2. Anyone acting on his behalf (but doesnt seem to include
the investigator)
3. The court, upon petition
What is the rule under RA 7438? Paragraph 2(b) last sentence:
investigator can choose provided there is conformity by the
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
accused. Conformity can be expressed or implied in the sense
that the failure to object by the accused means consent to the
lawyer assigned to him by the investigator.
Venue of investigation is only incidental. No Custodial
investigation even if conducted at the police precinct if it is not
a police officer who conducted the investigation. (Manuel vs.
N.C. Construction)
Lumanog v. People (2010) 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
lawyers 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 States burden of proving with clear and
convincing evidence that the accused had enjoyed effective
and vigilant counsel before he extra-judicially admitted his
guilt, the extrajudicial confession cannot be given any probative
value.
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.
No! The statement of A cannot be admitted as his confession.
First, the right to counsel attaches at the start of the
investigation. Second, the counsel was not effective and
vigilant.
Effective and vigilant A lawyer, though present during the
conduct of the custodial investigation, was doing something,
opening the door, looking 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?
Page | 69
2014
Is the confession admissible?
No! The confession is inadmissible in view of the fact that the
counsel of choice was not qualified to assist suspects in
custodial investigations.
3. Right to be informed
To be informed Presupposes a transmission of meaningful
information, not just ceremonial recitation of an abstract
principle. The police must explain the meaning of the provision
in a language the accused fairly understands. This will depend
on factors like educational background and intelligence of
accused.
People vs. Canela Prior to the investigation, the police let the
accused read the rights. When the case reached the SC, the
accused raised the issue on whether he was sufficiently
informed in accordance with the constitutional requirement.
Held: The court held that asking the accused just to read his
rights will not be sufficient under the idea of meaningful
transmission of information. The accused should be made sure
to have understood his rights.
People vs. Kadiwa The accused, upon being informed of his
rights was only made to answer one word, OPO. Held: The
court ruled there was no sufficient compliance of the right to
be informed. The function was kilometric while the answer was
monosyllabic, which does not show that the accused properly
understood his rights. (Note: There is no formula but merely
depends on the education, literacy, etc. of the accused)
4. Waiver
What can the accused waive?
1. Right to remain silent
2. Right to counsel
Note: Right to be informed cannot be waived.
Requisites (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
3. After a valid waiver, confession itself must be signed in the
presence of the parents, elder brothers and sisters, his
spouse, the municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the gospel, as
chosen by him (RA 7438) to ensure that there is no
coercion signature not required
4. It must be voluntary 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, counsel may now leave the person.
Investigation and confession without a lawyer may now
proceed. Note, however, that the signing of the confession
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
must be made in the presence of the persons enumerated
under RA 7438.
4. Exclusionary Rule
Confessions which are covered:
1. Uncounseled confession includes confessions obtained
without a valid waiver
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.
3. Oral confession
RA 7438 All confessions during custodial investigation have to
be in writing to be admissible. But oral confessions not under
custodial investigation are 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.
5. Accused is promised a better treatment, or that he would
be released if he signs
Scope of inadmissibility:
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
4. For any purpose in any proceedings (RA 7438)
Note: This right cannot be used in labor, civil or administrative
proceedings. Note, however, that confessions obtained under
administrative investigations, even without a lawyer, can be
used in any proceeding. 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?
Page | 70
2014
a. The confession of Joseph is admissible against Rafael
and Carlos
b. The confession of Joseph is admissible against himself
c. 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 that
once the testimony is being repeated during the trial,
it will be admissible since it is not a confession that is
being presented as evidence. Moreover, the witness
will be subject to cross-examination.
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?
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
Presumptions:
1. No presumptions that the Miranda Warning has been
given. (General rule)
People vs. Tolentino According to the SC, there is no
presumption that the police have given the Miranda warning to
the accused. During the trial, the prosecution must prove that
the police have warned the accused of his rights under Section
12 in the absence of proof. It is presumed that there was no
warning given and the evidence is inadmissible. There is no
presumption of regularity of official acts under the Miranda
Rule.
2. No presumption on the validity of a waiver.
People vs. Jara Whenever there is a waiver of constitutional
rights, then presumption is always against the waiver. The
presumption is that there was no waiver given. If the
prosecution claims there was a waiver. They must prove with
strong and convincing evidence to the satisfaction of the Court.
Also, there is no presumption of the regularity of official acts in
this case.
What must the prosecution prove? The presumption is that
there was no valid waiver, except if the prosecution can prove:
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
a. That the accused willingly and voluntarily made his
confession
b. That the accused was not interested in having a lawyer
c. That the waiver complied with all the requirements to
make a valid one
d. There was a valid Miranda Warning
Mere presentation of the text of the waiver is not sufficient to
prove the above-mentioned.
RIGHT TO BAIL
Section 13. 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.
2011, 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 Xbased on the
prosecution's manifestation that it was not objecting to the
grant of bail. Is the trial judge correct?
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
c. 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
When is bail a matter of right?
1. Before (during trial) or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC,
MCTC; (before final judgment)
2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by
less than reclusion perpetua or death (SC Administrative
Circular No. 12-94); and No matter how many counts of
the crime for which you have been charged in the RTC, the
Page | 71
2014
penalty of which is less than 20 years or less than reclusion
perpetua, you are entitled to bail as a matter of right. As
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]
People vs. Sandiganbayan (2007) Even if the capital offense
charged is bailable owing to the weakness of the evidence of
guilt, the right to bail may justifiably still be denied if the
probability of escape is great.
When is bail not allowed?
1. After final judgment by any court; even if penalty is one
day imprisonment by final judgement, bail is not allowed
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 not more than 20 years, if:
a. Accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual
delinquent or has committed a crime aggravated by
reiteracion;
b. Accused is found to have previously escaped from
legal confinement;
c. accused committed the offense while on probation,
parole or conditional pardon;
d. circumstances of accused or his case indicate the
probability of flight;
e. thereis undue risk that during the pendency of the
appeal, accused may commit another crime. (SC AC
No. 12-94)
Notes:
1. This includes punishment of life imprisonment.
2. Mitigating circumstances are not yet considered to
determine the penalty because in the end, it will only
result in a full-blown trial. Although mitigating
circumstances in general are not considered yet. The
mitigating circumstance of minority may be considered in
granting bail.
3. SC AC 12-94 is constitutional because it only limits the right
to bail after conviction while the case is on appeal. The
right to bail is only guaranteed by the Constitution before
conviction, not after conviction while the case is on appeal.
The Constitution does not distinguish whether before final
decision or before appeal.
When is bail a matter of discretion?
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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)
May an alien invoke the Constitutional right to bail during the
pendency of deportation proceedings? Yes. According to the
Lao Gi vs. CA, the court held that due to the harsh
consequences of deportation proceedings to the life and liberty
of a person, the rules on criminal procedure including the right
to bail, should be applied to deportation proceedings.
Is there a right to bail in extradition?
1. Government vs. Purganan (2002) No. The constitutional
provision on bail does not apply to extradition proceedings, the
same being available only in criminal proceedings.
2. Government vs. Olalia (2007) Yes. Bail has been allowed
to persons in detention during the pendency of administrative
proceedings, taking into cognizance the obligation of the
Philippines under international conventions to uphold human
rights.Also, the provisions relating to bail was applied to
deportation proceedings.If bail can be granted in deportation
cases, there is no reason why it should not also be allowed in
extradition cases.
An extradition proceeding is not by its nature criminal, for it is
not punishment for a crime, even though such punishment may
follow extradition. It is sui generis, tracing its existence wholly
to treaty obligations between different nations. It is not a trial
to determine the guilt or innocence of the potential extraditee.
But while extradition is not a criminal proceeding, a potential
extraditee may be subjected to arrest and to a prolonged
restraint of liberty. The premise behind the issuance of the
arrest warrant and the "temporary detention" is the possibility
of flight of the potential extraditee. The prospective extraditee
thus bears the onus probandi of showing that he or she is not a
flight risk and should be granted bail.
Is there a right to bail in military proceedings?Commendador
vs. De Villa The accused was charged with violation of the
Articles of War before a Court Martial. Is a person charged
before a court martial has a right to bail? Held: The court
decided that traditionally, the right to bail has not been
recognized in themilitary courts. Also, the unique structure of
the military should be enough reason to exempt military men
from the constitutional coverage on the right to bail. For
national security considerations, release on bail constitutes a
damaging precedent. Mutinous soldiers could freely resume
their heinous activity which could very well result in the
overthrow of duly constituted authorities.
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.
Page | 72
2014
Unconstitutional! The right to bail may only be denied in crimes
punishable by the penalty of reclusion perpetua or death,
where the evidence of guilt is strong.
In which instance is bail not allowed?
a. The imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua
and the accused is a minor. Because it will no longer be
reclusion perpetual in view of the mitigating circumstance
of minority; the penalty is reduced to one or two degrees
b. The imposable penalty for the crime charged is life
imprisonment and the accused is a minor. Because we do
not apply the mitigating or aggravating circumstances in
crimes punishable by special laws. So you cannot say that it
is one degree lower than life imprisonment. Take note!
There is no such thing as one degree lower of life
imprisonment
c. 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
a 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 a
conditional one. It is as if there is no circumstance.
Accused must be under conditional pardon to make 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 in cases where the penalty is
reclusion perpetua or death, the judge must hold a hearing to
determine whether evidence of guilt is strong or not, even if
the prosecution does not object to the application for bail.This
is to ascertain the quality of the evidence of guilt that the
prosecution presented.
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 whether or not to grant or deny it. The
contemplated hearing is only for purpose of determining
whether or not the evidence of guilt 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 the court is allowed
to account the presence of aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, it will result to a full blown trial and the purpose
of the law on hearing would be defeated and rendered
nugatory. The mitigating circumstance of minority is allowed
because mere presentation of birth certificate would suffice. It
is easy to determine minority. Note, however, that the
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
circumstance of minority is not applicable to offenses
punishable under a special law, where the penalty is life
imprisonment.
4. Bail can be waived expressly in writing (People vs. Donato) or
impliedly (People vs. Manes) by not pursuing ones petition for
bail.
People vs. Donato Salas was arrested and was charged for
rebellion. He was charged together with the spouses
Concepcion. Salas, together with his co-accused later filed a
petition for the issuance of a WOHC. It was later agreed upon
by the parties that Salas will withdraw his petition for the
WOHC and that he will remain in custody for the continued
investigation of the case. Later on, Salas filed to be admitted
for bail, which was approved.
Held: Salas did waive his right to bail when he withdrew his
petition for the issuance of the WOHC. The right to bail is
purely personal, thus, it can be waived. Hence, the waiver of
Salas is valid and binding. What may not be waived are only
those matters where the state has interest.
