CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II

BILL OF RIGHTS

BASIC PRINCIPLES: Limitations on State Power (a) All advertising companies in the Philippines
have formed an association, the Philippine
1. Provisions of the Bill of Rights are self-executing; Advertising Council, and have agreed to abide by
all the ethical guidelines and decisions by the
2. They can only be invoked against the State
Council. In response to the protests, the council
3. Basic human rights are superior to property orders the pull-out of the ―kinse anyos‖ advertising
rights campaign. Can Destilleria Felipe Segundo claim
that its constitutional rights are thus infringed?
4. Its provisions have no retroactive application.
(b) One of the militant groups, the Amazing
Amazonas, call on all the government-owned and
controlled corporations (GOCC) to boycott any
Cases- newspaper, radio or TV station that carries the
―kinse anyos‖ advertisements. They call on all
Yrasugue v. PAL [equal protection] government nominees in sequestered corporations
to block any advertising funds allocated for any
Bell Air. V. Dionesio [right to associate]
such newspaper, radio or TV station. Can the
People v. Bongcarawan [search by private GOCCs and sequestered corporations validly
individuals] comply?

Atienza v. Comelec (2010) – procedure for

expulsiom
2000, 11:
PBLMO v. PBMCI [human rights v. property]
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
Bar Questions: the investigation he admitted he was the killer in an
unsolved homicide committed a week earlier. The
1. 1992, No. 1 proceedings of his investigation were putting writing
2. 2005, No. 8 and dated Oct. 1, 1985 and the only participation of
3. 2000, No. 11 counsel assigned him was his mere presence and
4. 2007, No. 5 signature on the statement. The admissibility of the
statement of Ramos was palced in issue but the
prosecution claims that the confession was taken
on Oct. 1, 1985 and the 1987 Constitution providing
2005, No. 11:
the tight to counsel of choice took effect on feb. 2,
(2.) Emilio had long suspected that Alvin, his 1987 so it will not apply to Ramos. Is that correct?
employee, had been passing trade secrets to his
a. yes, because Art. III of the Constitution has
competitor, Randy, but he had no proof. One day,
no retroactive effect
Emilio broke open the desk of Alvin and discovered
b. no, because being favorable to Ramos, the
a letter wherein Randy thanked Alvin for having
provision must be given retroactive effect
passed on to him vital trade secrets of Emilio.
c. no, since the Constitution does not
Enclosed in the letter was a check for P50,000.00
distinguish to which confession it applies,
drawn against the account of Randy and payable to
the courts should not also distinguish
Alvin. Emilio then dismissed Alvin from his
d. no, since the trial proceedings were
employment. Emilio‘s proof of Alvin‘s perfidy are
conducted while the 1987 Constitution was
the said letter and check which are objected to as
in effect, its provisions should apply
inadmissible for having been obtained through an
illegal search. Alvin filed a suit assailing his
dismissal.
1992, No.2:
Rule on the admissibility of the letter and check.
(5%) [Are they admissible?] Sheila, an actress, signed a 2-year contract
with Solidaridad Films. The film company
2007, V. undertook to promote her career and to feature her
as the leading lady in at least 4 movies. In turn,
The Destilleria Felipe Segundo is famous for its 15- Sheila promised that, for the duration of the
year old rum, which it has produced and marketed contract, she shall not get marred or have a baby;
successfully for the past 70 years. Its latest otherwise, she shall be liable to refund the ilm
commercial advertisement uses the line: company a portion of its promotion expenses.
―Nakatikim ka na ba ng kinse anyos?‖ Very soon,
activist groups promoting women‘s and children‘s
rights were up in arms against the advertisement.
1 | Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
If Solidaridad Films tries to enforce this
contract judicially, will Sheila‘s constitutionally
protected right prevail?
Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life,
liberty or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be deprived the equal
protection of laws.
Not covered as ―property‖:
1. permits and licenses [CM Timber]
2. private employment [Serrano]
3. public office
2006,- VI –
Does a Permit to Carry Firearm Outside Residence
(PTCFOR) constitute a property right protected by
the Constitution? 2.5%
Outline of Sec. 1:
A. Due Process
1. Procedural
2. Substantive
B. Equal Protection
Due Process and Equal Protection
Due Process: Procedural vs. Substantive
Procedural due process relates to the mode of
procedure which government agencies must follow
in the enforcement and application of laws.
Substantive due process pertains to the intrinsic
validity of the law interfering with life, liberty and
property.
Exempted from procedural due process:
a. rule-making/quasi-legislative power
b. abatement of nuisance per se
Section 1: Procedural Due Process
Due Process in Administrative Proceedings:
1. The right to a hearing which includes the right of
a party interested or affected to present his on case
and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
3. The decision must have something to support
itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be based on the evidence
presented at the hearing or at least contained on
the records and disclosed to the party affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act
on its or his own independent consideration of the
law and facts of the controversy and not simply
accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a
decision;
7. The board or body should, in all controversial
questions, render its decision n such a manner that
the parties to the proceeding can know the various
issues involved and the reason for the decision.
Cases:
1. Doruelo v. MND
2. Go v. NAPLOCOM
3. Executive v. Southwing
4. Rivera v. CSC
5. Mollaneda v. Umacob
Bar Questions: Procedural
1. 2000, No. 3
2. 1994, No. 9
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. Stevie‘s lawyer questioned the
deportation order:
1. On the ground that Stevie was denied due
process because the BID Commissioners who
rendered the decision were not the ones who
received the evidence, in violation of the ―he who
decides must hear‖ rule. Is he correct?
2. On the ground that there was a violation of
due process because the complainants, the
prosecutor and the hearing officers were all
2 | Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
subordinates of the BID Commissioners who
rendered the deportation. Is he correct?
Which of the following violates procedural due
process?
a decision rendered by a tribunal based on the
transcript of the hearing conducted by a
subordinate officer authorized to receive evidence
a decision rendered by a judge, who took over after
the judge who actually tried the case retired
a decision of an agency after hearing where the
prosecutor, the witnesses and the officer deciding
are all belonging to said agency
a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals
where the 3rd member who concurred was the one
who penned the RTC decision before he was
promoted
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
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. (3%)
2011 Bar Exam
77. Procedural due process in administrative
proceedings
A. requires the tribunal to consider the evidence
presented.
B. allows the losing party to file a motion for
reconsideration.
C. requires hearing the parties on oral argument.
D. permits the parties to file memoranda.
2011 Bar Exam:
48. An ordinance prohibits ―notorious street gang
members‖ from loitering in public places. The police
are to disperse them or, if they refuse, place them
under arrest. The ordinance enumerates which
police officers can make arrest and defines street
gangs, membership in them, and public areas. The
ordinance was challenged for being vague
regarding the meaning of ―notorious street gang
members.‖ Is the ordinance valid?
A. No, it leaves the public uncertain as to what
conduct it prohibits.
B. No, since it discriminates between loitering in
public places and loitering in private places.
C. Yes, it provides fair warning to gang members
prior to arrest regarding their unlawful conduct.
D. Yes, it is sufficiently clear for the public to know
what acts it prohibits.
SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
 Is the law reasonable or is it an undue
interference on life, liberty or property?
 Is it a valid exercise of police power?
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.
Tests for Valid Exercise of Police Power:
1. That the interest of the public generally as
distinguished from those of a particular class
requires such interference.
2. That the means are reasonably necessary
for the accomplishment of the purpose and not
unduly oppressive upon individuals. (US VS.
TORIBIO)
3 | Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
Outline:
1. Lawful subject
2. Lawful method
a. Rational relation between method and
purpose [Ynot], Laguio]
b. Means chosen not unduly oppressive of
another right
Cases:
1. Lupangco
2. Ermita-Malate and Laguio and White Light
 Required registration in lobby, inspection
and prohibition on renting twice in 24 hours
 prohibition of sauna, cabarets, motels, inns
and dance halls in the Ermita-Malate
district. [n reasonable relation because it will
not promote per se protect morals [too
restrictive?]
 Renting for less than 12 hours [‗restrains
business and patrons without justification‖]
3. Beltran v. Secretary
4. Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD
5. MMDA v. Viron Transportation
6. SJS v. Atienza, Jr.,
7. Planters v. Fertiphil
Bar Questions:
1. 2003, No. 12
2. 1994, No. 12, 2000, No. 4
3. 2001, No. 13
5. 1987, V: Is an ordinance prohibiting
barbershop operators from rendering massage
service to their customers in a separate room valid?
2003, No. 12:
The municipal council of the municiplaity of
Guagua, Pampanga, passed an ordinace
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 ½ of the amount. Would you hold
the ordinance a valid exercise of legislative power?
2001, No. 13:
The PPA issued an adminstrative 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?
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.
2008, - VI -
The Philippine National Police (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 medical reason. Some police
officers questioned the validity of the circular,
claiming that it violated their right to liberty under
the Constitution. Resolve the controversy. (6%)
V, 2009
To address the pervasive problem of gambling,
Congress is considering the following options: (1)
prohibit all forms of gambling; (2) allow gambling
only on Sundays; (3) allow gambling only in
government-owned casinos; and (4) remove all
prohibitions against gambling but impose a tax
equivalent to 30% on all winnings.
[a] If Congress chooses the first option and passes
the corresponding law absolutely prohibiting all
forms of gambling, can the law be validly attacked
on the ground that it is an invalid exercise of police
power? Explain your answer. (2%)
If Congress chooses the second option, would the
law be valid?
4 | Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
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
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. (5%)
a. No, the ordinance is unduly oppressive of
the right to privacy
b. No, the ordinance will not promote any
public interest
c. No, the method chosen has no rational
relation to the purpose of the ordinancen
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.
Section 1: Due Process and 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.
Two ways of violating:
1. Classifying without basis [Jalosjos]
2. Failure to classify when distinction exist
[Bar Q, 1989, No. 18: Villegas case]
An ordinance of the City of Manila requires every
alien desiring to obtain employment of whatever
kind, including casual and part-time employment, 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?
Two ways of justifying:
1. When the Constitution allows it; or [Nunez and
Almonte] Cruz v. COMELEC]
2. When it passes the 4 tests for a valid
classification
Tests for Valid Classification:
1. It must rest on a substantial distinction;
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the
law;
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions
only:
5 | Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS

4. It must apply equally to members of the b. Yes, because there is a substantial

same class. distinction between men and women
c. Yes, because the classification is germane
to the purpose of the law which is to protect
women
1. Parreno v. COA d. Yes, because the Constitution permits
2. Abakada v. Purisima discrimination against women

3. Quinto v. COMELEC

4. Beltran 1994, No. 12:

5. Gutierrez v. DBM The DECS issued a circular disqualifying anyone

who fails for the 4th time in the National Entrance
6. Lagiou [sauna parlors, beerhouses, cabarets, Tests from admission to a College of Dentistry. X
dance halls, motels and inns vs. hotels, lodging who was thus disqualified, questions the
houses, pension houses] constitutionality of the circular.

7 . Duncan v. Glaxo (2) Did the circular violate the equal protection
clause of the Constitution?
8. League of Cities
a. valid, because there is a substantial
distinction between dentistry and other
profession
Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission b. valid, because laws and circulars issued by
637 SCRA 78 (2010) government agencies are superior to the
equal protection clause
The President on July 30, 2010, signed Executive c. void, because all professions are the same
Order No. 1 establishing the Philippine Truth and should be treated similarly
Commission of 2010. The ad hoc body formed d. void, because it discriminates against
under the Office of the President with the primary mentally deficient students
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 2007, No. 2.
thereafter to submit its finding and
recommendations to the President, Congress and The City Mayor issues an executive order declaring
the Ombudsman. Since the EO was tasked mainly that the city promotes responsible parenthood and
to investigate corruption under the administration of upholds family planning. He prohibits all hospitals
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, does it violate the equal operated by the city from prescribing the use of
protection clause? artificial methods of contraception, including
condoms, pills, intrauterine devices and surgical
sterilization. As a result, poor women in his city lost
Bar Questions: their access to affordable family planning programs.
Private clinics, however, continue to render family
1. 1987, No. 6 planning counsel and devices to paying clients.
2. Bar Q, No. 12, 1994 Is the Executive Order in any way constitutionally
infirm? Explain [Equal Protection?]
3. No. 2, 2007

1987, No. 6:
2011 Bar Exam
Marina Neptunia, daughter of a sea captain wanted
to become a full fledged marine officer but she was 23. The equal protection clause allows valid
not allowed to take the examination for marine classification of subjects that applies
officers because the law Regulating the Practice of
the Marine Profession prescribes that: ―No person A. only to present conditions.
shall be qualified for examination as marine officer
unless he is:‖ B. so long as it remains relevant to the government.