People vs. Manes He filed for bail but he did not pursue it
until his conviction of the crime. Held:The right to bail may be
impliedly waived by not pursuing ones 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 prove otherwise. Only then he
can make a decision. Hence, the outright denial of judge was
not correct.
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, deportation
proceeding 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. Otherwise, he must be allowed.
Page | 73
2014
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
c. 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
whether or not he should be granted bail. There may
be a hearing but only for purpose of determining the
amount of bail
RIGHTS OF ACCUSED (DURING TRIAL)
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.
Ten rights covered:
1. Right to Due Process
2. Right to Presumption of Innocence
3. Right to be Heard
4. Right to Counsel
5. Right to be Informed
6. Right to a Speedy Trial
7. Right to an Impartial Trial
8. Right to a Public Trial
9. Right to Meet the Witnesses
10. Right to Compulsory Process
1. Due Process
Due process here is procedural, not substantive.
Elements:(applicable to criminal cases)
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 vs.
Azura)
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Olaguer vs. Military Commission (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 courts except if the former is no longer
functioning.
Pagasian vs. Azura In a criminal case for theft, Barangay
Captain Pagasian was a witness. It appeared that because of a
report, and accompanied by police, he seized the carabao from
the house of the accused which allegedly is the subject matter
of the theft. After trial, the Judge acquitted the accused but
convicted Pagasian.
Held: The court ruled that the judge violated due process. The
barangay captain was not informed of the charges against him
and in fact, he had no idea that he was on trial. He did not even
present evidences in his own behalf.
2. Presumption of innocence
Reversed presumption is allowed in:
a. 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.
b. Anti-fencing
c. Rules of evidence
d. Illegal Fishing
e. Intellectual Property Law
f. Plunder
Are these presumptions constitutional? Yes. Clearly, the fact
presumed is but a natural inference from the fact proved so
that it cannot be said that there is no rational connection
between the two. Further, the statute establishes only a prima
facie presumption thus giving the accused an opportunity to
rebut it.
Why does it not violate the Constitution?
a. It is only prima facie meaning, it is subject to rebuttal.
Otherwise stated, if he can prove otherwise, he can be
acquitted
b. 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.
2004, No. 5. 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 RRs farm. RR could not explain to the
Page | 74
2014
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 cattleunder the penal law.
Are the 2 presumptions capable of reconciliation in this 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.
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:
a. What is proved and presumed are reasonably
connected
b. The nature of the crime committed permits a reverse
presumption
c. The accused has ample opportunity to overcome the
adverse presumption
d. The law is not retroactive
3. To be heard Pertains to the right to present evidence in
ones behalf, including:
a. The right to testify in ones favor
b. The right to call witnesses
c. The right to be given reasonable opportunity to
present witnesses.
4. Right to counsel
Elements of Right to Counsel:
a. The court is duty-bound to inform accused of his right
before the arraigned;
b. The court must ask him if he desires the service of counsel;
c. If he does, and is unable to get one, the court must assign
him a counsel de officio;
d. If accused wishes to get a private counsel, the court must
give him time to obtain one.
People vs. Holgado It is not enough for the Court to apprise
an accused of his right to have an attorney, or to ask him
whether he desires the aid of an attorney.It is essential that the
court should assign one de officio if he so desires, or to grant
him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own.
What is the effect if accused is convicted and it turned out
that his lawyer is fake?The conviction has to be overturned
because his right to counsel is violated. This applies also to civil
cases where the counsel turned out not to be a real lawyer. The
party represented is entitled to a new trial
Can a conviction be nullified if ones lawyer is
incompetent?Generally, it cannot because all lawyers are
presumed to be competent because they passed the Bar. The
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
exception is if the incompetence of the lawyer amounts to
violation of due process. Example: When a lawyer never
appeared again after his client has been arraigned, and the
latter was convicted by virtue thereof. The conviction has to be
nullified. A new trial must be had.
Callangan vs. People Callangan filed a timely motion for new
trial on the ground that she was deprived of her day in court
because of the gross negligence of her counsel. The SC ruled
that outright deprivation of liberty will be the consequence of
Callangan's criminal conviction based solely on the evidence for
the prosecution. Thus, to prevent a miscarriage of justice and
to give meaning to the due process clause, the SC allowed
Callangan to present evidence in her defense. The rule that the
negligence of counsel binds the client admits of exceptions. The
recognized exceptions are: (1) where reckless or gross
negligence of counsel deprives the client of due process of law,
(2) when its application will result in outright deprivation of the
clients liberty or property or (3) where the interests of justice
so require.
Can a person defend himself without a lawyer?People vs.
Sesbreo The substantial and constitutional right of the
accused to counsel is not violated where he was represented
by a member of the Bar. Accused chose to be represented in
this case by a prominent and competent member of the Bar,
namely himself, even if there were other available counsel.
Accused is now estopped from claiming that the trial court
violated his right to be represented by counsel of his own
choice. Note that he also brushed aside the courts offer of
assistance by another counsel, a PAO lawyer. He declared there
was no need therefor.
Note:In the MTC, we have no problem. In the RTC, you must
make a request in writing to be allowed to defend yourself
without a lawyer. If the judge is convinced that you will be able
to defend yourself, then you can proceed even if you are not a
lawyer.
What is the extent of the right to retain?The right to retain a
counsel must be consistent with the right of the state to
prosecute. The extent of the right to retain or choose a lawyer
is limited. It must be consistent with the right of the state to
prosecute. Otherwise, the trial will be delayed.
5. Right to be informed
The information charging the accused with a crime must be
stated with precision. There must be specific allegations of
every fact and circumstance necessary for the crime charged.
The information has to be read to the accused. What controls is
the body of the information, not the caption.
Purpose of the Right:
1. To enable the accused to defend himself.
2. To enable him to avail of the protection of double jeopardy if
prosecuted or charged the second time for the same offense
Page | 75
2014
Examples:
a. Sale and possession of illegal drugs If you are charged of
sale of shabu, and the 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 possession. He defended himself only for the crime
charged, that is, sale of illegal drugs.
b. Physical injuries If the charge includes a lesser offense,
you can be convicted of the lesser offense. For instance, you
are charged with serious physical injuries, but the prosecution
was only able to prove slight physical injuries, you can be
convicted of the latter. Suppose you were charged with slight
physical but the crime proved was serious physical injury, you
can only be convicted of slight physical injury. Hence, you can
be convicted of a lesser offense, which must be necessarily
included in the crime charged.
c. People vs. Antido A person was charged of one count of
rape but the evidence presented showed that he raped the
victim three times.The court convicted accused with two
counts of rape. Held: if you are charged with one count, you
cannot be convicted of three counts because the accused is
deprived of his right to be informed. Since the information
specifically charges the accused with only one act of rape
committed on a specific date, then consistent with the
constitutional right of the accused to be informed of the nature
and cause of accusation against him, he cannot be held liable
for other acts of rape.
d. Allegation of retardation If you want to aggravate the
crime because the victim was a retardate or minor, you must
allege that in the Information. The conviction of the accused
cannot be aggravated by the same if not alleged in the
Information.
6. Right to a speedy trial
Factors on relativity of the right:
a. Extent of the delay
b. Reasons for the delay
c. Invocation of the right it must be invoked on time.
Otherwise, the right to speedy trial is waived
d. Prejudice to the accused if the accused is not out on bail,
it will prejudice him as he will be detained for a longer
period.
Note: This right is only violated if delay is capricious or
whimsical.
People vs. Tampal Accused was charged before the RTC with
robbery with homicide. The case was scheduled for hearing but
the prosecutor was absent. The judge considered the absence
of the prosecutor as unjustified and dismissed the case.
Held: In dismissing criminal cases based on the right of the
accused to speedy trials, courts should carefully weigh the
circumstances attending each case. They should balance the
right of the accused and the State to punish who violate its
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
penal laws. Both the State and the accused are entitled to due
process. The prosecutor could not be faulted for his failure to
attend the hearing on a particular date where the same was
due to his good faith and belief that said date was a Muslim
legal holiday. In determining the right of the accused to speedy
trial, courts should do more than a mathematical computation
of the number of postponements of the scheduled hearings.
People vs. Gines There were several trial schedules totaling
to six dates. The complainant is former Justice
Guerrero and the accused is Mayor Labo. Five of these
scheduled trials were cancelled because complainant was not
around because he was seeking medical treatment for his
cataracts. The accused moved for dismissal on the ground of
the right to speedy trial.
Held: The court ruled that there was no violation of the right to
speedy trial. One cannot use the right in order to deprive the
State of a reasonable opportunity of indicting criminals.
Absence of complainants was done in good faith and with
justifiable reasons. The dismissal due to absence of
complainant on valid reasons was erroneous. The case would
be restated without putting the accused in double jeopardy.
7. Right to impartial trial
Right to impartial trial is the right to have an impartial judge.
The impartiality must not only be in reality but also even in
appearance. According to the SC, a litigant is entitled to the
cold neutrality of an impartial judge. The judge should file a
motion for inhibition if he is not impartial.
What is trial by publicity? What right is violated? What is the
test?
People vs. Sanchez The print and broadcast media gave the
case at bar pervasive publicity, just like all high profile and high
stake criminal trials. the right of an accused to a fair trial is not
incompatible to a free press. To warrant a finding of prejudicial
publicity, there must be allegation and proof that the judges
have been unduly influenced, not simply that they might be, by
the barrage of publicity. In the case at bar, the records do not
show that the trial judge developed actual bias against accused
as a consequence of the extensive media coverage of the pre-
trial and trial of his case.
Estrada vs. Desierto a right to a fair trial and the free press
are incompatible. Also, since our justice system does not use
the jury system, the judge, who is a learned and legally
enlightened individual, cannot be easily manipulated by mere
publicity.
Note: All these convictions were impugned on the ground of
impartial trial. The decisions of these cases were attempted to
be nullified on the ground of trial by publicity.This does not
apply in impeachment.
Page | 76
2014
Test: Totality of circumstances Test There must be allegation
and proof that the judges have been unduly influenced, not
simply that they might be, by the barrage of publicity. The test
is whether the trial judge acquired a fixed opinion as a result of
prejudicial publicity which is incapable of change even by
evidence presented during the trial.
Re: Petition for radio and television coverage... (Ampatuan)
On the possible influence of media coverage on the impartiality
of trial court judges, the Court found that prejudicial publicity
insofar as it undermines the right to a fair trial must pass the
totality of circumstances test. The right of an accused to a fair
trial is not incompatible to a free press, that pervasive publicity
is not per se prejudicial to the right of an accused to a fair trial,
and that there must be allegation and proof of the impaired
capacity of a judge to render a bias-free decision. Mere fear of
possible undue influence is not tantamount to actual prejudice
resulting in the deprivation of the right to a fair trial.
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 televise 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?
The public trial with media coverage involves right of freedom
of press, the right of the people to be informed (because trial is
a matter of public concern), and the right of the court to
control the proceedings and administer justice. However, in the
case of Estrada, the SC has ruled in favor of the right of the
accused to a fair and impartial trial. But the National Press Club
moved for reconsideration, contending that the trial is a public
matter. Hence, the court reversed its prior decision. It allowed
one camera to be installed to record the proceedings, to be
later archived in the National Museum. After the trial has been
culminated, it is the only time that itbe allowed for public view.
Re: Petition for Radio and TV... (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. Aquinos
Libel Case. Should the SC allow live media coverage of the
trial?
Held: It is about time to craft a win-win situation that shallnot
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.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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 days 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.
Note: This is a pro hac vice resolution. Generally,live coverage
of trial is still not allowed, only recording. Hence, you need to
petition before SC if you want to have live coverage of a certain
trial.
Sub judice Rule The sub judice rule restricts comments and
disclosures pertaining to the judicial proceedings in order to
avoid prejudging the issue, influencing the court, or obstructing
the administration of justice. A violation of this rule may render
one liable for indirect contempt. The specific rationale for the
sub judice rule is that courts, in the decision of issues of fact
and law should be immune from every extraneous influence;
that facts should be decided upon evidence produced in court;
and that the determination of such facts should be
uninfluenced by bias, prejudice or sympathies.
While the sub judice rule may be considered as a curtailment of
the right to free speech, it is necessary to ensure the proper
administration of justice and the right of an accused to a fair
trial. The principal purpose of the rule is to preserve the
impartiality of the judicial system by protecting it from undue
influence.Public opinion has no place in a criminal trial.
Page | 77
2014
8. Public Trial
Publicity of the trial is necessary to prevent abuses that may be
committed by the court to the prejudice of the defendant. In
certain cases, however, the public may be excluded. This
applies to rape and child abuse cases where only selected
persons are allowed inside the court, or when the trial is held
with the chambers of the judge.
Note: This right belongs to the accused and therefore it can be
waived by the accused.
9. Right to meet witnesses
This is the right of the accused to cross examine the witnesses
against him. The right to confrontation intends to secure the
accused in the right to be tried, so far as facts provable by
witnesses are concerned, by only such witnesses as meet him
face to face at the trial, who give their testimony in his
presence, and give to the accused an opportunity of cross-
examination. It was intended to prevent conviction of the
accused upon deposition or ex parte affidavits, and particularly
to preserve the right of the accused to test the recollection of
the witness in the exercise of the right of cross-examination.
Exceptions to the availability of the right:
a. Admissibility of a dying mans declaration
b. Trial in absentia (accused was not present in the hearing,
hence waived his right to confront the witnesses)
People v. Nadera This involves a rape case. After the victim's
direct examination had been finished, the counsel of accused
did not conduct any cross examination on the ground that he
was convinced the victim was telling the truth. The SC ruled
that cross examination becomes essential to test the credibility
of the witnesses, expose falsehoods or half-truths, uncover the
truth which rehearsed direct examination testimonies may
successfully suppress, and demonstrate inconsistencies in
substantial matters which create reasonable doubt as to the
guilt of the accused and thus to give substance to the
constitutional right of the accused to confront the witnesses
against him. The victim claimed that she was last raped on April
24, 1995. Yet, the medical examination conducted on her on
April 30, 1996 revealed the presence of spermatozoa in the
vaginal canal on that date. This raises a number of questions
that bear upon the credibility of the victim as a witness and
upon the guilt of accused. This may not necessarily mean that
she was lying, but it does indicate a necessity of cross
examining her in order to ferret out the truth.
10. Right to compulsory process
A person accused can obtain a subpoena from the court in
order to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf.
To establish the right, accused must show:
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
a. That the witness is really material
b. That he is guilty of no neglect in previously obtaining the
attendance of the witness
c. That the witness will be available at the time desired
d. That no similar evidence should be obtained from other
witnesses.
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA
Requisites for Trial in Absentia:
1. Accused has been arraigned;
2. He was notified of the proceedings; and
3. His failure to appear is unjustified.
General Rule: The right to attend trial can be waived.
Exception:
1. Arraignment
2. During the identification stage (witness testifies to the
identity of the accused)
3. Promulgation of judgment
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 prosecutions
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?
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 the 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.
Can an accused who escaped retain his right to confrontation,
to present evidence, to cross examination, and to be heard?
Page | 78
2014
No! These rights are no longer retained once the accused
escapes. The provision on trial in absentia will be useless.
Escape is tantamount to a waiver to your right to present
evidence, confrontation, and etc.
HABEAS CORPUS
Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not
be suspended except in cases of invasion or rebellion, when
the 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, and to
explain the cause of detention.
Four cases when it can be filed:
1. Detention without charges
2. Cases where a prisoner has served sentence but is not
released
3. Custody of children
4. Where patients are detained in hospital for failure to pay
the bill
Other Instances when it can apply:
1. When a person is unlawfully denied of his constitutional
freedom
2. Person is denied of due process
3. Restraints are involuntary and unnecessary
4. Where deprivation of freedom which is originally valid
becomes arbitrary later on.
Two grounds for the suspension of the writ:
1. Invasion
2. Rebellion
Note: But it should be that public safety requires it.
Only the privilege is suspended, not the writ itself If the
privilege of writ of habeas corpus is suspended and you file a
petition for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus, the court
must issue the same as a matter of course. It is because the
issuance of the writ itself is not suspended but only the
privilege. Once the privilege is suspended, and you filed for the
issuance of the same, and in the return, the person detained is
charged with rebellion or other crimes in furtherance thereof,
the court will not make any inquiry. Meaning, the court will
stop the inquiry since you cannot obtain the privilege of getting
released. Remember, what is suspended is the privilege, not
the issuance thereof.
Effects of suspension on right to bail the right to bail is not
suspended if the privilege is suspended
When may be availed of: (cases of illegal deprivation of liberty)
1. Detention without charge This happens when you are
detained for the commission of a crime and you are not
charged within a prescribe period (36 hours). You must petition
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus. The detention shall
become illegal if after the lapse of 36 hours, still no charges
against you have been made. This rule applies even if you are
arrested in flagrante delicto.
2. Sentence already been served This has reference to those
who were convicted of illegal possession of firearms and were
sentenced for 12 years. Later, the Revilla law was passed
reducing the penalty thereof to 6 years. Held: Insofar as those
who have already served sentence more than 6 years, they may
be released by filing a petition for the issuance of writ of
habeas corpus, in view of the settled rule that criminal statutes
shall be given retroactive effect if it is favorable to the accused.
3. Non-payment of debt The privilege may be had also
where the person is detained by a creditor for non-payment of
debts or those who were not released by the hospital for
failure to pay the bills. That is illegal detention.
Moncupavs. Enrile Moncupa 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 the media and change his
residence.
Held: Considering that the release was with a condition and
there were restrictions imposed upon his release, the petition
must proceed. Restraints attached to temporary release of a
detained person warrant the SCs inquiry into the nature of the
involuntary restraint. Reservation of the military in the form of
restrictions attached to the detainees temporary release
constitutes restraints on the liberty of the detainee. It is not
physical restraint alone which is inquired into by the writ of
habeas corpus. Thus, temporary release of detainee from
detention with involuntary restraints does not render the
petition for writ of habeas corpus moot and academic. It is
available where a person continue to be unlawfully denied of
one or more of his constitutional freedoms, where there is
denial of due process, where the restraints are not merely
involuntary but are necessary, and where a deprivation of
freedom originally valid has later become arbitrary.
Three ways to comply the writ:
1. By producing the body
2. By affidavit that such persons are sick and could not be
safely brought out to court
3. By proving that such person have waived their rights to be
present by affidavit
Note: Non-production of the person is sufficient ground to hold
offenders in contempt of court. The offender must exert all
effort to produce the body (mere writing of letters is not
enough). He must exert all means a mortal man can do.
Remember also the case where a person was arrested inManila
and brought to Davao.Before the petition could be acted upon,
the person whoarrested released the detainee. The former
contended that the petition has become moot in view of the
Page | 79
2014
release in Davao; thus, 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. SC ruled that until such time that you
bring that person to Manila, the petition shall not become
moot and academic. (Villavicencio vs. Lukban)
In re: Aquino v. Esperon (2007) A military officer was
detained. His wife and relatives were not allowed to visit him.
He was held incommunicado. The wife filed a petition for the
issuance of WOHC. Held: Condition of confinement is not a
ground for the issuance of writ of habeas corpus. Note that the
purpose of its issuance is to obtain immediate release.
Ampatuan v. Macaraig (2010) Ampatuan, a police officer, was
arrested in Manila for the murder of COMELEC officials. He was
placed under restrictive custody wherein he was not allowed to
go out within a specified area. He filed for a petition for
issuance of WOHC. Held: Restrictive custody is a only nominal
restraint, not actual custody. A restrictive custody and
monitoring of movements or whereabouts of police officers
under investigation by their superiors is not a form of illegal
detention or restraint of liberty. Thus, it is beyond the ambit of
habeas corpus.
When writ not allowed or discharge not authorized:
1. If the person is in the custody of an officer and under
process by a court or judge
2. When the person is charged with or convicted of a crime in
the Philippines
3. A person is imprisoned under lawful judgment
4. By reason of informality defect in the process of
judgment or order if the jurisdiction appears after the writ
is allowed.
Ilagan vs. Enrile Persons were 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
reconsideration. Pending the disposition of the MR, the military
filed a case against these persons for rebellion. Held: Once a
case is already filed against these persons, the petition
becomes moot and academic. They cannot be released in view
of the case filed. Otherwise stated, the issuance of the warrant
of arrest renders the petition for the issuance of writ of habeas
corpus moot and academic because their detention will now be
valid. Dean Dela Banda: Dangerous doctrine!
Doctrine: Subsequent filing of criminal charges against the
detained persons renders the petition for habeas corpus moot
and academic.
Aberca vs. Ver President Marcos suspended the privilege of
WOHC. Since Diokno cannot successfully obtain the release of
certain persons, he filed a civil case for damages against
military officials for illegal detention, stealing properties of
detainees, etc. The military countered that Diokno is
circumventing the Constitution. Held: The SC said that once the
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
WOHC is suspended, only the privilege or right of getting
immediate release is suspended. Even the question of illegal
arrest is subject to inquiry in a civil suit even if the privilege of
the writ is suspended. Illegal arrest is distinct from continued
illegal detention. Thus, the civil case 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.
Writ of Amparo vs. Writ of Habeas Corpus:
1. Writ of amparo is a remedy against life liberty and security
while the latter is limited to liberty.
2. The former 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.
3. The former may be instituted against public official or
employee or of a private individual or entity while the
latter may be invoked against the state.
Note:
1. Writ of Amparo is more applicable to extrajudicial killings
and enforced disappearances.