Is the law valid? [Equal Protection?] C. for a limited period only.

D. for as long as the problem to be corrected exists.

a. No, because it discriminates against women

6 | Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
2011 Bar Exam
100. X, a Filipino and Y, an American, both teach at
the International Institute in Manila. The institute
gave X a salary rate of P1,000 per hour and Y,
P1,250 per hour plus housing, transportation,
shipping 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 other foreign teachers. The Filipino teachers
assailed such differential treatment, claiming it is
discriminatory and violates the equal protection
clause. Decide.
A. The classification is based on superficial
differences.
B. The classification undermines the ―Filipino First‖
policy.
C. The distinction is fair considering the burden of
teaching abroad.
D. The distinction is substantial and uniformly
applied to each class.
Sec. 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
produced, and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the persons or things to be
siezed.
Arrrest, Search and Seizure
1. Search Warrant
2. Arrest Warrant
3. Warrantless Searches
4. Warrantless Arrests
5. Exclusionary Rule
Section 2: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
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:
Probable cause are such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought
to be searched.
Questions on Probable Cause:
 When the crime consists of possession of
objects without a permit or license, what
evidence is necessary to establish probable
cause? [PICOP and Estrada Cases]
 What happens when a warrant is issued for
the seizure of 2 items but there is only
probable cause for the issuance of one of
them? [Salangguit]
Specific Description:
A search warrant must specifically describe:
a. The place to be searched;
b. The objects to be seized; and
c. Issue only for one specific offense
Rules on description of place illustrated:
1. If the place is under the control of one person, a
general description may be sufficient (Yao, Sr:
Masagana compound, except PICOP]
2. If the place is a compound occupied by various
persons, the warrant must specifically indicate
the unit to be searched [Estrada -5T-]
[apartment units, rooms in a house]
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]
Bar Questions:
- 2001, No. 9, 1990, No. 9
7 | Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
2001:
Armed with a search and seizure warrant, a team of
policemen led by Inspector Trial entered a
compound and searched the hosue described
therein as No. 17 Speaker Perez St., Sta. Mesa
Heigths, Quezon City, woned 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.
Is Mr. Pelet‘s contention valid or not? [Are the
firearms admissible?]
a. Yes, because the police officers were
armed with a search warrant
b. Yes, because the objects were seized in
plain view
c. No, because the objects were not
specifically described in the warrant
d. No, because they were seized from a place
not described in the warrant
1990:
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.
(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.
Rules on Description of Objects
1. Objects need not be described in precise
details [Kho: firearms of various calibers, chop
chop vehicles, undetermined quantity of
marijuana], unlicensed radio com. Equipment –
but Microsoft – ―computer hardware including
central processing units and hard disks, CD
Rom drives, key boards, monitor, screens and
diskettes…Vallejo: Undetermined number of
fake land titles, blank form of land titles, official
receipts, undetermined number lf land transfer
transactions…
2. Minor discrepancies in between the objects
described in the warrant from those actually
taken do not nullify the warrant for as long as
they are of the same kind and nature – Al Ghoul
3. Where a warrant contains a specific description
of some objects and a general description of
others, the entire warrant is not voided. [Uy. Vs.
BIR]
4. Objects not specifically described in the warrant
but are considered contraband may be seized
in plain view and are admissible in court. [del
Rosario]
Bar Question:
1990, No. 9
Specific doctrines on ―one offense‖ rule:
1. When related offenses are punished by
different provsions of the same law, issuance of
a single warrant is justified [Dischoso :
marijuana, shabu and paraphernalia, Prudente:
2. Where there are several counts of one specific
offense, issuance of one search warrant is
sufficient [Columbia]
Sy Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue, Dec. 15, 2010
After the Supreme Court sustained the quashal of
the Search Warrant for Robbery, the trial judge
granted the motion of the prosecution to withdraw
the information charging accused of the offense.
The dismissal was without prejudice. Should the
prosecution opt to file an information against the
accused for Qualified Theft may the objects taken
under the quashed warrant be used in evidence?
Territorial Validity:
1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction
the crime was committed; [Sony Computer]
2. For compelling reasons stated in the
application, any court within the judicial region
where the crime was committed or where the
warrant shall be served. [Chiu]
Others:
3. Any court, subject to the requirement of
territorial jurisdiction, can issue any warrant for any
offense. [Kenneth Roy: Regardless of nature or
imposable penalty]
8 | Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS

In issuing a search warrant, the judge must: [5%]  Leangsiri

a. notify the person to be searched of the
application
b. personally study only the records
determine probable cause
c. see to it that the person to be searched is at
home
d. ensure that the order to search is in writing
2. Arrest Warrants: Questions
1. Must the judge personally examine complainant
and his witnesses? People v. Grey, 625 SCRA
523 (2010)
2. Can the judge rely on the certification of the
prosecutor that there is probable cause for the
offense?
3. Is the person subject to arrest entitled to notice
and hearing before the judge issues…?
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]
Valid warrantless searches:
 Che Chun Ting [inside house]
 Tiu Won Chua [car]
 Musa
to  Valeroso – locked cabinets within the room?
2. Consented Search
Principles-
1. Only the person whose right has been invaded
can give consent [Asis, Damaso]
2. Consent has to be given expressly
3. The search cannot extend beyond the purpose
for which consent was given [Layague]
3. Plain View
Requisites for Search in Plain View:
1. There must be a prior justification for the
intrusion;
2. The police inadvertently came across the
evidence;
3. The illegality must be immediately
apparent ( PEOPLE VS. MUSA ) Valdez –
kaingin/[People v. del Rosario -.45/.22
Go: Assorted documents, passports, bank books,
checks, typewriter, dry seals, stamp pads, and
Chinese and Philippine currency /Elamparo

1. Incident to lawful arrest People v. Nunez, (2009)

2. Consented search
3. Plain view The search warrant commanded the police to
4. Stop and frisk search for and seize ―shabu‖ and paraphernalia
5. Moving vehicles found in the house of the accused. In the course of
6. Custom laws the search, believing that certain objects were
7. Exigency bartered for ―shabu‖, they also seized a lady‘s
8. Airport Security wallet, cash, grinder, camera, component,
9. Incident to lawful arrest speakers, electric planer, jigsaw, electric tester,
10. Prison search saws, hammer, drill, and bolo. Is the seizure valid?
Bar questions

2000, No. 14: 1990, No. 9:

What are the isntances when warrantless searches
may be effected?
2001, No. 4:
A is an alien. State whetner, in the Philippines, he
is entitled to the right against illegal searches and
seizures and against illegal arrests.
1. Incident to Arrest
Rules: 1. Contemporaneous to arrest
2. Place under his immediate control
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?]
4.Stop and Frisk:
9 | Page
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
It must be based on probable cause, that is that the
person is acting suspiciously, which must not be
based on the subjective perception of the police.
His unusual behavior must suggest a crime.
Reports do not constitute probable cause.
[Mengote/Posadas]
 Lacerna- slouched
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 plastic sachet from the cigarette case.
It turned out to be ―shabu‖. Is the evidence
admissible?
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. [2009, No.
7]
a. no, because there was no probable cause
for the search
b. yes, because there was probable cause for
the search
c. yes, because the evidence was seized in
plain view
d. yes, by failing to object to the search,
accused is deemed to have waived his right,
Bar Question, 1995: Remedial-
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. Moving Vehicles
1. Vehicles may be stopped at check points and
subjected to visual search only
2. Extensive search is permissible only if there is
probable cause;
3. Probable cause can be a report that a
contraband is being transported [Bagista], or it can
be that the person is acting suspiciously [Exala]
4. Failure to object is equivalent to consent, unless
under the circumstances we cannot expect the
person to object.[Exala & Aniag]
[Valdez: ―thin Ilocano with Green bag‖. Gonzales
:‖woman with long hair, maong pants, jacket, ray
ban and black traveling bag.‖
1992/5:
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 c ar,
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.
10 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
a. Yes, because there was a valid search in
plain view
b. Yes, because no search warrant is required
in search of moving vehicles
c. Yes, Antonio‘s failure to object amounts to
consent to the search
d. No, because the police should have
obtained a warrant
B. If, upon further inspection by the police,
prohibited drugs were found inside the various
compartments of the car, can the drugs be used in
evidence against him?
a. Yes, because there was a valid search in
plain view
b. Yes, because no search warrant is required
in search of moving vehicles
c. Yes, Antonio‘s failure to object amounts to
consent to the search
d. Yes, because it would now amount to
search incident to a valid arrest
1989, No. 7:
Pursuing reports that great quantities of prohibited
drugs are being smuggled at nighttime through the
shores of Cavite, the Southerm 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 car‘s back seat covered with
blanket.
B. The police suspected an unfenced lot covered
by rocks and bushes was planted to marijuana.
C. The police became suspicious when they saw a
car believed to be of the same model used by the
killers of a city mayor.
D. The driver sped away in his car when the police
flagged him down at a checkpoint.
2011 Bar Exam
40. An informer told the police that a Toyota Car
with plate ABC 134 would deliver an unspecified
quantity of ecstacy in Forbes Park, Makati City. The
officers whom the police sent to watch the Forbes
Park gates saw the described car and flagged it
down. When the driver stopped and lowered his
window, an officer saw a gun tucked on the driver's
waist. The officer asked the driver to step out and
he did. When an officer looked inside the car, he
saw many tablets strewn on the driver's seat. The
driver admitted they were ecstacy. Is the search
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
Requisites for Search under Customs Laws:
1. It must be conducted by persons exercising
police authority under the custom laws;
2. There must be probable cause;
3. It is limited to persons, vehicles, vessels,
aircrafts, land enclosure, warehouse, stores, but
not dwelling houses;
4. Only dutiable or prohibited goods can be seized.
(PAPA VS. MAGO )
Bar Question: 1991, No. 8
Ogario: A regular court (RTC) has no jurisdiction
to quash a Warrant of Seizure and Detention
issued by the Customs Collector. It has exclusive
jurisdiction. Remedy?
 Achacoso
 Harvey v. Santiago
11 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
7. Exigency – De Gracia
8. Airport Search
Johnson:
-‖Reduced expectation of privacy‖
-minimum instrusiveness
-gravity of safety interest involved
Canton: RA 6235: Ticket - … holder thereof is
subject to search for an seizure… Holder refusing
to be searched shall not be allowed to board
aircraft.‖
9. Jail Security:
Conde- seizure of knives from visiting wife
1989, No. 5
10. Private Persons
2002, No. 8:
One day a passenger bus conductor found a man‘s
handbag left in the bus. When the conductor
opened the bag, he found inside a calling card with
the owner‘s name (Dante Galang) and address and
a small plastic bag containing a white powdery
substance. He brought the substance to the NBI
for laboratory examination and it turned out to be
―shabu‖. Galang was charged and convicted. On
appeal, he contends that the plastic bag and its
contents are inadmissible in evidence being the
product of an illegal search and seizure. Is he
correct?
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.
2008, IX, Remedial Law:
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
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? (4%)
6. [A] 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 M‘s‖ bedroom, the police went on searching
and found and seized a hand-grenade kept by ―M‖
in a discarded shoe box in the attic.
Based on the above facts, which statement is
legally correct? [5%]
[a] Both the firearm and the grenade are
admissible in evidence
[b] Both the firearm and the grenade are
inadmissible in evidence
[c] Only the firearm is admissible in evidence
[d] Only the grenade is admissible in evidence
12 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
6. The police had a search warrant to search the
residence of G for illegal possession of ―shabu‖. As
soon as they entered the house, they saw on top of
the kitchen table peso bills in various
denominations amounting to about P10,000.00,
which they promptly seized. Proceeding further by
opening drawers, lockers and cabinets, the police
managed to seize about one kilo of ―shabu‖ stowed
in various 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
d. I will order the return because the illegality
of the object is not readily apparent
4. While PO1 Garcia was drinking coffee at a
terminal one morning, he saw accused dressed in
patched and faded clothes boarding a bus. Slung
over the shoulder of accused was a new Highland
back pack. His suspicion aroused by the contrast
between the old clothes and the new bag, PO1
Garcia hurriedly gulped the steaming contents of
his cup, accosted the accused and opened the bag
over the protests of the accused. True enough,
PO1 Garcia‘s suspicion was confirmed for in one of
the pockets of the bag, he found a bundle of
marijuana leaves.
Is the marijuana admissible in evidence?
a. yes, because their was a valid stop and frisk
b. yes, because there was a valid search of a
moving vehicle
c. yes, because accused is presumed to have
consented to the search
d. No, because there was no probable cause
for the conduct of the search
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: [5%]
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:
Sec. 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 inspection af the vehicle is merely limited to a
visual search;
c. when the occupant(s) of the vehicle
appear to be nervous or suspicious or exhibit
unnatural reaction;
d. if the officer conducting the search has
reasonable or probable cause to believe that either
the occupant(s) is a law offender or that the
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the
commission of a crime can be found in the vehicle
to be searched; or
e. on the basis of prior confidential
information which are reasonably corroborated by
other attendant matters.
Abad Sample: A warrantless search is valid when
the search is made by:
a. A customs officer at the home of a known
smuggler
b. Anti-drug enforcers
c. Policemen at a COMELEC checkpoint
13 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
d. NBI agents looking for a bomb at a mall
4. 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; [Flagranti Delicto
Rule]
2. When an offense has in fact been committed,
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating
that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
[Freshly Committed Rule]
Amendment: When an offense has just been
committed and he has probable cause to believe
based on personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it.
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)
Requisites: Has just been committed]
1. Time element [Sinoc allowed 12, while Manlulu
disallowed 19] Continuing Offense?
2. Probable cause/[personal knowledge?]
1. Jayson –
2. Alavario
3.Vinalon
4. Posadas – 4 days
5. Kimura – 2 days
Test: Report of victim and witnesses generally
sufficient.
But Cubcubin, Sequino
People v. Uyboco, Jan. 21, 2011
The police officers present in Magallanes
Commercial Center were able to witness the pay-
off which consummated the crime of kidnapping.
They saw accused take the money from the car
trunk of the father of the kidnap victims. Such
knowledge was then relayed to the other police
officers stationed in 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?
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?
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
Question, 10, 1997: A, while on board a
passenger jeep one night, was held up by a groupd
of 3 teenagers who forcibly divested her of her
watch, necklace and wallet containign 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?
1. yes, because the information given by the
victim constitutes probable cause
2. no, the Rules require that the police officers
should have been personally present during
the commission of the crime
3. no, because at the time of the arrest the
offense was no longer freshly committed
4. no, because the Constitution provides that
an arrest can only be effected by virtue of
an arrest warrant
14 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
Exclusionary Rule: Meaning –
1. Illegal warrantless searches
2. Void warrants
Consequence – return the objects, unless they are
contraband. In most cases, accused will have to be
acquitted.
Stonehill- A personal right
Provisions with exclusionary rule: 2, 3, 12 & 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
Sec. 3. The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety
or order requires as prescribed by law.
2011 Bar Exam:
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.
Sec. 3. Privacy of Communications
May be restricted:
1. Upon lawful order of the court (court)
Court can order it in the manner in Sec. 2… apply
before the judge for the tapping and prove that
there is probable cause and the judge can order the
conduct of wiretapping
2. When prescribed by law as public order and
safety requires (congress has to pass a law)
 It applies new of modes of communications
such as text messages as it is also a form of
communication
RA 4200 – punishes interception and recording
of conversation without the consent of both
parties. [Anti-Wire Tapping Law]
It is similar to Sec. 3 in the sense that they are both
exclusionary rules, but it goes further because it
punishes (violation becomes a crime). It is
narrower in the sense that it covers only oral
communication (it is about oral communications
only not written or letters). Text messages are not
covered with this.. Call definitely included
 Alejano – Can letters of detainees or
convicts be opened and read? Is Sec. 3
available to them? Exception? Yes… as a
general rule, all letters can be opened..
People in jail do not enjoy privacy to
communications except letters written
between detainees/convicts and their
lawyers in view of the lawyer-client privilege
 This can be done as part of the Standard
Operating Procedure in Jails…
 The letter between lawyer and client may be
opened but cannot be read… IT IS
SUBJECT TO OPENING BUT CANNOT BE
READ!!!!
 Ople: Does the Constitution protect the
right to privacy? When may it be
curtailed?/Sabio (the constitution only
provided the privacy of communication-
which is very limited…) However, it is a
constitutional right even if not specifically
provided or listed in the constitution as the
PROVISIONS OF bill of rights is really
intended to protect person‘s privacy…
SUCH as due process, against
unreasonable seizures, against self
incrimination….
 Character: Right to Privacy is a fundamental
right.. It is superior to property rights… it is
fundamental like right to freedom of religion,
speech and expression….
 Can it be curtailed? Before you can have it
curtailed, it must be shown that there is a
compelling state interest (same in freedom
of religion) as compared to requirement of
substantial state interest in the exercise of
police power.
15 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
 Salcedo-Ortanez – taped recorded
conversation
 Zulueta – pictures [Marti rule?]
Bar Questions:
1998, No. 7:
The police had suspicions that Juan Samson,
member of the subversive New Proletarian Army,
was using the mail for propaganda purposes in
gaining new adherents to its cause, The Chief of
Police of Bantolan, Lanao del sur ordered the
Postmaster of the town to intercept and open all
mail addressed to and coming from Juan Samson
in the interest of national security. Was the order of
the Chief of Police valid?
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
b. no, because while a rule the letters of detainees
may be opened, a letter to one‘s spouse is covered
by marital privilege (
c. yes, because detainees and prisoners have a
limited claim to privacy and all their letters may be
read without a court order
d. yes, the letter may be opened and read by the
warden because it was not addressed to nor
was it from his lawyer (letter between lawyer and
client/detainees is the only exception to the general
rule)
No. 12, 2001:
A has a telephone line with an extension. One day,
A was talking to B over the telephone. A conspired
with his friend C, who was at the end of the
extension line listening to A‘s telephone
conversation with B, to overhear and tape-record
the conversation wherein B confidentially admitted
that with evident premeditation, he killed D for
having cheated him in their business partnership.
B was not aware that the telephone conversation
was being tape-recorded.
In the criminal case against B for murder, is the
tape recorded conversation containing his
admission admissible in evidence? (this is
prohibited under the Anti-wiretapping law…the tape
was recorded without the consent of other party…
unauthorized recording of conversation!!!!!
[Assume that C only listened through the extension
line and he was later called to testify on what he