2. 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 Maybegiven special jurisdiction over petitions for
habeas corpus where no RTC judges are available, but not to
for habeas data and amparo
Note: Generally, the writ issued by the RTC is only enforceable
within its judicial region. Search warrant is also enforceable
within the judicial region, but warrant of arrest is enforceable
everywhere.
Canlas v. Napico Homeowners (2008) Demolition of dwelling
is not a ground for the issuance of a writ of amparo. It has
nothing to do with life, liberty and security.
Reyes v. CA (2009) Fr. Reyes was issued a hold departure
order. Held: Right to travel has nothing to do with life liberty
and security.
Page | 80
2014
Roxas v. GMA (2010) Return of property seized has nothing
to do with life, liberty and security. You may file for replevin.
Property is not included.
Possible reliefs of writ of amparo:
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 of Habeas Data it is a remedy to order the person or
entity gathering data to stop the gathering or destroy the data
or records that have been gathered. This is to protect the
privacy of a person.
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 a criminal case
will render the detention moot as the same is clothed already
with a warrant of arrest, while the former will not render it
moot, for the reason that, while the deprivation of liberty is
legal, the actual or threatened violations of life and security is
still illegal.
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 suspension of the privilege of writ of habeas
corpus. But there is no agency or entity that is authorized to
suspend the privilege of writ of amparo and habeas data. It is
not provided in the constitution. It is likely that the Supreme
Court can suspend these remedies because it is the one who
promulgated and created the same. In other words, if there is a
suspension of habeas corpus, you can still file amparo and
habeas data. In amparo, while the deprivation of liberty (during
the suspension of heabeas corpus) may be rendered moot, you
can still pursue the same since life and security is covered by
the same. Same rule with habeas data. They are not affected by
suspension of habeas corpus.
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.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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 to illegal seizure,
as provided by the Constitutions, apply only to private
individuals against the state. In the case at bar, it is the State
which is being required to produce. Thus, it cannot be
considered as a 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 Peoples 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. After that period, if no charge is made, 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 the 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 ones speedy release from detention
because the purpose of the writ of habeas corpus is to
obtain your immediate release
c. 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 (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
Page | 81
2014
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 issuances, if there be any.
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.
Note: Once it is final, there is no need for the issuance of the
writ.
RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
Section 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?
1. Speedy disposition is broader than speedy trial
2. The former includes pre-trial, post-trial 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 evidence, witnesses, etc.
3. The former applies to all cases (admin, civil, criminal),
while speedy trial applies only to criminal cases.
4. The former applies to all judicial, quasi-judicial or
administrative bodies, while the latter applies only to
courts.
What are the factors to determine violation?
1. Right may be invoked only when the delay is capricious,
vexatious and oppressive
2. Reasonable causes of delay:
a. voluminous records
b. complex issues
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
c. frequent reorganization in an office (reorganization in
OMB)
Is the right waived by inaction? Remember that the right to
speedy trial may be waived by failure to invoke. But in speedy
disposition, the right may be waived when the delay is caused
by the accused.
Tatad vs. Sandiganbayan Initially, the complaints were filed
in 1974 against Tatad while he was still connected with
Malacaang. In 1979, he resigned so the complaints were filed
with the Tanodbayan. In 1982, the submission of evidence was
completed. In 1985, the Tanodbayan recommended the filing
of charges against him. Tatad claimed that there was a violation
of his right to speedy disposition. Subject matter was the time
between 1982 to 1985 since it was this time when the evidence
were presented and the Tanodbayan should have
recommended the filing of the charges at that time. The
argument of the Solicitor General is that: In past decisions,
absence of preliminary investigation is not a fatal defect and
the may be cured, thus, the more reason that delay should not
also be a fatal defect (NOTE: In past cases, fiscal can just file
charges without PI)
Held: The court held that long delayed in the termination of the
preliminary investigation is violative of the right to speedy trial.
The court also held that the absence of PI can be corrected. But
undue delay in the conduct of the preliminary investigation
cannot be corrected because until now, man still has not
invented a device to set back time.
RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Section 17.No person shall be compelled to be a witness
against himself.
When is a question incriminating?It is incriminating when the
questions levelled tends to subject you to a punishment for a
crime, or exposes you to the accusation, or tends to establishes
guilt against you.But it does not cover questions which are
embarrassing.
The right in various proceedings:
1. Criminal (Chavez vs. CA) prohibition of inquiry You can
refuse to take the witness stand.
2. Civil (Bagadiong vs. Gonzales) option to refuse to answer
an incriminating question You have to take the witness
stand and invoke the right only when questions asked are
incriminating.
3. Administrative case (Pascual vs. Board, Cabal vs. Kapunan)
Generally, option to refuse to answer an incriminating
question is applied in administrative cases. However, in the
following cases, they applied the prohibition on inquiry:
a. Pascual vs. Board A physician was facing revocation
of his medical license for malpractice. The respondent
physician refused to take the witness stand before the
PRC. Held: While this is not a criminal case, this can be
Page | 82
2014
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 witness stand.
b. Cabal vs. Kapunan This involved the forfeiture of ill-
gotten wealth. Held: You cannot be forced to take the
witness stand since the outcome of the proceedings
might result to loss of property.
Note: But in other administrative cases, you need to apply
the approach on civil case.
4. Legislative investigation (In re:Sabio) You cannot refuse
to take the witness stand. You can only refuse to answer
incriminating questions.
2011, 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.
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 questions 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? Same with
approach on civil case: only when question become
incriminating.
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 EXCEPT when the State has a right to inspect
the same under its police power.
Exceptions:
1. Baseco vs. PCGGPCCG required a corporation to produce
documents. The latter invoked the right against self-
incrimination. Held: the corporation cannot invoke the right
against self-incrimination in view of the fact that it is only a
creature of the State. Its existence is owed to the State; thus, it
cannot invoke such right against the state. In fact, the state can
even dissolve the corporation. As to the corporate officers, it
will not be self-incriminating against them. Granting the
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
documents required to be produced are incriminating, it will
incriminate, not the officers, but the corporation they
represent. Hence, they may be compelled to produce the
documents.
2. Almonte vs. Vasquez The right against self-incrimination
does not apply topublic officers who are required to produce
public documents.This is premised on the fact that the public
has the right to information on matters of public concern. The
only exception is if it is covered by executive privilege.
Non-testimonial physical acts are allowed as evidence so long
as:
1. They are purely mechanical and does not involve the use of
intelligence or imagination; and
2. It will not subject the accused to unnecessary and causes
humiliation.
Cases:
US vs. Tan Teng (gonorrhea) A person was accused of raping a
girl, whom he inflicted with gonorrhea.He was forced to
remove his clothes and remove a substance from his body to
determine whether or not he had gonorrhea. He invoked the
right. Held: That is non-testimonial. You cannot invoke the right
against self-incrimination.
Villaflor vs. Summers (pregnancy) A woman was accused of
adultery and she was required to undergo a test to determine
whether she is pregnant. Held: That is not a testimonial act.
You cannot invoke the right against self-incrimination. She was
not made to answer questions.
People vs. Gamboa (paraffin) This is a mechanical act, not a
testimonial act.
People vs. Tranca (ultraviolet radiation) Mechanical act, not
testimonial act.
People vs. Rondero (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 comparison. Held: This is non-
testimonial. Thus, it can be used as evidence against you.
People vs. Codilla (police lineup) A person placed in police
lineup is not testimonial
People vs. Yatar (DNA) Blood sample obtained from the
accused is not a testimonial act.
General rule: If it is not a testimonial act, you cannot invoke the
right against self-incrimination. The evidence obtained can be
used against you.
Exceptions: (even if seemingly it is non-testimonial, but still
covered by the right)
Page | 83
2014
1. Handwriting Beltran vs. Samson (requires the use of
intelligence and attention) It is argued that accused, who
is charged of falsification, cannot be required to write for
the purpose of identifying and comparing his handwriting.
Held: While it is not a testimonial act, it is covered by the
right against self-incrimination for it requires the use of
intelligence and attention.
2. Reenactment People vs. Olvis (communicative in nature)
A person was required to undergo reenactment of the
commission of the crime. Held: While it is not testimonial,
it is communicative in nature.
1992, No. 3. Congress: Congress is considering a law against
drunken driving. Under the legislation, police authorities may
ask a 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 test will be used in any legal proceeding against
him. Does it violate the right?
No! The act of taking the instrument and exhaling it to
determine whether he is under the influence of alcohol is not a
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 acts. Hence, it can be used against 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 a 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 will not be compelled to
produce 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-incriminating; a corporation and its officers cannot
invoke the right against self-incrimination
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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?This is covered by the right against
self-incrimination. You may also invoke the right to be secured
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
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 a
qualification which is already provided under the
constitution
b. requiring secondary and tertiary students to undergo
drug-testing It is allowed because it is random
c. requiring public and private employees to undergo
random drug-testing random
d. requiring persons accused of crimes to undergo drug-
testing This is not allowed because once the accused
is found positive, it will aggravate his penalty, which
will be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Note that only those persons charged with offenses
other than sale and possession of dangerous drugs are
covered by the right.
Hence, those who are charged with sale and possession of
drugs can be required to take a drug test, and these persons
cannot invoke the right against self-incrimination.
SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board (2008) In 2002, RA9165 was
implemented. Section 36 thereof requires mandatory drug
testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary
and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and
private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutors
office with certain offenses. In December 2003, COMELEC
issued a resolution, prescribing the rules and regulations on the
mandatory drug testing of candidates.
Held: The provision is unconstitutional. COMELEC cannot, in the
guise of enforcing and administering election laws or
promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36,
validly impose qualifications on candidates for senator in
Page | 84
2014
addition to what the Constitution prescribes. If Congress
cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such additional
qualification, the COMELEC, to be sure, is also without such
power.
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
c. 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 there is a violation of the right against self-
incrimination 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
c. compelling him to produce his personal
correspondence testimonial acts covered by the right
includes producing documents and articles demanded
of him. Hence, he cannot be compelled to produce
said documents.
d. compelling him to bare portions of his body
Is the right against self-incrimination waivable? Yes.
How?
1. Directly; or
2. By failure to invoke it.
Provided the waiver is certain and unequivocal, with
understanding, and willingly made.
Examples:
1. Where the accused takes the witness stand
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
2. When the accused voluntarily surrenders incriminating
papers which is later used as evidence against him is
deemed to have waived the privilege.
Use immunity vs. Transactional immunity
Once you invoke immunity, the State cannot compel you to
disclose or produce something which tends to subject you to a
crime or punishment. The only way for the State to compel you
to disclose or produce documents is to give you immunity in a
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 Immunity prohibits the use of compelled testimony in
connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness.
2. Transactional immunity of the witness from prosecution for
any offense to which his compelled testimony relates. This is
broader.
Example: Singson, as witness, testified against Estrada for
jueteng 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 evidence other than his compelled testimony
against Estrada. If granted with transactional immunity, Singson
cannot be prosecuted for jueteng because his compelled
testimony relates to jueteng.