heard. Would his testimony be admissible?] (note
that phone extension is not prohibited by law… C
may testify…)
A filed an annulment case against her husband
based on psychological incapacity of the latter.
While the case was pending, she broke open the
drawers and cabinets in her husband‘s office and
took away the pictures, letters and cards sent to her
husband by his paramour. Her husband objected
to the admission into evidence of the documents on
the ground of illegal search and seizure. Are they
admissible?
a. yes, because one cannot invoke the Bill of
Rights against a private person, in this case
one‘s 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
documents ZULUETA CASE!!! NOTE
THAT YOU CANNOT INVOKE BILL OF
RIGHTS AGAINST PRIVATE PERSON…
STRANGE PROBLEM… BUT THE
EMPHASIS IS THAT 1. by entering into a
contract of marriage, one DOES NOT waive
his right to privAcy with respect to his
spouse 2. THIS DOCTRINE APPLIES
ONLY IF THE SUIT IS BETWEEN SPOUSE
in view of the fact that bill of rights can be
invoke only against state.. SEC. 3 IS STILL
COVERED BY EXCLUSIONARY RULE..
16 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
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 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. (3%) [Is the
evidence admissible?]
YES! (NOTEWORTHY IS THE FACT THAT THE
ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW APPLIES EVEN TO
PRIVATE PERSONS NOT ONLY STATES)…. IT
DOES NOT VIOLATE THE ANTI WIRETAPPING
LAW BECAUSE HIS PRIVACY WAS NOT
VIOLATED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE
INCIDENT HAPPENED IN THE LOBBY…
PRIVACY CANNOT BE EXPECTED IN A PLACE
LIKE LOBBY OR STREETS.. YOU CANNOT
EXPECT YOUR RIGHT TO BE RESPECTED IN
SUCH PLACES… HENCE INSTALLATION OF
CCTV IS ALLOWABLE IN SUCH PLACES..
MOREOVER, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A
PRIVATE CONVERSATION AS THE ACCUSED
WAS SHOWN IN THE TAPE TO BE SHOUTING
AT THE VICTIM.. IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
A PRIVATE CONVERSATION.. HENCE,
LECTURES ARE NOT COVERED BY PRIVATE
CONVERSATIONS.. IT CAN BE RECORDED
RA No. 9372
Please take note that the right to privacy to
communications may be limited by law..
1. Anti-wiretapping law
2. Anti-terrorism law
SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception
and Recording of Communications. – The
provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-wire
Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a
police or law enforcement official and the members
of his team may, upon a written order of the Court
of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the
use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or
other surveillance equipment or intercepting and
tracking devices, or with the use of any other
suitable ways and means for that purpose, any
communication, message, conversation,
discussion, or spoken or written words between
members of a judicially declared and outlawed
terrorist organization, association, or group of
persons or of any person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism.
NOTE: IF YOU ARE NON TERRORIST.. YOU
CAN APPLY WITH THE RTC, MTC MTC
(BECAUSE THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE
SEARCH WARRANTS) TO TAP THEIR PRIVATE
CONVERSATION!
Sec. 27. Judicial Authorization Required to
Examine Bank Deposits, Accounts, and
Records. - The provisions of Republic Act No.
1405, as amended, to the contrary notwithstanding,
the justices of the Court of Appeals designated as a
special court to handle anti-terrorism cases after
satisfying themselves of the existence of probable
cause in a hearing called for that purpose [may
authorize law enforcement officers to]:
(a) examine, or cause the examination of, the
deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and
records in a bank or financial institution; and
(b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant
information about such deposits, placements, trust
accounts, assets, and records from a bank or
financial institution. The bank or financial institution
concerned, shall not refuse to allow such
examination or to provide the desired information,
when so, ordered by and served with the written
order of the Court of Appeals.
Question! HOW IS THIS LIMITATION BALANCED?
IT IS NOW BALANCED WITH THE
INTRODUCTION OF HABEAS DATA
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.
So if abovementioned persons violate your right to
PRIVACY as when they got information about you
without court order, YOU FILE petition FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF HABEAS DATA to protect you right
to PRIVACY
MERALCO v. Lim, Oct. 5, 2010
May an employee invoke the remedies available
under such writ of habeas data where an employer
decides to transfer her workplace on the basis of
copies of an anonymous letter posted therein ─
imputing to her disloyalty to the company and
calling for her to leave, which imputation it
investigated but fails to inform her of the details
thereof?
17 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
What happened here is that letters were posted in
the working places attacking against a meralco
employee.. The employer decided to transfer her to
another unit.. She asked copies of the same which
had been the basis of her transfer but the company
did not assented to her request.. So she filed a
petition for the issuance for habeas data on the
ground that it covers Private persons.. Held:
PETITION DENIED!!!! THIS MATTER HAS
REFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT…. UNDER
SEC. 1, EMPLOYMENT IS A PROPERTY RIGHT..
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE, LIBERTY
AND SECURITY!!!! HABEAS DATA WAS
CREATED TO ADDRESS EXTRAJUDICIAL
KILLINGS, salvaging! YOU GO TO THE NLRC AS
HER CAUSE OF ACTION HAS REFERENCE
WITH EMPLOYMENT!!!!
Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging
freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble and petition the government for
redress of grievances.
5 RIGHTS PROTECTED!!!
1. SPEECH
2. EXPRESSION
3. PRESS
4. ASSEMBLY
5. PETITION
THESE ARE POLITICAL RIGHTS AS THEY ARE
EJOYED INORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN
AFFAIRS OF THE GOVERNMENT!!!
 Freedom of speech, expression
and of the press is the liberty to discuss
publicly and truthfully any matter of public
interest without censorship or punishment.
Outline
1. Forms of restriction
2. Tests on Restriction
3. Petition and Assembly
Restraints on Expression:
1. Prior Restraint
Prior restraint is government restriction on
forms of expression in advance of actual
publication or dissemination.
2. Subsequent Punishment
Subsequent punishment is the restraint on
freedom of speech, expression and of the
press that comes after the exercise of said
rights in the form of criminal prosecutions,
citations for contempt or suits for damages.
Chavez v. Gonzales, 555 SCRA 441 (2008): Do
press statements of high officials threatening the
press with prosecution (IF THEY WILL KEEP ON
AIRING GARCILLIANO TAPES), even if not
reduced to formal orders or directives, forms of
prior restraint? YES! EVEN PRESS STATEMENTS
OF HIGH GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CAN BE
CONSIDERD AS FORM OF PRIOR RESTRAINT
SINCE IT RELATES TO THEIR EXERCISE OF
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS BECAUSE IT THREATEN
PEOPLE WITH PUNISHMENT OR CLOSURE OF
ESTABLISMENT
The exercise of prior restraint bears a
presumption of unconstitutionality (IT IS
BECAUSE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS
IMPORTANT TO THE VITALITY OF THE
SOCIETY…. THERE SHOULD BE PUBLIC
DEBATE ON ISSUES.. HENCE, ANY
RESTRICITON TO THE SAME, IS PRESUMED
ILLEGAL , except: (WHEN THE PRESUMPTION
OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY DOES NOT APPLY)
1. In times of war
2. When the COMELEC exercises its power
under Sec. 4, Art. XI ©. (REGULATION OF
FRANCHISE OF MASS MEDIA DURING
ELECTION PERIOD AS WHEN IT
PROHIBITED THE SALE OF TIME IN
RADIO AND TV)… NOTE THAT SUCH
POWER IS VESTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION TO THE COMELEC..
HENCE PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONAL!!
3. When the restriction is content neutral
Content-Neutral v. Content-Based
 Content-Neutral – One that is imposed not
on the content of the speech but on the
time mode or manner of place of the
exercise of the right. [No presumption of
unconstitutionality, and a deferential
standard of review is required. (intermediate
review)] – IS THE RESTRICITON
REASONABLE? MILD FORM OF REVIEW!
 DO NOT WRITE GRAFITTI ON THE
WALL.. YOU ARE NOT RESTRICTING
THE RIGHT TO MAKE GRAFITTI BUT
ONLY THE MANNER.. YOU ARE NOT
BEING PROHIBITED FROM EXPRESSING
YOURSELF.. EXPRESS IT SOME OTHER
MANNER! YOU WRITE IT SOMEWHERE
18 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
ELSE WHERE IT CANNOT MAKE DIRTY
BUT NOT ON THE WALL !!
 Content-based- 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!!
 EX. PROHIBITION ON AIR INTERVIEWS
INVOLVING ABU SAYAF.. YOU ARE
ACTUALLY PROHIBITING THE EXERCISE
OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!!!
Which restriction is content-based:
a. prohibition on the writing of graffiti on walls
b. prohibition to conduct rallies within 200 meters
of any court house
c. prohibition on mass media from selling or
giving free of charge print space or air time for
campaign purposes
d. prohibition on newspaper columnists from
discussing plebiscite issues in their columns
The prohibition on mass media from selling or
giving free of charge print space or air time for
campaign purposes is:
(a) content-neutral it regulates only the time,
manner,
(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.
Challenges to restriction on free speech :
1. Overbreath – 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
Southern Hemispere v. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632
SCRA 5 (2010)
How is the doctrine of vagueness differentiated
from the doctrine of overbreadth?
Answer: A statute or act suffers from the defect of
vagueness when it lacks comprehensible
standards that men of common intelligence
must necessarily guess at its meaning and
differ as to its application. It is repugnant to the
Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due
process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice
of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out
its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing
of the Government muscle. The overbreadth
doctrine, meanwhile, decrees that a governmental
purpose to control or prevent activities
constitutionally subject to state regulations may not
be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily
broadly and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms.
 IF THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO
RESTRICT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, IT
MUST THAT WHICH IN SUCH A MANNER
THAT NO OTHER RIGHTS WILL BE
VIOLATED OR AFFECTED OR
BURDENED!
Example of an overbroad restriction:
2003, No. 9:
May the COMELEC prohibit the posting of decals
and stickers on mobile places, public or private,
such as on a private vehicle and limit theor
location only to the authorized posting areas that
the COMELEC itself fixes. NO! WHILE IT IS TRUE
THAT THE REGULATION WILL PROMOTE
ORDERLY ELECTIONS, IT AFFECTS THE RIGHT
OF A PERSON TO PRIVATE PROPERTY…..
HENCE, OVERBROAD RESTRICTIONS!!!
Also ABS-CBN – prohibiting exit polls- COMELEC
ISSUED RESOLUTION PROHIBITING EXIT
POLLS ON THE PREMISE THAT IT WILL
AFFECT THE CANVASSING CREDIBILITY OF
THE COMELEC… HELD: IT IS
UNCONSTITTIONAL FOR BEING OVERBROAD…
COMELEC CANNOT PROHIBIT THE SAME BUT
19 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
MAY ONLY REGULATE SUCH (FREEDOM OF
SPEECH).. IT IS UNDULY OPPRESSIVE TO THE
RIGHT OF RIGHT OF EXPRESSSION…. IT MAY
REGULATE THAT ONLY CREDIBLE POLLSTERS
WILL CONDUCT EXIT POLLS
Example of vague law:
Ople Case- NATIONAL ID SYSTEM WHICH DOES
NOT INVOLVE FREE SPEECH.. HOWEVER, SC
RULED THAT IT WAS VAGUE BECAUSE IT PUT
NO PARAMETERS IN THE CONDUCT OF
STORING INFORMATION OF A PERSON… AS
TO WHAT DATA SHOULD BE STORED IN THE
SYSTEM… THE ADMIN CODE DID NOT ALSO
SPECIFY AS TO WHO ARE GIVEN ACCESS TO
THE INFORMATION.. POLICE MAY ENDUP
USING THE INFORMATION TO BLACK MAIL
PEOPLE
2011 Bar Exam:
48. An ordinance prohibits “notorious street
gang members” from loitering in public places.
The police are to disperse them or, if they refuse,
place them under arrest. The ordinance
enumerates which police officers can make arrest
and defines street gangs, membership in them, and
public areas. The ordinance was challenged for
being vague regarding the meaning of ―notorious
street gang members.‖ Is the ordinance valid?
A. No, it leaves the public uncertain as to what
conduct it prohibits.
LOITERING- WHAT DOES IT MEAN.. WHAT IS
LOITERING! HENCE LEAVING AUTHORITIES
UNBRIDDLED DISCRETION!
B. No, since it discriminates between loitering in
public places and loitering in private places.
C. Yes, it provides fair warning to gang members
prior to arrest regarding their unlawful conduct.
D. Yes, it is sufficiently clear for the public to know
what acts it prohibits.
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE HAS IT THAT LAW
AUTHORIZING THE ARREST OF ―3 OR MORE
PEOPLE TO GATHERING IN A SIDEWALK IN AN
ANNOYING MANNER‖- HELD- IT IS VAGUE
BECAUSE ―ANNOYING MANNER‖ IS NOT
CLEAR.. AN ACT MAY BE ANNOYING TO ME
BUT NOT TO OTHER..
ALSO CSC CIRCULAR PROHIBITING
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FROM WEARING
TOO MUCH JEWELRIES- DEAN OBSERVED THE
SAME TO BE VAGUE AS IT DOES NOT
SPECIFICALLY DEFINE WHAT IS ―TOO MUCH‖
JEWELRY.. Also PROHIBITION FROM WEARING
MINI SKIRTS- IT IS VAGUE AS IT CANNOT BE
DETERMINED WHAT IS MINI SKITS.. HOW
SHORT? HHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
Southern Hemishphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council,
Oct. 5, 2010
Under Sec. 3 of RA 9372, the crime of terrorism
has the following elements: (1) the offender
commits an act punishable under any of the cited
provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or under any
of the enumerated special penal laws; (2) the
commission of the predicate crime sows and
creates a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace;
and (3) the offender is actuated by the desire to
coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand. Considering that an ―unlawful demand‖
has to be transmitted through some form of
expression, does the law violate the free speech
clause?
HELD: no! WHAT THE LAW PUNISHES IS THE
CONDUCT AND NOT THE FREEDOM OF
SPEECH… THE SPEECH IS ONLY INCIDENTAL
TO THE CRIME.
This was premised on an american jurisprudence
wherein a man was prosecuted for criminal offense
for wearing tshirt with a tag ―FUCK YOU‖.. The law
was impugned for being violative to the right of
freedom of expression.. Held.. IT IS NOT
VIOLATIVE AS THE LAW DOES NOT PUNISHES
YOU FOR EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF
EXPRESSSION BUT BASED ON YOUR
CONDUCT
 Note distinction of conduct and expression!
 BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tests on Restrictions (ON EXPRESSION to
determine w/n it is valid:
1. Dangerous Tendency
If the words spoken create a dangerous tendency
which the state has a right to prevent, then such
words are punishable. (what is being punished here
is the tendency of the speech)
2. Clear and Present Danger.
Whether the words are used in such circumstances
and are such nature as to create a clear and
present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evil that the legislature has a right to
prevent. (the danger is about to happen or is
happen and the problem is very serious) ex. ―
shouting fire or a bombscare in a theater)
(GONZALES VS. COMELEC)
3. Balancing of Interest
Courts will weigh or balance the conflicting social
interests that will be affected by legislation and
20 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
uphold what should be considered as the most
important interest.
-Lagunsad- this involved the filmaking of the life of
MOISES PADILLA, the family asked for Royalty
fees but the producer refused the same that Moises
Padilla is a public figure, hence it only exercises the
right of expression by portraying the life of a public
figure.. RIGHT OF PRIVACY VS. FREE OF
EXPRESSION
-Contempt/SC- CRITICIZING THE SC AND THE
LATTER HOLDS A PERSON IN CONTEMPT
USING THE BALANCING OF INTEREST..
USUALLY SC USES THIS TEST IN PUNISHING
PEOPLE FOR CONTEMPT IN MOST CRITICIMS
LEVELED AGAINST FORMER IN THAT- WHILE A
PERSON HAS THE RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION, THE SC HAS ALSO RIGHT TO
PROPER ADMINSTRATION OF JUSTICE..
HENCE, THE LATTER WOULD ALWAYS
PREVAIL THAT SC WOULD EASILY HOLD
PEOPLE IN CONTEMPT FOR CRITICISMS
LEVELED AGAINST SC
HOWEVER, SC USES THE CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER RULE TO DETERMINE W/N
CONTEMPT SHOULD BE HAD IN LOWER
COURTS.. OTHERWISE STATED, IT IS VERY
HARD TO HOLD A PERSON IN CONTEMPT FOR
CRITICIZING A LOWER COURT AS IT USES
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TEST!!
NORMALLY, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
RULE IS APPLIED IN OUR JURISDICTION…
THESE ARE THE ONLY 2 INSTANCES WHERE
SC USES BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST
Libel: Vasquez Rule ( this INVOLVES USUALLY
LIBEL AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICERS,.. NOTE
THAT IF IT IS AGAINST PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL,
NO CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WOULD ARISE-
BECAUSE THERE IS NO PUBLIC INTEREST
INVOLVED IN MALIGNING PRIVATE
INDIVIDUAL)
NOTE THAT WHEN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS
ARE BEING CRITICIZED OR LIBELED IN THE
EXERCISE OF HIS FUNCTION,
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES WOULD ARISE AS
EVERY PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO EXPRESS
MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND IN VIEW
OF THE ACCOUNTABLITY OF GOVERNMENT
OFFICERS IN THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS!
If the libelous statement relates to official functions
(OR IT RELATES TO A CRIME), truth is a defense.
EX. WHEN YOUR ARE BEING LIBELED TO HAVE
BEEN REPORTING ONLY DURING RELEASE OF
SALARIES, SINCE IT IS RELATED TO YOUR
FUNCTIONS, TRUTH IS A DEFENSE.
HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE BEING MALIGNED FOR
BEING CRAZY, TRUTH IS NOT A DEFENSE. It is
the public official who must prove that the
statement is false, and
1. It was made with knowledge of its falsity, or
2. There was reckless disregard whether it is
true or not. (WHEN THE PERSON
LIBELING DID NOT BOTHER TO VERIFY
THE SOURCE)
Borjal-
 The reverse presumption applies not only
to public officials but to a ―public figure‖
(ACTRESSES, PACQUIAO, CHURCH
LEADERS WHO CRITIZES OF
GOVERNMENT-BECAUSE PEOPLE
ACTUALLY HAVE INTEREST IN HIS
EVERY ACTIVITIES):
 PUBLIC FIGURE- any person who, by his
accomplishment, fame, mode of living, or by
adopting a profession or calling which gives
the public interest in his doings, affair or
character.
Also take note of:
Re: Letter of UP Law…, 644 SCRA 543 (2011)
(VINUYA CASE)
LAWYERS HAVE LIMITED FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION AS THEY ARE GOVERNMENT BY
THE CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS ….
NARROWER RIGHTS
Question 5, 2004:
The STAR, a national daily newspaper, carried an
exclusive report stating that Senator XX received a
house and lot located at YY St., Makati, in
consideration for his vote cutting cigarette by 50%.
The Senator sued the Star for libel claiming the
report was completely false and malicious.
According to the Senator, there is no YY St. in
Makati, and the tax cut was only 20%.
The defendants denied actual malice, claiming
privilege communication and absolute freedom of
the press to report on public officials and matters of
public concern. If there was any error, the Star said
it would publish the correction promptly.
Is the actual malice in Star‘s report. How is actual
malice defined? Are the defendants liable for
damages?
THE BURDENED BELONG TO THE SENATOR…
HE must prove that the statement is false, and
1. It was made with knowledge of its falsity, or
2. There was reckless disregard whether it is
true or not.
21 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
AS LONG AS THERE EXIST NO MALICE, LIBEL
CASE IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE
If a newspaperman accuses a Sangguniang Bayan
member of being corrupt, and the latter sues the
newsman for libel:
(a) the accused has the burden of proving his
accusation to be true to get acquitted
(b) the government official has the burden of
proving that it is false
(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 women‘s and
children‘s rights were up in arms against the
advertisement.
(b) One of the militant groups, the Amazing
Amazonas, call on all the government-owned and
controlled corporations (GOCC) to boycott any
newspaper, radio or TV station that carries the
―kinse anyos‖ advertisements. They call on all
government nominees in sequestered corporations
to block any advertising funds allocated for any
such newspaper, radio or TV station. Can the
GOCCs and sequestered corporations validly
comply?
YES. ASSUMING IT CAN COMPLY, IT CANNOT
NOT PASS THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
RULE… NOTE THAT ADVERTISEMENT IS
COVERED BY THE FREEDOM OF
EXPRESSION.. WHILE THERE IS A DANGER TO
MORALS, IT IS NOT IMMEDIATE AND CLEAR…
Petition and Assembly
Freedom of assembly is the right of the people to
meet peaceably for consultation and discussion of
matters of public concern.
Test: Clear and Present Danger to Public Safety,
Order, Morals, etc. (PURPOSES OF POLICE
POWER)
Bayan v. Ermita:
1. Is BP 880 constitutional? PUBLIC ASSEMBLY
ACT: REQUIREMENT OF SECURING PERMIT
BEFORE HOLDING
PROTEST/DEMONSTRATIONS-HELD-
CONSTITUTIONAL! IT IS CONTENT NEUTRAL-
IT ONLY RESTRICTS THE MANNER, AND MODE
OF THE EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO HOLD
DEMONSTRATION
2. Is CPR constitutional? CALIBRATED PRE-
EMPTIVE RESPONSE- UNCONSTITUTIONAL!
NOTE THAT UNDER BP 880, POLICE ARE
REQUIRED TO MAKE MAXIMUM TOLERANCE
IN RESPONDING DEMONSTRATIONS! DO NOT
DESTRUCT RALLIES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
3. What if there is no freedom park? SC
OBSERVED THAT LGUS WERE NOT
COMPLYING THE MANDATE TO PUT UP
FREEDOM PARKS.. HENCE, IN DECISION, IT
MANDATED ALL LGUS TO ESTABLISH THEIR
OWN WITHIN 60 DAYS FROM COURT
DECISION.. OTHERWISE, ALL GOVERNMENT
PLAZAS WILL BE CONSIDERED FREEDOM
PARKS IN THAT PEOPLE CAN HOLD RALLIES
IN SUCH PLACES WITHOUT THE NEED OF
SECURING PERMIT FOR THE SAME... WHO
HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THERE
IS NO PERMIT TO HOLD A RALLY?- FOR AS
LONG AS THE APPLICANT/DEMONSTRATORS
CAN SHOW THAT THEY MADE APPLICATION
FOR PERMIT 3 DAYS BEFORE THE INTENDED
RALLY, THERE IS PRESUMPTION THAT IT HAS
BEEN GRANTED! SO THE BURDEN THAT IT
WAS NOT GRANTED BELONG TO THE
AUTHORITIES
4. Who has the burden of proving that there is no
permit? THE BURDEN THAT IT WAS NOT
GRANTED BELONG TO THE
AUTHORITIES/POLICE
5. When may freedom Of assembly be restricted or
denied? ONLY WHEN THERE IS CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER! IBP v. Atienza, 2010- THIS
HAPPENED WHEN MAYOR ATIENZA ISSUED A
PERMIT ALLOWING HOLING RALLY ONLY IN
LUNETA AND NOT IN MENDIOLA AS APPLIED..
HELD: THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! YOU CAN
ONLY RESTRICT THE RIGHT OR THE CHANGE
TERMS OF THE PERMIT OR PLACEOF
HOLDING IF YOU ARE ABLE TO ESTABLISH
THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER – IT IS THE STANDARD THAT SHALL
BE USED TO RESTRICT, CHANGE THE TERMS
OF PERMIT
he can only modify terms of the of the
application on the ground of clear and present
danger which must be indicated in his approval
22 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
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
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 RELATE
THIS WITH PREVIOUS SLIDE
d. no, because the constitutional right is not
subject to any limitation by local authorities
Bar question!
2002, No. 10:
10 public school teachers of Caloocan left their
classrooms to join a strike, which lasted for one
month, to ask for teachers‘ benefits. They were
dismissed by the DECS Secretary. They argue that
their strike was an exercise of their Constitutional
right to peaceful assembly and to petition the
government for redress of grievances. Resolve.
[Also 2000, No. 12] WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT YOU
HAVE THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY….
THE STUDENTS HAVE ALSO THEIR RIGHT TO
EDUCATION.. THE SC BALANCED THE CLASH
BETWEEN 2 CONFILICTING RIGHTS. IT SAID
THAT YOU EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT IN SUCH A
WAY THAT IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE RIGHT OF
THE STUDENT OR CLASS HOURS… HENCE,
SC VALIDATED THE DISMISSAL OF THE
TEACHERS!
2006, No. II,
The SM filed with the Office of the City Mayor of
Manila an application for permit to hold a rally on
Mendiola St. on Sept. 5, 2006 fro 10:00 to 3:00pm
to protest the political killings of journalist.
However, the City Mayor denied their application on
the ground that a rally at the time and place applied
for will block traffic in the San Miguel and Quiapo
districts. He suggested the Liwasang Bonifacio,
which has been designated a Freedom Park, as
venue for the rally.
1. Does the SM have a remedy to contest the
denial of its application for a permit?
2. Does the availability of the Freedom Park justify
the denial of SM‘s application for a permit?
3. Is the requirement to apply for a permit to hold a
rally a prior restraint on freedom of speech and
assembly?
4. Assuming that despite the denial of the
application for a permit,its membes held a rally
prompting the police to arrest them. Are the arrests
without judicial warrants lawful?
 1. Does the SM have a remedy to contest
the denial of its application for a permit?
 YOU GO TO COURT AND FILE FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTION OR
MANDAMUS!
 2. Does the availability of the Freedom
Park justify the denial of SM‘s application for
a permit? NO! IT IS NOT CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER! TRAFFIC IS NOT
CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
 3. Is the requirement to apply for a permit
to hold a rally a prior restraint on freedom of
speech and assembly?
 4. Assuming that despite the denial of the
application for a permit,its membes held a
rally prompting the police to arrest them.
Are the arrests without judicial warrants
lawful?
2007, VII.
Batas Pambansa 880, the Public Assembly Law
of 1985, regulates the conduct of all protest
rallies in the Philippines.
Salakay, Bayan! held a protest rally and planned to
march from Quezon City to Luneta in Manila. They
received a permit from the Mayor of Quezon City,
but not from the Mayor of Manila. They were able
to March in Quezon City and up to the boundary
separating it from the City of Manila. Three meters
after crossing the boundary, the Manila Police
stopped them for posing a danger to public safety.
Was this a valid exercise of police power? YOU
CAN ANSWER IT BOTH WAYS! 1. IT IS
WITHOUT PERMIT SO THAT THE POLICE CAN
STOP THEM ONCE THEY ENTERED MANILA 2.
MANILA POLICE AUTHORITIES MAY EXERCISE
MAXIMUM TOLERANCE… ANYWAYS THEY
WERE ABLE TO SECURE PERMIT IN QUEZON
CITY.. NO CLEAR ANSWER!
(b) The security police of the Southern Luzon
Expressway spotted a caravan of 20 vehicles, with
paper banners taped on their sides and protesting
graft and corruption in government. They were
driving at 50 kilometers per hour in a 40-90
kilometers per hour zone. Some banners had been
blown off by the wind, and posed a hazard to other
motorists. They were stopped by the security
police. The protesters then proceeded to march
instead, sandwiched between the caravan vehicles.
23 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
They were also stopped by the security force. May
the security police validly stop the vehicles and the
marchers?
UNDER THE BP 880, CARAVAN IS COVERED AS
EXERCISE OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLY
2008, No. 15.
Nationwide protests have erupted over rising gas
prices, including disruptive demonstrations in many
universities throughout the country. The Metro
Manila State University, a public university, adopted
a university-wide circular prohibiting mass
demonstrations and rallies within the campus.
Offended by the circular, militant students spread
word that on the following Friday, all students were
to wear black T-shirts as a symbol of their protest
both against high gas prices and the university ban
on demonstrations. The effort was only moderately
successful. Nonetheless, university officials were
outraged and compelled the student leaders to
explain why they should not be expelled for
violating the circular against demonstrations.
The student leaders approached you for legal
advice. They contended that they should not be
expelled since they did not violate the circular, their
protest action being neither a demonstration nor a
rally since all they did was wear black T-shirts.
What would you advise the students?
WEARING BLACK TSHIRTS IS ONLY AN
EXERCISE OF FREE EXPRESSION.. IT IS NOT
COVERED BY THIS SECTION!!! NOT
ASSEMBLY!
Which one is an example of a Heckler‘s Veto?
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 OF NOT GRANTING PERMIT!
ONLY CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
IS A VALID GROUND
A heckler's veto occurs when an acting party's
right to freedom of speech is curtailed or
restricted by the government in order to prevent
a reacting party's behavior. The common
example is that of demonstrators (reacting
party) causing a speech (given by the acting
party) to be terminated in order to preserve the
peace.
A heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by
the government, because of [the possibility of] a
violent reaction by hecklers.
Sec. 5. No law shall be made respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and
enjoyment of religious profession and worship,
without discrimination or preference, shall
forever be allowed. No religious test shall be
required for the exercise of civil or political
rights.
Manosca owns a small lot which turned out to be
the birth place of the founder of the Iglesia Ni Cristo