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.
1998, V: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!
Suppose 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 use
immunity.
FREEDOM OF CONSCIENCE AND
FREEDOM FROM INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
Page | 85
2014
Section 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.
Freedom of conscience What is protected by this section are
the political beliefs (the principles are similar to freedom of
religion). Example: you cannot be imprisoned for believing in
communism. But if you act in accordance with your belief or
ideology of communism, and you are caught with high powered
firearms, you are not protected by this section.
Involuntary Servitude liberty not to be compelled towork,
whether paid or not.
Aclaration vs. Gatmaitan A stenographer with the CFI
transferred to another government entity, but there were
notes of some cases on appeal which he was not able to
transcribe. The court ordered him to finish the transcription,
but he refused. He was reprimanded for his refusal.
Held: The court held that the RTC stenographer can still be
compelled to transcribe notes on cases on appeal without
violating the right against involuntary servitude. This is part of
the inherent power of the court necessary for the efficient
administration of justice.
Estrada vs. Desierto There was a law 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 resigned, so he was prohibited from resigning.
Held: SC held that if we interpret the law, literally, we might
end up violating the involuntary servitude provision 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 withheld pending the
disposition of his case.
1993, No. 16.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 CA 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 to require her to work sans compensation would
be involuntary servitude. Decide. (Aclaration vs. Gatmaitan)
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
You cannot invoke the involuntary servitude clause in this
context for the very reason that the power of the SC to
administer justice is superior to the involuntary servitude
clause.
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; if you do not want to return,
you are deemed to have resigned
b. A law prohibiting public officers and employees from
retiring during the pendency of an administrative case
against them.
c. 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 the involuntary servitude
clause
2011. 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. 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.
PROHIBITED PUNISHMENTS
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.
Cruel and inhumane punishment:
1. Those which public sentiment would regard as cruel and
obsolete to law. It has something to do with the form, not
severity. (obsolete those no longer used in other
countries)
Page | 86
2014
2. Those which are disproportionate to the offense as to
shock the moral sense.
Note: 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 impose the same. Note also that lethal injection was
challenged for being cruel and inhumane. The SC held that it
cannot be cruel and inhumane since it is used by several
countries. Hence, it is not obsolete. While lethal injection may
inflict pain, the Constitution does not guarantee that there will
be no pain. What is unconstitutional is the penalty, the purpose
of which is to inflict pain. Here, the pain is only incidental to the
penalty. In fact, all penalties inflict pain. What is proscribed is
pain that is inherent to the method.
Death penalty maybe re-imposed, but three conditions must
be met:
1. There must be a law providing for the same
2. Only for compelling reasons
3. Involving heinous crimes
Agbanlog vs. People (1993) He was convicted for
malversation of 21,000 and sentenced to 11- 16 years of
imprisonment in 1993. Held: SC ruled that it is not cruel or
unusual. The penalty is not disproportionate as to shock the
moral senses.
Lim vs. CA The accused was charged with estafa through BP
22. He was sentenced with a penalty of reclusion temporal.
Held: If you think the penalty is excessive, go to Congress and
have it amended.
Serrano vs. NLRC SC stated that backwages awarded shall
cover from the time of dismissal until the court decides the
case with finality. If the case drags up to 20 years, backwages
shall cover the amount covering the pendency of the case. It
was impugned on the ground that said backwages are
excessive fines. Held: Backwages are not fines. Fines are those
which accrue in favor of the State. In this case, the backwages
are due to the employee. Hence, full backwages cannot be
considered as violative of the Constitution.
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
obsolete
c. unusual penal methods.
d. degrading and queer penalties. Constitution also
prohibits degrading punishment
2010, XI.Which statement best completes the following phrase:
Freedom from torture is a right
a. subject to derogation when national security is
threatened.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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.
Instances when punishment may also be deemed as cruel and
unusual:
1. If it inherently involves so much pain and suffering that
civilized people cannot tolerate it.
2. If in the sense of being previously unknown it is imposed
for a given offense
3. If it is excessive and serves a legislative purpose.
4. If popular sentiments abhors it even if not excessive or
with a legislative purpose.
NON-IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF DEBT
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-
payment of a poll tax.
Two concepts under this section:
1. Non-imprisonment for debt
2. Non-payment of poll tax
Note: Debt here refers only to contractual debt, express or
implied. This kind of contract is civil in nature.
Poll Tax Tax paid as a condition precedent for the exercise of
suffrage. According to Fr. Bernas, poll tax refers to residence
certificate or cedula and the tax paid is a precedent to the
exercise of the right of suffrage. However, poll tax, as a
condition precedent for the right to vote might be contrary to
the Constitutional prohibition on literacy, property, or other
substantive requirement as precedent to the right to vote.
Ajeno vs. Inserto Accused was sentenced to imprisonment
and ordered to pay an indemnity of P200.00 to the event that
he is insolvent, he will serve subsidiary imprisonment. Accused
challenged this for being violative of the right against
imprisonment for non-payment of debt. Held: The court held
that the accused is wrong. Indemnity arises ex-delicto and not
ex-contractu. The right only applies to debts arising from
contracts. Also the judge was wrong because subsidiary
imprisonment applies only to fines and not to indemnity.
Lozano vs. Martinez Does BP 22 violate the right against non-
imprisonment for non-payment of debt? No! The court held
that BP 22 does not permit the failure of the maker to pay his
debt but only the making and issuance of a worthless check.
The purpose of the law is not to force people to pay their debts
under the pain of imprisonment. The purpose is to prohibit the
issuance of worthless checks. This was likened to introducing
garbage to the bloodstream of the economy.
People vs. Nitafan Does the Trust Receipt Law violate the
right on non-imprisonment for non-payment of debt?No. The
Page | 87
2014
violation refers to Estafa. You are punished for your deceit, or
failure to deliver the proceeds of the goods, and not for non-
payment of debts. What is punished here is dishonesty and
abuse of confidence. It is really not for the benefit of the
creditor or of the loan, which is a separate contract, but of the
security or property given. Otherwise, it would be
unconstitutional.
People vs. Merillo There is a labor law providing for the
compliance of employers to provide salary in accordance with
the minimum wage law. Employers will be imprisoned if they
violate the same. This was impugned for being violative of this
section. Held: the same was held to be constitutional, as a valid
exercise of police power of the state. Moreover, this cannot be
considered as contractual debt. 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?
a. 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 civil procedure
because if there is a judgment, you file a motion for
execution.
b. Sentencing an employer to imprisonment for non-
payment of minimum wage. not violative
c. Compelling a convict to serve subsidiary imprisonment
for non-payment of civil liability. Wrong. Subsidiary
imprisonment for non-payment of civil liability cannot
be done because the RPC does not allow it. However,
non-payment of fine is not violative to this section
because fine arises ex-delicto and not ex-contractu.
d. Convicting an accused of estafa for converting money
received in trust or on commission not violative
DOUBLE JEOPARDY
Section 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.
Double Jeopardy described as res judicata in prison grey.
The right against double jeopardy prohibits the prosecution
again of any person for a crime of which he has previously been
acquitted or convicted. The object is to set the effects of the
first prosecution forever at rest, assuring the accused that he
shall no thereafter be subjected to the dangers and anxiety of a
second charge against him for the same offense. (People vs.
Ylagan)
Two Kinds:
1. For the same offense
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
2. For the same act
1. First Type: For the same offense
Requisites:
a. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
b. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
c. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense.
Double jeopardy as to same offense and as to same act has the
same elements except no. 3, which is not required in the latter
type.
Note: This is applicable to criminal cases only.
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan(2009) The government filed a
plunder case against Garcia. Later, it filed forfeiture
proceedings against him before the Sandiganbyan. Held:
Forfeiture of ill-gotten wealth is not a criminal proceeding.
Therefore, the two cases can proceed together without
violating double jeopardy.
A. First jeopardy has attached prior to the second
Sub-requisites: (all must concur in order for the first jeopardy
to attach)
(1) Valid complaint or information;
(2) Filed before a competent court; and
(3) Accused was arraigned.
(1) Valid complaint or information there is a valid complaint
of information, sufficient in form and substance to support a
conviction, in the first prosecution to which the accused has
been subjected;if something is defective in the information or
complaint, you cannot convict the accused;thus, the first sub-
requisite is absent.
a) Information charging no offense/element missing
Pua Yi Kun vs. People In the information of theft, it was not
alleged that the taking of property was without the consent
(one element of theft was missing). The complaint or
information must aver all the elements of the offense charged,
because if it is radically defective, as when it does not recite the
essential requisites of the offense, so that unless cured by the
evidence at the trial, it cannot support a judgment of
conviction. Hence, the accused cannot invoke double jeopardy
when the second information was filed for the reason that the
first information was defective and insufficient for a valid
conviction. The right of the accused to be informed of the
cause and nature of the crime for which he was charged has
been violated. Therefore, no double jeopardy!
b) information not signed by offended party
People vs. Manaba A complaint for rape was signed by the
Chief of Police. In rape cases, the complaint should be signed
Page | 88
2014
by the offended party. In this case, it was not. Later, it was
discovered and the case was dismissed. The case was refiled
and the complaint was now signed by the offended party.
Held: The court held that there was no double jeopardy
because there was no valid information. The information must
be signed by the offended party (in private crimes). It must be
noted that private crimes can only be initiated by the private
complainants.
c) Information not filed/signed by proper authority
Example: The offense of illegal possession of firearms occurred
in Tagum City but the one who filed and signed the information
was the provincial prosecutor considering the province also
handles its component city. Later on, the one filed by the
provincial prosecutor was dismissed. When the second
information was filed now by the city prosecutor, the accused
moved for the dismissal of the same invoking double jeopardy.
Held: No double jeopardy! Considering that the first
information was not filed and signed by the property authority
(which should have been by the city prosecutor), it could not
have resulted to a valid conviction. Thus, accused can be
charged again.
Lasoy vs. Zenarosa Accused were arrested for possession and
transport of marijuana leaves. They were charged with the
violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The accused was then
arraigned, pleaded guilty and convicted. Subsequently, they
applied for probation. Thereafter, the prosecutors office filed
two motions to admit amended information, and to set aside
the arraignment of the accused.
Held: The accused had been arraigned and convicted. In fact,
they were already in the stage where they were applying for
probation. It is too late in the day for the prosecution to ask for
the amendment of the information and seek to try again
accused for the same offense without violating their rights.
There is, therefore, no question that the amendment of
information by motion of the prosecution and at the time when
the accused had already been convicted is violative of the
rights of the accused.
(2) Filed before a competent court it must be a court with
jurisdiction over the offense
a) No jurisdiction over offense
Binay vs. Sandiganbayan If you are charged with a criminal
offense by reason of your public office (as mayor), the
jurisdiction is vested in the Sandiganbayan. 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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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 dismissed and the one filed before the
Sandiganbyan must proceed.
b) Filed in wrong venue
US v. Arceo Accused was charged with bigamy in Pampanga,
but the second marriage was performed in
Rizal. When it was found out that the accused was charged in
the wrong place, the case was dismissed and refiled in Rizal.