and this was sought to be expropriated by the
National Historical Society. The owner challenges
the expropriation on the ground that it favors one
religion. 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]
(c) requirement of religious test [―religious test
clause‖
(d) intramural religious dispute
A DECS circular requiring elementary students to
sing the national anthem and salute the flag
regardless of religion raises an issue about:
(a) the free exercise clause
(b) the non-establishment clause
(c) the religious test clause
(d) intramural religious dispute
Section 5: Freedom of Religion
1. Non- Establishment Clause
The non-establishment clause prohibits legislation
which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefers
one over another.
2. Free-exercise clause
Tests for Allowable Aid to Religion:
1. The statute must have a secular legislative
purpose;
2. The principal or primary effect is neither one that
advances or inhibits religion;
24 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
3. It must not foster excessive government
entanglement with religion.
( LEMON VS. KURTZMAN )
1. Manosca – 2000, No. 8
Madlangbayan is the owner of a 500 square meter
lot which was the birthplace of a religious sect who
admittedly played an important role in Philippine
history and culture. The National Historical
Commission passed a resolution declaring it a
national landmark and on its recommendation the
lot was subjected to expropriation proceedings.
This was opposed by Madlangbayan on the
following grounds ….(b) that those to be benefited
by the expropriation would only be the members of
the religious sect of its founder. Resolve the
opposition.
2. In re: Iglesia
3. Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, 2010
3. Question 10, 1992:
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 elast 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
c. no, because the principal effect of the
subsidy promotes religion
d. no, because it can create entanglement
between state and religion
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?
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?
Free Exercise Clause
Free exercise of religion is the freedom to believe,
which is absolute, and the freedom to act, which
may be restricted, in accordance with one‘s beliefs.
Test: Clear and Present Danger
1998, No. 15 –
A religious organization has a weekly television
program. The program presents and propagates its
religious doctrines and compares their practices
with those of of other religions.
As the MTRCB found offensive several episodes of
the program which attacked other religions, the
MTRCB required the organization to submit its
tapes for review prior to airing.
The group brought the case to court on the ground
that the action of the MTRCB suppresses its
freedom of speech and interferes with its right to
free exercise of religion. Decide. [MTRCB‘s act is:
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
c. improper, because freedom to believe is
absolute
d. improper, because of separation of church
and state
1. Ebralinag, 1997, No. 12, 2003, No. 12
Clear and Present Danger
2. Ang mga Kaanib
3. Victoriano v. Elizalde
4. Escritur:
1. What should be the state‘s attitude towards
religion? Benevolent neutrality
2. What test should be applied? ―Compelling
interest test‖ ‗paramount and compelling‖
3. Has it discharged the burden? Prejudice?
Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
In an episode of Ang Dating Daan, Eliseo Soriano
uttered the following statement:
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
25 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng
mga demonyong ito.
RELIGIOUS DISPUTES
1. As between religious groups (Iglesia)
2. Among members of same group (Austria, Taruc)
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‖
XVI, 2009
Angelina, a married woman, is a Division Chief in
the Department of Science and Technology. She
had been living with a married man, not her
husband, for the last fifteen (15) years.
Administratively charged with immorality and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the
service, she admits her live-in arrangement, but
maintains that this conjugal understanding is in
conformity with their religious beliefs. As members
of the religious sect, Yahweh's Observers, they had
executed a Declaration of Pledging Faithfulness
which has been confirmed and blessed by their
Council of Elders. At the formal investigation of the
administrative case, the Grand Elder of the sect
affirmed Angelina's testimony and attested to the
sincerity of Angelina and her partner in the
profession of their faith. If you were to judge this
case, will you exonerate Angelina? Reasons. (3%)
Meanwhile, Jenny, also a member of Yahweh's
Observers, was severely disappointed at the
manner the Grand Elder validated what she
considered was an obviously immoral conjugal
arrangement between Angelina and her partner.
Jenny filed suit in court, seeking the removal of the
Grand Elder from the religious sect on the ground
that his act in supporting Angelina not only ruined
the reputation of their religion, but also violated the
constitutional policy upholding the sanctity of
marriage and the solidarity of the family. Will
Jenny's case prosper? Explain your answer. (2%)
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing
the same within the limits prescribed by law
shall not be impaired except upon lawful order
of the court. Neither shall the right to travel be
impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health as may
be provided by law.
Sec. 6. A: Liberty of abode:
Restricted by:
1. Congress –Within the limits prescribed by law
2. Court – lawful order of the court (Yap Case)
1996, No. 2:
The military commander in charge of the operation
against rebel groups directed the inhabitants of the
island which would be the target of attacks by
government forces to evacuate the area and
offered the residents temporary military hamlet.
Can the military commander force the residents to
transfer their places of abode without court order?
Explain.
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 Hansen‘s disease
with open lesions. A law requires that lepers be
isolated upon petition of the City health Officer.
The wife of Juan Casanova wrote a letter to the
City Health Officer to have her formerly
philandering husband confined in some isolated
leprosarium. Juan Casanova challenged the
constitutionality of the law as violating his liberty
of abode. Will the suit prosper?
B. Right to travel: Who can restrict?
1. Courts, of people out on bail
2. Executive and administrative officials, if they do
not act arbitrarily. Meaning that there is a law
authorizing them and they do it on the basis of
national security, public safety and public health
3. Congress [Silverio and Santiago cases]
-Marcos case
-Mirasol
-GMA v. De Lima
Conditions when court may allow travel:
26 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
1. Prove urgency
2. State duration
3. Obtain consent of surety/
Bar--1991/No. 6:
Mr. Esteban Krony, A Filipino citizen, is arrested for
the crime of smuggling. He posts bail for his
release. Subsequently, he jumps bail and is about
to leave the country when the DFA cancels his
passport. He sues the DFA claiming violation of his
freedom to travel citing Sec. 6 Art. III, to wit: Neither
shall the right to travel be impaired except in the
interest of national security, public safety, or public
health, as may be provided by law. Decide.
Which statement is legally correct? [5%]
Sec. 6 of the Bill of Rights with respect to the right
to travel:
(a) includes the right of citizens to enter another
country
(b) covers the right of citizens to return to the
Philippines
(c) guarantees the right of aliens to come to the
Philippines
(d) protects the right of citizens to leave the country
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.
Sec. 7: A. Right to Information
B. Access to official records
Matters of public concern – those which the public
may want to know, because it directly affects their
lives or because they arouse the interest of a
citizen
1. Bantay Republic v. COMELEC
2. Legaspi – CS eligible
3. Hilado – Are all court records pertaining to a
case public records?
4. Chaves- not only consummated contracts, but
also steps leading to a contract, but not inter-
agency recommendations. Foreign affairs?
5. Akbayan – diplomatic notes [presumptively
privilege]
6. . Chavez –Bids submitted for evaluation, official
recommendation? ―official acts and transactions‖
7. Bayan v. Ermita: Legislative investigation –
8. Who has standing to enforce compliance in
courts? Remedy
9. Exceptions: Cabinet sessions, court
deliberations, diplomatic and military and national
security matters, trade secrets.
XIV, 2009
The Philippine Government is negotiating a new
security treaty with the United States which could
involve engagement in joint military operations of
the two countries' armed forces. A loose
organization of Filipinos, the Kabataan at
Matatandang Makabansa (KMM) wrote the
Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the
Department of National Defense (DND) demanding
disclosure of the details of the negotiations, as well
as copies of the minutes of the meetings. The DFA
and the DND refused, contending that premature
disclosure of the offers and counter-offers between
the parties could jeopardize on-going negotiations
with another country. KMM filed suit to compel
disclosure of the negotiation details, and be granted
access to the records of the meetings, invoking the
constitutional right of the people to information on
matters of public concern.
Decide with reasons. (3%)
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? (3%)
Which statement is correct:
(a) any citizen who questions in court the
withholding of information must satisfy locus standi
by showing direct injury
(b) the right to information is a fundamental
right and any restriction is presumed
unconstitutional
(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?
27 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
A. Under Sec. 7, citizens can demand from
government officials that they be given abstracts,
summaries and copies of official records.
B. All records kept by any government agency are
matters of public concern to which citizens can
demand access.
C. One can demand information from the Civil
Service Commission about the weight and height
of an employee when s/he entered government
service.
D. Information on foreign loans obtained by the
government may be excluded from the scope of
Sec. 7.
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
Sec. 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
2. The right to refuse to join
Exception: Close-shop agreement
Exception to the exception: freedom of religion
BPI v. BPI Employees, 627 SCRA 590 (2010)
In 2000, BPI merged with FETBC.
What does it guarantee?
1. PAFLU
2. Philippine Statehood USA
3. Occena
4. Tarnate v. Noriel
But take note of Bell-Air, also
PADCOM v. Ortigas [voluntary], but STA Clara?/
Bar Q, 2000, No. 12:
Are employees in the public sector allowed to form
unions? To strike? Why?
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, becausee the right to association does
not include the right not to be a member of an
association
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
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.
Who CANNOT expropriate?
a. the City of Davao
b. Davao City Water District
c. Globe Telecom
d. Commission on Elections
Principles: Inherent in the State, but exercised by
Congress and those expressly authorized by law.
Can the COMELEC expropriate? PPI and Telebap
Outline:
1. Taking
2. Public Use
3. Just compensation
I. Taking:
1. Physical possession
2. Impairment of use –
28 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
Gutierrez – transmission lines
Ibrahim (2007) - underground tunnels
Andaya (2007)– flooded portion
Ayala Land (2009)– free parking
How much should expropriator pay?
NPC v. Purefoods, 2008 – RA 6395
In expropriation for a right of way by the National
Power Corporation, just compensation is equivalent
to:
(a) the full market value of the property as
described in the owner‘s title
(b) the full market value of the portion affected
by the right of way
(c) 10% of the value of the property covered
by the right of way clearance
(d) the extent of the loss suffered by the owner
as he may be able to prove during trial
Elements of Taking:
1 . Expropriator must enter the private property;
2. The entrance must be for more than a limited
period;
3. The entrance should be under warrant or color of
legal authority;
4. The property must be devoted to public use or
otherwise informally appropriated or injuriously
affected;
5. The entrance must be to oust the owner and
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment . ( 10. The city government filed a complaint for
REPUBLIC VS. CASTELLVI )
Examples – NPC v. CA, Tan v. Republic, Tiongson
v. NHA
In 1980, NPC entered the property of X thinking
that it belong to the City of Iligan. It built its power
plants and paid royalties to the City. In 1990, it
acknowledged that the lot was owned by X and
accordingly instituted expropriation proceedings
against X. The court ordered the City of Iligan to
pay just compensation based on the value in 1990.
The court is correct since there was no taking in
1978 because NPC did not :
(a) enter the property for more than a
momentary period
(b) enter under warrant or color of legal
authority
(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 .
II. Public Use
1. Use by the Public
2. Indirect advantage or benefit to the
public/Sumolong/Manosca
Limits of second meaning: Manotoc
See also Masikip– [Homeowners‘ Association]
Bar Exam, 2011
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.
29 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
1. May the owner recover the property on the
ground that expropriator diverted property to
another public purpose/or abandons it? Reyes v.
NHA
2. As an exception, when may owner be allowed to
recover? Heirs of Moreno-I
3. Must the condition be expressed in the decision?
Heirs of Moreno-II
Vda. de Ouano v. Republic, 642 SCRA 384 (2011)
If the expropriator does not use the property for the
purpose for which it was expropriated, or abandons
it, or uses it for another public purpose, can the
owner recover it?
Held: Yes. The notion that the government, via
expropriation proceedings, acquires unrestricted
ownership over or a fee simple title to the covered
land [Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan], is no
longer tenable. We suggested as much in Heirs of
Moreno and in Tudtud and more recently in
Lozada, Sr.
Expropriated lands should be differentiated from a
piece of land, ownership of which was absolutely
transferred by way of an unconditional purchase
and sale contract freely entered by two parties, one
without obligation to buy and the other without the
duty to sell. In that case, the fee simple concept
really comes into 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 desires, may seek its reversion, subject of
course to the return, at the very least, of the just
compensation received.
Rights/Obligations of parties: Lozada, etc
Expropriator:
1. Return property
2. May give owner option to buy improvements,
but if he declines, remove them
3. Keep income and fruits of the property
Owner:
1. Return just compensation, without interest
2. Pay expropriator necessary expenses for
maintenance of property to the extent he got
benefited
3. Pay interest only if there is delay in returning just
compensation after expropriator has reconvenyed
Once the public purpose of the expropriation is
abandoned, it is correct to say that:
(a) the expropriated property is restored to
the previous owner
(b) property is restored only if the
expropriation is made on condition that it will be
returned if the purpose is abandoned
(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
1. Must be in cash, except Santos
2. Determination is a judicial function
[Purefoods and Libunao – RA 6395 only
10% for right of way?]
3. Basis: Time of taking or time of filing,
whichever comes first, except City of Cebu
case
4. What is the rate of interest if expropriator fails to
pay on time? Republic v. CA, Reyes v. NHA – 12%
[Libunao? 6% apparently if judgment is satisfied on
time]
5. Can the owner recover the property if
expropriator fails to pay just compensation after an
unreasonable lapse of time? Republic v. Lim
In 1978, the NHA took possession of parcels of
land pursuant of PD No. 1669 and PD No. 1670,
and set up a socialized housing project for
squatters. On May 27, 1987, the Supreme Court
declared the decrees unconstitutional and the
expropriation of the parcels of land null and void for
being violative of the owner‘s right to due process.
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
30 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
(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
(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%
Bar Question, 2011
19. The government sought to expropriate a parcel
of land belonging to Y. The law provides that, to get
immediate possession of the land, the government
must deposit the equivalent of the land's zonal
value. 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.
D. The rules of court should prevail since just
compensation is a procedural matter subject to the
rule making power of the Supreme Court.
Expropriation by LGU‘s
1. It must be based on an ordinance, not a
resolution; VM Realty, Saguitan
2. There is no need to secure DAR clearance
even if property is converted to non-
agricultural [Province of Camarines]
3. Provincial board cannot disapprove on the
ground of lack of necessity. [Monday]
4. If the purpose is socialized housing, follow
the order of priority in UDHA, Estate v. City
of Manila, 422 SCRA 551 (2004)
Section 9: Eminent Domain
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, 526 SCRA 130 (2007)
Theoretically, the treatment of the discount as a
deduction reduces the net income of the private
establishments concerned. The discounts given
would have entered the coffers and formed part of
the gross sales of the private establishments, were
it not for R.A. No. 9257. The permanent reduction
in their total revenues is a forced subsidy
corresponding to the taking of private property for
public use or benefit. A tax deduction does not offer
full reimbursement of the senior citizen discount. As
such, it would not meet the definition of just
compensation. [Note: The law was sustained as a
valid exercise of police power, however.]
2011 Bar Exam:
86. When the State requires private cemeteries to
reserve 10% of their lots for burial of the poor, it
exercises its
A. eminent domain power.
B. zoning power.
C. police power.
D. taxing power.
31 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
1993, 5:
In expropriation proceedings:
1. What legal interest should be used in the
computation of interest on just compensation?
2. Can the judge validly withhold issuance of the
writ of possession until full payment of the final
value of the expropriated property?
1990, 2:
The City of Cebu passed an ordinance proclaiming
the expropriation of a 10 hectare property of C
Company which is already a developed commercial
center. The city proposed to operate the
commercial center in order to finance a housing
project for city employees in the vacant portion of
the said property. The ordinance fixed the price of
the land and the value of the improvements to be
paid C Company on the basis of the prevailing land
value and cost of construction.
As counsel for c company, give 2 constitutional
objections to the validity of the ordinance.
The ordinance is void because:
a. Void, because it constitutes taking of
property without just compensation
b. Void, because the determination of what
constitutes just compensation is a judicial
function
c. Valid, because the purpose of the
expropriation is to convert the property for
public use
d. Valid, because the ordinance authorized
payment of just compensation
2004, No. 9:
The City of San Rafael passed an ordinance
authorizing the city Mayor, assisted by the police, to
remove all advertising signs displaced or exposed
to public view in the main city street, for being
offensive to sight or otherwise a nuisance. 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 AM‘s suit prosper?
a. yes, because the city is depriving X of property
without due process of law and should pay damage
b. yes, because the city is exercising its power of
eminent domain and taking private property without
just compensation
c. no, because the city is exercising its police power
of abating a nuisance
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
successfully challenge the law in court? Discuss
briefly your answer.
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?
2. Can DAR require the city to first secure and
authority before converting the use of the land from
agricultural to housing?
1987, No. 16:
Pasay City filed an expropriation proceedings
against several landowners for the construction of
an aqueduct for flood control on a barangay.
Clearly, only the residents of that barangay would
be benefited by the project. Is the expropriation
proper?
1992, No. 11:
The PCO, a government agency, wishes to
establish a direct computer and fax linkup with
trading centers in the US. The advanced
technology of a private company, PCT, is
32 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
necessary for that purpose but negotiations
between the parties have failed. The Republic, in
behalf of the PCO, files suit to compel the
telecommunications company to execute a contract
with PCO for PCOs access and use of the
company‘s facilities.
Decide. If the case will not prosper, what
alternative will you propose to the Republic?
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 NHA‘s sale of the entire area except his
property to a private party. If you were the judge,
how would you decide the case?
Reyes vs. NHA, 395 SCRA 495 (2003)
The act of the NHA of entering into a contract with
a real estate developer for the construction of low
cost housing on the expropriated lots cannot be
taken to mean as a deviation from the stated public
purpose of their taking. 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.
III, 2009
The Municipality of Bulalakaw, Leyte, passed
Ordinance No. 1234, authorizing the expropriation
of two parcels of land situated in the poblacion as
the site of a freedom park, and appropriating the
funds needed therefor. Upon review, the
|Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte disapproved
the ordinance because the municipality has an
existing freedom park which, though smaller in size,
is still suitable for the purpose, and to pursue
expropriation would be needless expenditure of the
people's money. Is the disapproval of the ordinance
correct? Explain your answer. (2%)
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. (5%)
If the Court grants the City's prayer for
expropriation, but the City delays payment of the
amount determined by the court as just
compensation, can FCC recover the property from
Pasig City? Explain. (2%)
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? (2%)
2010, XIII
True or False.
A valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre-
requisite to expropriation initiated by a local
government unit. (0.5%)
Section 10: Impairment of ContractsNo law
impairing the obligation of contracts shall be
enacted.
A law impairs the obligations of contracts when it
changes the terms of the contract:
1 . In time or mode of performance;
2. Imposes new conditions;
3. Dispenses with those expressed;
33 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
4. Authorizes for its satisfaction something different
. contract
Basic Principles
1. Police power, eminent domain and taxation
are superior to non-impairment [Republic v.
Pagadian Timber, 565 SCRA 260
(2008)/IFMA; Republic v. RMDC, 426 SCRA
517 (2004) exploration/mining permit]
2. Freedom of religion is superior
3. Can be invoked only against statutes,
ordinances, but not against quasi-judicial
acts [BPI Case - rehabilitation]
Usual answers/cases
1. There is no contract to speak of [Gonzalo,
Picop (TLA ), Lim v. Pacquing]
2. Police power, etc.. is superior [Caleon v.
Agus (sub-leasing), La Insular, Beltran
[United BF Homeowners v. Mayor]
3. Contract was not impaired [Siska (notice or
rescission), Hontanosas]
4. Law is not retroactive [Banat/Serrano]
Serrano v. Gallant, 582 SCRA 254 (2009)
Sec. 10, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, states:
Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of
termination of overseas employment without just,
valid or authorized cause as defined by law or
contract, the workers shall be entitled to the full
reimbursement of his placement fee with interest of
twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries
for the unexpired portion of his employment
contract or for three (3) months for every year of
the unexpired term, whichever is less. ―
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 zonign
ordinance cannot nullify the contractual obligation
assumed by the buyer. Decide.
a. The ordinance is void because it impaired a
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
d. The ordinance is valid because it did not
impair the terms of the contract between
Smart Corp and Pedro
Sec. 11. Free access to the courts [and quasi-
judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance]
shall not be denied to any person by reason of
poverty.
Sec. 12. Custodial Investigation. Any person
under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the right
to be informed of his right to remain silent and
to have competent and independent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must
be provided with one. These rights cannot be
waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation, or any other means which vitiate
the free will shall be used against him. Secret
detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or
other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(EXCLUSIONARY RULE)
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this section as well
as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims
of torture or similar practices, and their
families. (THE ONLY NON SELF-EXECUTING
PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION)
2011 Bar Exam:
20. After X, a rape suspect, was apprised of his
right to silence and to counsel, he told the
investigators that he was waiving his right to have
his own counsel or to be provided one. He made
his waiver in the presence of a retired Judge who
34 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
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.
Topics:
1. When right attaches
2. Counsel of Choice
3. Waiver
4. Exclusionary Rule
When right to counsel attaches ? WHEN THE
INVESTIGATOR STARTS TO ASK QUESTIONS
WHICH TENDS TO INCRIMINATE YOU
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an
investigation, i.e . , when the investigating officer
starts to ask questions to elicit information and/or
confessions or admissions from the accused. At
such point or state, the persons being interrogated
must be assisted by counsel to avoid the pernicious
practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or
confessions from the lips of the person undergoing
interrogations for the commission of an offense. (
PEOPLE VS. DIMAANO )
In which instance should a suspect be warned of
his right to remain silent and to counsel?
a. investigation by the Legal Officer of the Civil
Service Commission of an employee who falsified
his eligibility papers-ADMIN INVESTIGATION AND
NOT CUSTODIAL
b. investigation done by a Bantay-Bayan member
of a suspected robber- A BANTAY BAYAN
MEMBER IS AGENT OF THE STATE LIKE A
POLICE OFFICER
c. investigation by a company lawyer of a
detained employee suspected of theft- A
COMPANY LAWYER IS A PRIVATE PERSON
d. investigation by a TV crew of a recently
arrested rapist inside his cell- THE INTERVIEWER
IS A PRIVATE PERSON
In which instance is the presence of counsel
required:
a. signing by a suspect of a marked money taken
from him after a buy bust operation
b. service and execution against him of a search
warrant
c. appearance in a police line up to enable the
victim to identify the culprit
d. signing of a receipt of items taken from him as
a consequence of a search by virtue of a warrant
1. If the police obtains confession without counsel
orally, and later reduces it into writing with the
assistance of counsel, is the written confession
admissible? [Bandula, Quidato, Mojello] NO! THE
RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACHES WHEN THE
INVESTIGATOR STARTS TO ASK QUESTIONS
WHICH TENDS TO INCRIMINATE THE
PERSON!!! AT THE START OF THE
INVESTIGATION!!!
2. Are voluntary admissions or res gestae
statements covered? [Dy, but Arondain] HERE, A
PERSON IN BORACAY VOLUNTARILY WENT TO
THE POLICE STATION AND ADMITTED TO
HAVE SHOT A TOURIST- HELD- THIS IS
ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF RES GESTAE
STATEMENTS-YOU ARE NOT ENTTILED TO
COUNSEL
3. Is a person placed in a police line up entitled to
counsel?[Pavillare, Hatton, but Macam] HERE,
YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO COUNSEL
BECAUSE YOU, THE PERSON, PLACED IN THE
LINE UP IS NOT THE ONE UNDER
INVESTIGATION FOR PURPOSES OF
IDENTIFICATION!! YOU ARE NOT THE ONE
BEING INVESTIGATED, IT IS THE WITNESS
WHO IS BEING INVESTIGATED!. HOWEVER,
AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO
INVESTIGATION AND PLACED IN A POLICE
LINED UP, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
COUNSEL
4. Is an interview given to a TV or radio reporter
covered by the right to counsel? [Espejo, Taboga,
Endino] NO! ADMISSION GIVEN TO A RADIO TV
REPORTER (A PRIVATE PERSON) IS
ADMISSIBLE.. YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
5. Are Filipinos detained in a foreign country but
later on tried in the Philippines entitled to the right if
investigated abroad? [Gomez]
THIS INVOLVED A PERSON CHARGED OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS VIOLATIONS.. HE WAS
35 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
ARRESTED AND INVESTIGATED IN HONKONG
BY FILIPINO INVESTIGATORS WITHOUT THE
PRESENCE OF A COUNSEL- HELD- YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO A LAWYER THERE.. HENCE IT IS