The accused contested as defense, double jeopardy.
Held: The court ruled that there was no double jeopardy
because the Court in Pampanga did not have proper
jurisdiction. The case was filed in the wrong venue. Double
jeopardy will not attach.
Note: Double Jeopardy cannot be used as a defense by the
accused if he is not in danger of conviction in the first case filed
against him for the same offense (refer to the three general
requisites mentioned). He was never in danger of getting
convicted of the first case filed against him.
Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales (2010) Accused was charged
with parricide before the RTC. After a reinvestigation, the
prosecutor filed a motion to withdraw information, to give way
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 withdraw 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. 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.
(3) Accused was arraigned
Page | 89
2014
People vs. Balisacan The accused was charged with homicide.
He pleaded guilty and he presented mitigating circumstances,
and in the process, he was able to prove self-defense. The
judge acquitted him. The fiscal appealed and the accused
raised double jeopardy.
Held: The court held that there was no double jeopardy
because the accused has not entered a valid plea. When he
presented evidence for self-defense, he was actually
abandoning his plea of guilty, so his plea was actually void. The
judge should have immediately suspended proceedings and
asked that the accused be re-arraigned so he can change his
plea to not guilty. The court should have taken the plea anew
and then proceed with the trial of the accused.
Antone v. Beronilla (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 CA. The CA
dismissed it on the ground that it will violate the rule on double
jeopardy. Is the CA correct?
Held: No! The first jeopardy has not yet attached in view of the
granting of the motion to quash. In other words, the accused
has not been arraigned. If the information was dismissed by
reason of the granting of the motion to quash, the fiscal can file
a case again and again.
Vincoy vs. CA The first complaint for Estafa was filed with the
Fiscals office of Pasay. Then another case for Estafa was filed
against the accused with Fiscals office of Pasig. Was there
double jeopardy? Held: No double jeopardy! Emphasis should
be placed on the fact the first complaint was filed only before
the fiscals office. There was never an arraignment there.
Arraignment comes only before a court. You can be charged
before the fiscals office ten times without being placed in
double jeopardy.
Exception: Grave abuse of discretion
Dimatulac v. Villon (1998) rushing arraignment despite
pendency of appeal with DOJ The resolution of the fiscal was
homicide and the 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 a case for murder be filed instead of homicide. The
accused objected on the ground of double jeopardy since he
was already arraigned.
Held: No double jeopardy! The judge committed grave abuse of
discretion when he rushed the arraignment for homicide
notwithstanding 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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
discretion on the part of the judged resulted to invalidity of the
arraignment of the accused.
Cerezo vs. People (2011) Accused were charged with libel
before the RTC. On motion for reinvestigation, the City
Prosecutor reversed itself and found no probable cause to
charge them. Meanwhile, they were 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?
Held: Yes! The case can be reinstated without placing the
accused in double jeopardy. The judge actually committed
grave abuse of discretion when he acted on the motion to
dismiss based on the findings of the DOJ, and not based on 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 dismissal of the information, the
judge must rely on his independent assessment or argument
and not merely depend on the assessment or resolution of the
prosecutor or the DOJ. Once the information is filed with court,
the case is now the property of said court and the judge
thereof must make a personal and independent evaluation to
any motion filed for the dismissal of the same.
People v. Dumlao (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 SC review the dismissal without placing the
accused in double jeopardy?Held: Yes.How can the judge
dismiss the case on the ground of insufficiency of evidence
when there was no trial? That is grave abuse of discretion!
Therefore, the case can be refiled.
Note: In the first general requisite, all the requisites under it
should be present. Absent of one invalidates the first general
requisite for double jeopardy.
B. First jeopardy must have been validlyterminated
People vs. Nitafan Several cases were filed against a person
for violation of a Central Bank circular. The judge noticed that
Page | 90
2014
there are 21 criminal cases filed against that person before his
sala. He ordered the dismissal of the others. Held: For as long
as the cases are pending, you cannot move for the dismissal of
one since there was no double jeopardy. Not all of them have
been validly terminated. Wait for the case to be validly
terminated before you can invoke double jeopardy.
Jeopardy is terminated by:
(1) Acquittal
(2) Conviction
(3) Dismissal
(1) Acquittal immediately final;once the sentence of
acquittal is read, it is already final
People vs. CA Accused was convicted of homicide but
reversed by CA. Certiorari was filed. Held: Considering that
there is a judgement of acquittal by the lower court, certiorari
cannot be entertained.
Palu-ay vs. CA Annulment of judgment Held: A judgment of
acquittal can no longer be subject of a petition for annulment
of judgment.
People vs. Serrano, Sr. The person was acquitted of rape. A
notice of appeal was filed. The judge, who was ignorant of the
law, forwarded the records to the SC for review. Held: The SC
fined the judge 20,000.00 for ignorance of the law.
Argel vs. Pascua The judge acquitted the accused for the
crime of murder for the reason that none of the witnesses
were able to identify the accused. However, it was discovered
that there were stenographic notes showing that a witness
clearly identified the accused. So the judge issued a revised
decision five days after the promulgation. Held: A judgment of
acquittal is immediately final. The judge was dismissed for
gross ignorance of the law.
People v. Sandiganbayan (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 Sandiganbayans
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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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: (judgement of acquittal may be reviewed)
a) Deprivation of due process
b) Grave abuse of discretion
Note: These can be grounds for certiorari
Galman vs. Sandiganbayan This case involved the acquittal of
Ver for the death of Ninoy Aquino. The prosecution filed a MR
but was 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 a Marcos tuta judge.
It was also learned that a monitoring device was installed by
the military inside the courtroom. Held: The court ruled that
the state was deprived of due process. Thus, re-trial was
allowed and the accused were convicted.
People vs. Bellaflor The judge convicted the accused. Upon
MR, the judge acquitted the accused. But the said decision only
indicated finding the MR meritorious, the accused is hereby
acquitted. Held: There was grave abuse of discretion on the
part of the judge. It is noteworthy that in rendering a judgment
reversing your previous judgment upon MR, you must state the
law and the facts. A judgment without statement of law and
facts is void.
People v. De Grano (2009) Six people were charged with
murder, but only four were arraigned, the rest being at-large.
After trial, the RTC convicted the four. During the
promulgation, only one, Lacaba, was present. Despite the fact
that the three had become fugitives from justice, through
counsel, all four filed a motion for reconsideration. The judge,
however, acted on the motion by acquitting two of the accused
and downgrading the conviction of the two 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 SC review the judgment of
acquittal without placing the accused in double jeopardy?
Yes! Note that after the three absconded without appearing in
the promulgation of conviction, they are deemed to have lost
their standing in the case. In otherwords, they were without
standing in filing the MR. Insofar as the three who absconded,
their judgment of acquittal or downgrading of sentence are null
and void. It was issued with grave abuse of discretion on the
Page | 91
2014
part of the judge. Hence, the acquittal may be reviewed on the
ground of grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge.
Lejano v. People (2011) After the SC reversed the CA and
acquitted accused Webb and others, complainant Lauro
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 SC reconsider its
decision? Not anymore. A judgment of acquittal cannot be
reviewed. Double jeopardy already set in. It is doubted
whether the SC would reverse its decision on the ground of
violation of due process or grave abuse of discretion on their
part.
Jacob v. Sandiganbayan (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 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 dismissal
because the prosecution did not arrive. A few minutes later,
the witness arrived and was presented. After that, he reversed
his verbal order. 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 happened here was that the judge
reversed his order (verbal) after the witness had shown up and
was 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. Once signed, it
cannot be reopened anymore, and double jeopardy comes in.
Once it is read, it becomes immediately final.
Ordinary errors People vs. Laggui No error, however
flagrant, committed by the court against the state can be
reviewed by the SC; even if the error is very clear and obvious.
How do we know whether or not the error is ordinary or
grave abuse?Ordinary errors the judge failed to appreciate
the evidence or he misunderstood the law. For instance, a
judge convicted the accused for murder and the penalty
prescribed is death. Because the judge is not akin of death
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
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 impose 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 could have been reversed by the SC.
On the other hand, however, if he was interviewed and he
verbally said that he committed a mistake in not imposing what
was prescribed by law, it would be considered as an ordinary
error. Hence, it cannot be reviewed by the SC.
(2) Conviction becomes final after 15 days from
promulgation of judgment; may be appealed by accused;
but if he appeals, entire case is open for review. (People vs.
Rondero)
People vs. 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 was found to establish the
latter. The accused appealed before the SC. Held: SC found him
guilty of rape with homicide. Once the accused appeals his
conviction, his entire case is open for review. That is risky!
Phil. Rabbit vs. People The bus driver was convicted of
reckless imprudenceand sentenced to pay civil liability. The
driver escaped and consequently, he no longer had the
standing to appeal. Note that in damages, if the accused is
insolvent, the employer will be subsidiarily liable.Here, the bus
company filed an appeal only insofar 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 allowed to appeal. This is premised on the rule that
if the case is appealed by the accused and the entire case will
be opened for review, there is a great possibility that the civil
liability of the accused may be increased. Therefore, it is only
the accused driver can appeal the same. Since he already
escaped and cannot make an appeal, the employer should not
be allowed since double jeopardy principle in this case will set
in.
Can you alter a conviction to a more serious crime through
certiorari? Castro vs. People In this instance, the accused was
charged with frustrated murder but was only convicted of slight
physical injuries. You appeal for the purpose of having the
conviction restored to the crime originally charged. Held: No.
To alter the conviction to a more serious crime would place the
accused in double jeopardy.
What about to increase penalty only?People vs. Leones The
accused here pleaded guilty for three counts of rape. But
instead of sentencing him for three counts of death penalty,
the judge sentenced him for 17 years of imprisonment only.
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
Page | 92
2014
conviction in view of the fact that the case shall be open for
review. Same ruling if you want to alter the conviction to a
more serious crime.
People vs. CA - Accused was convicted in the lower court and
sentenced to imprisonment. Upon appeal, the CA only
sentenced him of fine. It was appealed by the prosecution.
Held: Not allowed. You cannot appeal for the purpose of
changing the nature of the penalty. Principle of double
jeopardy sets in. In other words, the prosecution is prohibited
from appealing a judgment of acquittal and conviction.
Recap: Judgment of acquittal is immediately final. It cannot be
subject to MR, certiorari, annulment of judgment. But in rare
cases, it may be reviewed by the SC if there is (1) violation of
due process; or (2) 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, or changing
the nature of the penalty from fine to imprisonment. But take
note of the rare exceptions provided for by jurisprudence.
(3) Dismissal
It is important to know whether or not the dismissal is with the
consent of the accused because if it is with consent, the
principle of double jeopardy does not apply. If there is none,
there will be double jeopardy.
Tupaz vs. Ulep When is there consent to the dismissal?
a) Provisional dismissal It must be distinguished. In the
MTC, the provisional dismissal shall become final after the
lapse of one year. In the RTC, the provisional dismissal shall
become final after the lapse of two years. Meaning, double
jeopardy will set in after the lapse of the one or two-year
period, as the case may be. Thus, the fiscal must re-file the
case within the said periods.
b) Dismissal with prejudice means that the case cannot be
refiled again
c) On motion of accused by filing a motion to quash or
motion to dismiss; there will be no double jeopardy
d) When he agrees with the dismissal of the case
e) When accused files a motion for reconsideration (People
vs. Bellaflor)
Exceptions:
a) Speedy trial
Salcedo vs. Mendoza The judge dismissed the case upon the
motion of the accused invoking his constitutional right to
speedy trial, because the prosecution failed to appear on the
day of the trial after it had previously been postponed twice.
Held: Following the established jurisprudence, a dismissal
predicated on the right of the accused to speedy trial upon his
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
own motion or express consent, amounts to an acquittal which
will bar another prosecution of the accused for the same
offense This is an exception to the rule that a dismissal upon
the motion or with the express consent of the accused will not
be a bar to the subsequent prosecution of the accused for the
same offense as provided for in Section 9, Rule 113 of the Rules
of Court. The moment the dismissal of a criminal case is
predicated on the right of the accused to speedy trial even if it
is upon his own motion or express consent, such dismissal is
equivalent to acquittal And any attempt to prosecute the
accused for the same offense will violate the constitutional
prohibition that "no person shall be twice put in jeopardy of
punishment for the same offense.
b) Insufficiency of evidence
Ong vs. People Petitioners filed a motion for leave to file
demurrer to evidence before the MeTC. The MeTC denied the
demurrer to evidence and found that there was a prima facie
case against petitioners. The RTC reversed the ruling since the
factual findings of the MeTC are devoid of support in the
evidence on record. With the grant by the RTC of the demurrer
to evidence, the same constituted a valid acquittal and any
further prosecution of petitioners on the same charge would
expose them to being put twice in jeopardy for the same
offense. A dismissal of a criminal case by the grant of a
demurrer to evidence is not appealable as the accused would
thereby be placed in double jeopardy.
c) 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 was discharged as state
witness.
In relation to this, a judge discharged the accused as state
witness and removed him from the information. The fiscal
moved for reconsideration, during the pendency of which, the
judge was replaced by another one. The latter, acting upon the
MR, reversed the order of his predecessor. Can it be allowed?
Held: No, it cannot be allowed. Once the accused has been
discharged from the information as a state witness, he can no
longer be reinstated in the information. Double jeopardy sets in
there.
Note: Remember that when the dismissal is without consent,
double jeopardy sets in even if the case is refiled. Here, the
accused does not waive his right to double jeopardy.
When dismissal is considered without consent:
People vs. Ylagan(Silence or failure to object) Here, the fiscal
asked the court that the case filed be dismissed. The accused
Page | 93
2014
was caught by surprise and did not object to the same. So it
was dismissed. Later on, the fiscal filed another case against
the accused for a more serious crime, with the assumption that
the dismissal was with consent (that he agreed to the dismissal)
by reason of his silence or failure to object. Is there double
jeopardy?
Held: Yes. It must be noted that under the revised rules of
court, the dismissal, to be consideredas with consent of the
accused, must be dismissal with the express consent of the
accused. The mere silence of the accused or his failure to
object to the dismissal of the case does not constitute consent.
The right not to be put in jeopardy a second time for the
offense is as important as the other constitutional right of the
accused in a criminal case. Its waiver cannot, and should not,
be predicated on mere silence.
Note: Express consent is defined as one given orally or in
writing. It is a positive, direct and clear act, requiring no
inference to supply the meaning.
People vs. Vergara (Reinvestigation) The accused was
charged and an Information was duly filed. The accused filed
for reinvestigation to determine whether 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 quash the information,
pursuant to the outcome of his reinvestigation finding no
probable 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 was the accused who moved for reinvestigation. Held: A
Motion for Reinvestigation is not equivalent to express
consent, even if the purpose is to dismiss the case.
People vs. Bellaflor The accused was convicted by Judge
Fortun. He filed a MR.This time,Judge Bellaflor, who replaced
Judge Fortun, reversed the decision and declared it as null and
void for having been promulgated after Fortun had vacated his
office.Petitioner filed a MR challenging the reversal before the
SC. Accused argued that reconsideration thereof would place
him under double jeopardy.
Held: Accused, by filing the MR, moved for the dismissal of the
criminal case filed against him, and therefore, the protective
mantle of double jeopardy does not cover him.Accused also
cannot successfully seek refuge in the assailed resolution of
Judge Bellaflor. The resolution granting his MR was anchored
on the mere supposition that the decision rendered by Judge
Fortun was a nullity. The acquittal of accused was actually not
based upon consideration of the evidence or of the merits of
the case. Granting, ex gratia argumenti, that the decision of
Judge Fortun was not validly promulgated, such invalidity, per
se, does not necessarily operate for the acquittal of the
accused. In such instances, the case should have been
subjected for new adjudication based on the evidence already
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
submitted by the parties and for further proceedings
conformably with law.
Exceptions to the Exceptions: Even if the dismissal is with the
consent of the accused and is grounded on speedy trial and/or
insufficiency of evidence it will not give rise to double jeopardy
if:
a) Grave abuse of discretion
b) Violation of due process
Serino vs. Zosa While the judge was still conducting trial of
another case, he told the parties that their case would be tried
later. Because of this, the accused, his lawyer and the fiscal
went out of the courtroom. When they came back, there was
nobody left and they were told that their case was already
dismissed. Due to the dismissal, the fiscal asked the judge to
reinstate the case to which the judge agreed to. The accused
however claimed double jeopardy because the dismissal was
without his consent.
Held: The court held that double jeopardy will not lie in this
because the prosecution was deprived of due process by such
dismissal. It was not given the opportunity to present its case
and evidences.
State Prosecutors vs. Muro Imelda Marcos was charged with
crimes involving violations of a central bank circular. The judge,
while having his breakfast, read in a newspaper that the CB
circular had been repealed by then President Marcos through a
repealing law, CB Circular 1353, prompting him to declare in
court the dismissal of the cases based on such report.
Held: Judge Muro was guilty of gross ignorance of the law.It
was premature for him to take judicial notice of such matter
which is merely based on his personal knowledge and is not
based on the public knowledge that the law requires for the
court to take judicial notice of.The dismissalbythe judge could
have seriously and substantially affected the rights of the
prosecution had the accused invoked the defense of double
jeopardy, considering that the dismissal was ordered after
arraignment and without the consent of said accused. The
judge acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction. In the absence of jurisdiction, double jeopardy will
not set in.
Note: Should there be a 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 prosecution or the DOJ, it will result to grave
abuse of discretion. In that case, the case may be refiled.
C. Second jeopardy is for the same offense
a) when the two offenses are identical
b) when the second is an attempt to commit the first
c) When the second is a frustration of the first
Page | 94
2014
d) when the first necessarily includes the second
e) when the first is necessarily included in the second
Notes:
a) Example for(2) and (3): Consummated homicide is the
same with attempted or frustrated homicide for purposes of
determining whether accused has been placed under double
jeopardy. Hence, you cannot file attempted homicide and later
change it to frustrated consummated homicide.
b) Example for(4): Accused is charged with murder, and the
case was dismissed after accused has been arraigned. Now,
another case for homicide was filed against accused. In this
case, murder (first) necessarily includes the crime of homicide
(second). Hence, double jeopardy sets in here.
c) Example for (5): Accused is charged with theft. The case
was dismissed after accused has been arraigned. Another case
for robbery was later filed against the accused. Theft (first) is
necessarily included in the crime of robbery (second).
Same Evidence Test used to determine whether the same
evidence would be necessary to support the two cases.
Exceptions:
a) Supervening fact /Melo doctrine
Melo vs. People Accused was charged for serious physical
injuries on Dec. 27. On Dec. 29, he pleaded guilty. A few hours
later of the same day, the victim died. On Jan. 4, the fiscal filed
a new info, now already for homicide. The accused invoked
double jeopardy.
Held: There is no double jeopardy because the second offense
was not yet in existence during the first prosecution. When he
pleaded guilty, the second offense was not yet in existence
because the victim died a few hours later. The new offense only
came about after the conviction of the accused.
b) Newly discovered fact
On the first day, accused stabbed the victim. On the second
day, a case was filed against accused for physical injuries. On
the third day, victim died without the fiscal having known of my
death. On the fourth day, the accused pleaded guilty on
physical injuries. Here, the fiscal is allowed to amend the
information in view of the newly discovered fact. That is
allowed. No double jeopardy there because of the newly
discovered evidence. It must be distinguished with supervening
fact, since in the latter, the fiscal had knowledge of the victims
death. 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 obtained in order for the
same to be valid. Without the consent of the two, the plea to a
lesser offense is null and void and the case can be reinstated.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan Garcia was charged with plunder.
He pleaded guilty to a lesser offense of bribery (bailable)with
the consent of the prosecutors of OMB. All elements of double
jeopardy are present. This is a case of plea of guilty for a lesser
offense.
Ivler vs. Modesto-San Pedro (2010) Due to a vehicular
accident, Ivler was charged before the MeTCwith 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 Ponces husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage
to the spouses Ponces 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. As judge, should the information be
quashed?
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
although the same resulted to two 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
2. Second Type: For the same act
General rule: Accused can only be charged of two crimes if the
act committed violates two different statutes.
Note that the requisites for double jeopardy for the same act
are similar to that same offense, except the no. 3 requisite.
Distinction between same act and 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 RPC or special laws.
2. As to point of analysis: the act in time and space (How many
acts did accused perform) In 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 one act, the
former must apply. While in the latter, you look at the
elements of the two offenses, such as determining the
elementsmissing in the other offense.
People vs. Relona Ice plant owner installed jumpers in his ice
plant and was charged with a violation of an ordinance. The
Page | 95
2014
case was dismissed because of prescription. The fiscal charged
him again for violation for theft of electricity under the RPC.
Accused invoked double jeopardy. The fiscal argued that since
the elements of the two crimes are different, there is no
double jeopardy.
Held: The court ruled that although the elements are different,
there is double jeopardy, not for the same offense but for the
SAME ACT. The accused is trying to invoke jeopardy for the
same act. In jeopardy for the same offense, courts compare the
elements of the two offenses. While in jeopardy for the same
act, courts compare the two informations. In this case, the
court stated that both information concern acts performed
from November 1974 to February 1975. Therefore, both
informations are for the same act. Also, the amount of 40T
contained in the two informations is the same.
People vs. Lacqui Accused was charged for the violation of BP
22. After trial, the court dismissed the case on the ground that
the information was fatally defective as it failed to charge an
offense. The judge decided that the information failed to allege
that the accused knew when he issued the check, that he
would not have sufficient funds for its payment in full upon
presentation to the drawee bank.Can the case be reinstated?
Held:Although the decision is erroneous, the decision may not
beannulled or set aside because it amounted to a judgment of
acquittal. It became final andexecutory upon its promulgation.
The State may not appeal that decision for it would place
theaccused in double jeopardy even if the dismissal may
constitute a miscarriage of justice.
People vs. Saley Illegal recruitment and estafa The court
held that illegal recruitment and estafa does not constitute
double jeopardy for the same offense for the reason that the
elements of one are clearly distinct from the other.
Merencillo vs. People Direct bribery and Anti-Graft The
elements of these crimes are distinct from each other 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 offenses because they are punishable under the
respective statutes.
Diaz vs. DLPC Theft of electricity and unauthorized
installation of electrical connection (under RA 7832) The
elements of both offenses are really different. Each case may
be pursued even for the same act without violating double
jeopardy. They do not constitute double jeopardy for the same
offense.
Garcia vs. Sandiganbayan The OMB, by virtue of RA 1379,
filed a petition for the forfeiture of the funds and properties
amassed and acquired by the Garcias. Thereafter, the OMB
filed a criminal case for plunder against the Garcias. After filing
the criminal case, the OMB filed another petition for forfeiture.
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
The Garcias contend possible double jeopardy entanglements
should a judgment of conviction ensue in the criminal case for
plunder.
Held: Double jeopardy, as a criminal law concept, refers to
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, suggesting that
double jeopardy presupposes two separate criminal
prosecutions. Proceedings under RA 1379 are civil in nature. As
a necessary corollary, one who is sued under RA 1379 may be
proceeded against for a criminal offense. Thus, the filing of a
case under that law is not barred by the conviction or acquittal
of the Garcias in the criminal case for plunder.
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 ones
victim under Art.275 of the RPC. Can A claim double jeopardy in
the second charge if he is convicted in the first?
a. yes, because A is being charged of the same offense
b. yes, because he is being charged for the same act
c. no, because the Fiscal committed grave abuse of
discretion
d. no, because the two offenses are not the same It is
because A is accused of different offenses punishable
under statutes with distinct elements. There can be no
double jeopardy for the same offenses.
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?
a. yes, because A is being charged of the same offense
b. yes, because he is being charged for the same act
c. no, because the Fiscal committed grave abuse of
discretion
d. no, because the two offenses are not the same
1999, No. 7. May Geralde validly invoke double jeopardy in
questioning the institution of the case for Qualified Seduction,
when a case for Consented Abduction against him has been
previously dismissed?
There is no identity between consented abduction and
qualified seduction. The elements of both offenses are clearly
Page | 96
2014
distinct and different. Consented Abduction requires that the
taking away of the offended party must be with her consent,
after solicitation or cajolery from the offender, and the taking
away of the offended party must be with lewd designs. On the
other hand, Qualified Seduction requires that the crime be
committed by abuse of authority, confidence or relationship
and the offender had sexual intercourse with the woman.
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 courts order of
dismissal of the case place the accused in double jeopardy?
a. 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.
b. no, because the dismissal was on motion, and
therefore with the consent, of accused
c. yes, because the dismissal was based on speedy trial
so that the case cannot be reopened Had the case
been dragged for a long period without reasonable
cause, this would have been the correct answer.
d. yes, because the dismissal was without the expressed
consent of accused
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 surfaced and a criminal case for
homicide, involving the same incident, was filed anew against
Erning. Can he invoke double jeopardy?
a. no, because the judge committed grave abuse of
discretion by not giving the prosecution fair
opportunity to prosecute
b. no, because the dismissal was on motion, and
therefore with the consent, of accused
c. yes, because the dismissal was based on speedy trial
so that the case cannot be reopened The case
dragged on for 7 years. A dismissal of a case based on
speedy trial cannot be reviewed even if the same is at
the instance of the accused.
d. yes, because the dismissal was without the expressed
consent of accused
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda 2014

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, 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 re-arraigned on
the very reason that the evidence presented by the accused is
inconsistent with his plea of guilty. The arraignment here is null
and void. Thus, the first jeopardy has not yet attached.
2011, 16. There is double jeopardy when the dismissal of the
first case is

a. yes, because Asiong is being charged of the same a. made at the instance of the accused invoking his right
offense to fair trial.
b. yes, because he is being charged for the same act b. made upon motion of the accused without objection
This is for the same act, punishable under a statute from the prosecution.
and an ordinance. You need to consider the act in time c. made provisionally without objection from the
and place. Hence, this is double jeopardy for the same accused.
act. d. based on the objection of the accused to the
c. no, because the Fiscal committed grave abuse of prosecution's motion to postpone trial. The accused
discretion invoke speedy trial. Double jeopardy sets in when the
d. no, because the two offenses are not the same accused moves for the dismissal of the case based on
speedy trial.
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 JCs right against double
jeopardy? Why or why not? (Balisacan case)

Summary of Requisites:

(1) First Jeopardy must have (2) First jeopardy must have (3) Second jeopardy must be for the same offense
attached prior to the second been validly terminated or for the same act
When first jeopardy When first jeopardy Second jeopardy for Second jeopardy for
attach terminated the same offense the same act
1. When there is a valid 1. When accused is 1. when the two offenses First charge is for an act
complaint or information acquitted are identical punished by a law and an
2. The complaint or 2. When accused is 2. when the second is an ordinance, and the second
information was filed in a convicted attempt to commit the first charge under either is for the
competent court 3. When the case is 3. When the second is a same act.
3. The accused has been otherwise dismissed without frustration of the first
arraigned and has pleaded the express consent of the 4. when the first
accused necessarily includes the
second
5. when the first is
necessarily included in the
second

Section 22.No ex post facto law or bill ofattainder shall be 1. it must be a criminal statute
enacted. 2. it is given retroactive effect
3. it is prejudicial to the accused
Ex post Facto law A criminal law with retroactive effect
prejudicial to the accused; it is one that would make a Note: Absent any of these requisites, a law cannot be
previous act criminal although it was not so at the time it considered ex post facto law.
was committed.
Kinds of Ex Post Facto Law:
Requisites:

Page | 97 Edited by: Chaz Llanes

 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda
1. A law which makes an action done before the passage
of the law, which was innocent when done, criminal.
Example: A law punishing smoking is given retroactive
effect. One cannot be prosecuted for smoking yesterday
under the said law. At the time that person smoked, it was
not still punishable. Now, the ordinance passed prohibiting
smoking cannot punish that person for smoking yesterday.
2. A law which aggravates a crime or which makes it
greater than when it was committed.
The passage of the 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.
A law providing for death penalty as punishment cannot be
given retroactive effect.
4. A law which alters the legal rules of evidence and
receives less or different testimony than the law
requires at the time of the commission of the offense
5. 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.
6. 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.
Montenegro vs. Castaeda President suspended the writ
of habeas corpus in this case. Montenegro challenged this
proclamation saying that it was not applicable to him
because he was arrested prior to the proclamation of
suspension.
Held: The court held that the prohibition on Ex Post Facto
Law applies only to laws or statutes. The proclamation is an
executive act, thus it is not included in the prohibition for Ex
Post Facto Law. Executive Acts are not covered by Sec. 22.
Bayot vs. Sandiganbayan preventive suspension
Accused was charged for violation of the Anti-graft law in
1978. In 1980, he was convicted. He appealed the
conviction and in 1982, a law was passed amending the
original law which created the Sandiganbayan. This new law
stated that those facing charges in the Sandiganbayan will
be suspended from office pending the investigation. Bayot
was suspended and he questioned this saying that he
should not have been suspended because he was charged
prior to the effectivity of the law.
Page | 98
2014
Held: The court held that there was no violation of the
prohibition of ex post facto law. It is only a preventive
suspension. It is not a penalty within the language of the
third kind of ex post facto law. Preventive suspension is not
yet a penalty.
Binay vs. Sandiganbayan change of jurisdiction A law
changing the courts jurisdiction over the offense can be
given retroactive effect since it is not a penal law.
Katigbak vs. Solicitor forfeiture of wealth In 1995,
Congress passed a law saying that all unlawfully acquired
wealth of public officials shall be forfeited in favor of the
State. Pursuant to the law, the solicitor was authorized to
institute forfeiting proceedings for confiscation of ill-gotten
wealth. Katigbak argued that the forfeiture was a violation
of the ex post facto law since they had gotten the wealth
before the passage of the law in 1955.
Held: The court held that this is an ex post facto law of the
first and fifth kind stated above. The case was not a criminal
proceeding, but a civil one. And the forfeiture of the
property is penal in nature. It is a law which, in effect,
eventually deprived them of property.
People vs. Nitafan Can a court, without a motion from the
accused, dismiss a case on the ground that the law on
which the charge is based is ex post facto?No! Remember
that a law may only be declared unconstitutional if the
requisites of judicial inquiry are present, where there must
be a valid actual controversy, standing, etc. If nobody raised
its unconstitutionality, the court cannot dismiss it on the
ground that it is an ex post facto law.
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
b. wrong, because the law is not being applied
retroactively Thelaw was passed on 1986. He was
convicted on 1993. 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
Edited by: Chaz Llanes
 Political Law Bar Reviewer from the lecture notes of Dean Dela Banda 2014

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. Aclaims that the
treaty violates the prohibition against ex post facto law.
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.
Another example is when President Marcos passed a law
providing that those charged with offenses against national
security shall not be allowed to run or cannot run for public
office. Held: This is a clear bill of attainder. It already
convicts people who are merely charged (not yet convicted)
of said offenses.
Republic vs. RMDC The president withdrew the mining
permits of RMDC. It was impugned for being a bill of
attainder. Held: Bill of attainder applies only to criminal
statutes. Withdrawing mining permits is not a punishment.
Also note that it is only a privilege given by the government,
which may be withdrawn.
End

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 prejudicial 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;
d. A law authorizing preventive suspension of public
officers accused of crimes.

Lumanog vs. People (2010) 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 does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws

because it is in fact favorable to them. However, it can be
observed that it may constitute a limitation on the power of
the plenary power of the president to grant executive
clemency including parole, which solely belongs to the
president. It is a form of restriction to that power of the
president.

Bill of attainder A law which inflicts punishment without

judicial trial. A bill of attainder is not allowed because it is
actually a violation of separation of powers. It is the court
who determines the guilt of the accused, and not congress.
A good example is when a lawyer was acquitted for treason.
What the congress did was it passed a law convicting him.
That is a bill of attainder.

Page | 99 Edited by: Chaz Llanes