NOT ADMISSIBLE
6. When a suspect is made to sign receipts of
articles taken from him, is he entitled to
counsel?[Linsagna, Li Wai ching, Gutang] YES!
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. THIS THE
VERY EASY AND CLEVER WAY FOR THE
POLICE TO INCRIMINATE YOU OR TO HAVE
YOU ADMITTED TO A CRIME… FOR INSTANCE,
THE POLICE SEARCH YOU WITH OR WITHOUT
A WARRANT, AND THEY FOUND SHABU FROM
YOU.. IF YOU ARE MADE TO SIGN WITHOUT A
COUNSEL, IT IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THAT
IS ONE WAY OF OBTAINING CONFESSION
FROM YOU … BUT ONLY THE RECEIPT WILL
BE IN ADMISSIBLE.. THEIR TESTIMONY CAN BE
ADMITTED AGAINST YOU
7. What about if he is made to sign a marked
money taken from him in a buybust operation?
YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. IT IS
ADMISSIBLE… BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT BEING
CHARGED WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
MONEY BUT WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
DRUGS..
8. Can pictures of a reenactment taken without
counsel be admitted in evidence? [Olvis] NO! YOU
ARE ENTITLED RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN
THERE IS REENACTMENT! HENCE, ANY
PICTURES TAKEN WITHOUT COUNSEL, IT IS
INADMISSIBLE
9. In an administrative investigation, is a person
entitled to counsel? Lumiqued, Sebastian/postal,
Remolina/CSC, Ting Lan Uy/NPC,
Salonga/Metrobank- A FACT FINDING
COMMITTEE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION
AGAINST THE DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR OR
ANY ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION…
HELD.. IT CAN BE ADMITTED BECAUSE YOU
ARE NOT BEING INVESTIGATED FOR THE
COMMISSION OF A CRIME.. YOU ARE BEING
INVESTIGATED FOR PURPOSES OF
DISMISSING YOU OR FOR DISCIPLINARY
MEASURES.. HENCE, IT CAN BE ADMITTED IN
COURT, IN LABOR OR IN ANY TRIBUNAL.. IT
CAN BE USED ANYWHERE
10. Are you entitled to counsel when you are only
invited or interviewed? [Tan, Sequino] YES!
THERE IS NO INVESTIGATION BETWEEN
INVITATION OR INTERVIEW!!! YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. OTHERWISE ANY
ADMISSION ELICITED FROM YOU WITHOUT
COUNSEL, SHALL BE INADMISSIBLE! SO LONG
AS YOU ARE UNDER THE POLICE CUSTODY,
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL
11. Investigation by Barangay Tanod? [Malngan]
By bantay bayan? [Lauga, 2010] INVESTIGATION
BY A BRGY. TANOD IS COVERED BECAUSE
THEY ARE AGENTS OF THE STATE.. YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO COUNSEL
Summary: Custodial Investigation
1. Suspect must be in custody, either in jail or
deprived of your freedom in a significant way
2. Under investigation, questioning initiated by
officers having custody in relation to an offense [NC
Construction, Malngan] (COMPANY LAWYER IS
NOT COVERED.. HE IS NOT AN OFFICER
HAVING CUSTODY OF A PERSON)
NOTE! ONCE THESE REQUISITES CONCUR,
YOU ARE DEEMED TO BE IN CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
People v. Bokingo, 655 SCRA 313 (2011)
Accused was charged with murder. During the
preliminary investigation, he admitted killing the
victim, which admission was taken down by the
prosecutor‘s stenographer. Is the admission
admissible?
NO!!!! NOTE THAT IN THE PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION FOR PURPOSES OF
DETERMINING W/N THERE IS PROBABLE
CAUSE, WHILE THE FISCAL IS A PUBLIC
OFFICER WHO CONDUCTS THE SAME, HE IS
NOT THE PERSON IN CUSTODY OF THE
PERSON CHARGED.. HENCE, THE PERSON IS
ENTITLED TO COUNSEL… ANY ADMISSION
MADE THEREIN WITHOUT COUNSEL IS
INADMISSIBLE
Jesalva v. People, 640 SCRA 253 (2011)
After accused learned that he was a suspect in a
murder case, he went to the police station,
accompanied by his cousin who was a prosecutor.
He told the police that the victim jumped from his
vehicle. Can the admission, without the assistance
of a lawyer, be used as circumstantial evidence that
he was with the victim the night she was stabbed?
VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS MADE IN THE
POLICE STATIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE EVEN
WITHOUT A LAWYER BECAUSE THEY ARE
PART OF RES GESTAE.. IT IS NOT COVERED
TO THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL…DY CASE
PREVIOUS SLIDE.. NOTE THAT THE
REQUIREMENT THAT ADMISSIONS OR
STATEMENTS BE MADE IN WRITING APPLIES
ONLY IN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION.. IN THE
36 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
INSTANT CASE, THE STATEMENTS MADE WAS
VOLUNTARY AND PART OF RES GESTAE!
Abad Sample: A person walks into a police station
and declares that he has committed a crime before
the police could take him into custody. May his
declaration be admitted against him?
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? [Also 1993/4]
NO! THE RECEIPT IS INADMISSIBLE… RECEIPT
IS COVERED.. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO
COUNSEL.. THIS THE VERY EASY AND CLEVER
WAY FOR THE POLICE TO INCRIMINATE YOU
OR TO HAVE YOU ADMITTED TO A CRIME
1997, No. 10:
C and D were placed in a police line-up as robbery
suspects. The complainant was able to identify
them as the robbers.
Was their identification without the assistance of
counsel valid?[Also 1993, No. 9] YES! THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO COUNSEL… VERIFY THIS WITH
DEAN!!
1990, No. 9.
Police operatives searched the house of X for
firearms by virtue of a search warrant. May X
successfully challenge the search on the ground
that the peace officers did not inform him of his
right to remain silent and his right to counsel?
NO! RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO
REMAIN SILENT AND HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL
IS REQUIRED ONLY IF A PERSON IS IN
COSTUDIAL INVESTIGATION!! SEARCH
WARRANT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION!!!!!
No. 14, 1993: The S/S Masoy of Panamanian
registry, while moored at the South Harbor, was
found to have contraband goods on board. The
customs Team found out that the vessel did not
have the required ship‘s permit for shipping
documents. The vessel and its cargo wee held and
a warrant of seizure and Detention was issued after
due investigation. In the course of the forfeiture
proceedings, the ship captain and the ship‘s
resident agent executed sworn statements before
the customs legal officer admitting that the
contraband cargo were found aboard the vessel.
The shipping lines object to the admission fo the
statements contending that the two were not
assisted by counsel? Are the statements
admissible?
YES! THE STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE..
THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS
OR INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY
CUSTOMS OFFICER (NOT BY A POLICE) IN A
SIEZURE AND DETENTION PROCEEDINGS....
THE STATEMENTS MADE CAN BE USED
ANYWHERE
Abad Sample: The police nabbed two robbery
suspects whom they convinced during investigation
to go with them to the scene of the crime to reenact
how they committed it. Is the reenactment
admissible in evidence?
a. No, since it amounts to a waiver of right to
silence without the advice of counsel NOTE
THAT REENACTMENT AMOUNTS TO
ADMISSION…. HENCE RIGHT TO
COUNSEL IS A MUST
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:
1. Suspect can choose his lawyer,
2. If police chooses someone, and he expressly
agrees to the lawyer given to him, he is deemed
37 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
counsel of choice of the suspect. [Parojinog,
Pamon]
3. Likewise, if police chooses someone and you
agree to be investigated without objection, counsel
is deemed the choice of accused.
Lumanog v. People, 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
Accused, a suspect in the killing of Col. Abadilla,
was assisted by a lawyer provided to him by police
investigators. He confessed with the lawyer‘s
assistance. Was the lawyer a counsel of choice by
the accused?
YES!!! if police chooses someone and you agree to
be investigated without objection, counsel is
deemed the choice of accused.
2005, Bo. 8:
Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a suspect in
the shopping mall bombings. Advised of his rights,
Mariano asked for the assistance of his relative,
Atty. Santos. The NBI noticed that Atty. Santos
was inexperienced, incompetent and inattentive.
Deeming him unsuited to protect the rights of
Mariano, the NBI dismissed Atty. Santos.
Appointed in his place was Atty. Barroso, a bar
topnothcer who was in the premises visiting a
relative. Atty. Barroso ably assisted Mariano when
the latter gave a statement. However, Mariano
assailed the investigation claiming that he was
deprived of counsel of his choice.
Was the NBI correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and
appointing Atty. Barroso in his stead? Is Mariano‘s
statement, made with the assistance of Atty.
Barroso, admissible in evidence?
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(YOU ARE NOT WORKING
FOR THE POLICE), effective and vigilant. Who are
not deemed independent?
1. Prosecutors- [Matus Viduya, RA 7438 B
PROSECUTORS ARE PRESUMED TO BE
PSYCHOLOGICALLY WANT TO CONVICT
PEOPLE!! PROHIBITED!
2. Those conducting preliminary investigations
[7438] ALL LAWYERS OF THE OMBUDSMAN,
WHILE THEY ARE NOT PROSECUTORS, THEY
CONDUCT PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION!!!
COMELEC LAWYERS ALSO CONDUCT
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS- PROHIBITED
UNDER 7438
3. City, Municipal and Provincial attorneys
[Espanola, Culala] IT IS BECAUSE THESE
PEOPLE ASSIST THE MAYORS OR THE LCES
IN THE PEACE AND ORDER IN THEIR
RESPECTIVE LOCALITY.. THEY ARE NOT
EXPECTED TO BE NEUTRAL (MAY BE
PRESUMED TO BE WORKING FOR THE
POLICE)
4. Mayors and Barangay Captains who are lawyers
(ALSO GOVERNORS)[Tomaquin/Velarde]
5. Policemen who are lawyers [Obero]
POLICEMENT ARE NOT INDEPENDENT.. NOT
OBJECTIVE!!!!!
PTC MP
Lumanog v. People, 630 SCRA 42 (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 lawyer‘s role cannot
be reduced to being that of a mere witness to the
signing of a pre-prepared confession, even if it
indicated compliance with the constitutional rights
of the accused. The accused is entitled to effective,
vigilant and independent counsel. Where the
prosecution failed to discharge the State‘s burden
of proving with clear and convincing evidence that
the accused had enjoyed effective and vigilant
counsel before he extrajudicially admitted his guilt,
the extrajudicial confession cannot be given any
probative value.
SO THE BURDEN REST ON THE PROSECUTOR
TO PROVE THAT THE COUNSEL OF THE
SUSPEK IS VIGILANT AND EFFECTIVE!!!!!!
38 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
1996, No 3:
A, who was arrested by the police in a murder
case, was not represented by counsel during the
question and answer stage. However, before he
was asked to sign his statements to the police
investigator, the latter provided A with counsel, who
happened to be at the police station. After
conferring with A, the counsel told the police
investigator that A was ready to sign the
statements.
Can the statements of A be presented in court as
his confession? Explain. [Lucero and Ruos]
NO! THE STATEMENT OF A CANNOT BE
ADMITTED AS HIS CONFESSION
FIRST, THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACHES AT
THE START OF THE INVESTIGATION…
THE COUNSEL WAS NOT EFFECTIVE AND
VIGILANT AS HE CAME ONLY LATER PART OF
THE INVESTIGATION
EFFECTIVE AND VIGILIANT– A LAWYER
THOUGH PRESENT DURING THE CONDUCT OF
THE CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION WAS DOING
SOMETHING, OPENING THE DOOR, LOOKIJNG
AT THE WINDOW, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE
VIGILANT AND EFFECTIVE!!!!
1993, No. 17:
In his extrajudicial confession executed before the
police authorities, Jose Walangtakot admitted killing
his girlfriend in a fit of jealousy. This admission
was made after the following answer and question
to wit:
T: Ikaw ay may karapatan pa rin kumuha ng
serbesyo ng isang abogado poara kmakatulong mo
sa inmbestigasyong ito at kung wala kang makuha,
ikaw ay aming bibigyan ng libreng abogado, ano
ngayon and iyong masasabi?
S: Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal kaya hindi kn na
knakailangan ang abogado?
Is the confession admissible
NO! THE CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE COUNSEL OF
CHOICE WAS NOT 7438 TO ASSIST SUSPECTS
IN CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS!!!
III. Waiver: Requisites (THIS IS WAIVER OF
RIGHT TO COUNSEL)
1. Must be in writing
2. Must be made in the presence of counsel
(NOTE THAT IT NEED NOT BE SIGNED BY THE
COUNSEL)
3. After a valid waiver, confession itself must be
signed in the presence of the parent, brother, sister,
spouse, mayor, judge, supervisor or priest… [RA
7438] PSBS MJSP
TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO COERCION!!
4. [It must be voluntary.] IT MUST NOT BE A
PRODUCT OF TORTURE
WHAT WILL HAPPEN HERE IS THAT AFTER
THE SUSPECT HAS INDICATED HIS WAIVER,
THE WAIVER MUST BE SIGNED IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE COUNSEL.. AFTER THAT,
THE COUNSEL MAY NOW LEAVE THE PERSON
AND INVESTIGATION AND CONFESSION
WITHOUT A LAWYER MAY NOW PROCEED..
NOTE HOWEVER THAT THE SIGNING OF THE
CONFESSION MUST BE MADE IN THE
PRESENCE OF THE PERSON UNDER RA
7438… THIS IS TO AVOID COERCION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IV. Exclusionary Rule – Confessions which are
covered-
1. Uncounselled confession
2. Obtained through force torture, violence and
other means that vitiates the will (NOTE THAT
EVEN IF THE CONFESSION IS MADE WITH
ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, IT WILL STILL BE
INADMISSIBLE IF IT IS PROCURED THROUGH
MEANS WHICH VITIATES CONSENT OR
TORTURE… OR WHEN THE SUSPECT IS
PROMISED THAT HE WILL BE GIVEN LENIENCY
OR MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE…
CONFESSIONS OBTAINED AFTER OR THE
PERSON IS DRUNK.. CONFESSIONS OBTAINED
THROUGH HYPNOTISM OR WHEN HE MADE IT
HE WAS HYPNOTIZED BECAUSE THE PERSON
IS REALLY NOT ACTING IN HIS WILL. THOUGH
THESE ARE NOT THROUGH FORCE, IT
VITIATES ONE‘S WILL
3. Oral confession [7438] (ALL CONFESSIONS
HAVE TO BE IN WRITING TO BE ADMISSIBLE)
IF IT IS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION, IT
HAS TO BE IN WRITING) NOTE, ORAL
CONFESSION NOT UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION IS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF
RES GESTAE)
4. Those obtained after a valid waiver (MEANING
WITH ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL WHEN HE
MADE THE WRITTEN WAIVER) but not signed in
the presence of brother, sister, parent, spouse or
etc.. THIS IS FOR BEING VIOLATIVE TO RA 7438
39 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
Scope of indmissiblity- OR CANNOT BE USED OR
ADMITTED AGAINST)
1. Against confessant
2. Against third persons (THIS HAPPENS WHEN
THE CONFESSANT IMPLICATES OTHER
PERSONS FOR THE COMMISSION OF A
CRIME)-IT CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THAT
PERSON
3. Applies to objects taken (AS A CONSEQUENCE
OF INADMISSIBLE OR ILLEGAL CONFESSION)
FOR INSTANCE, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE
SAME, I CONFESSED THAT THERE IS A SHABU
AT MY APARTMENT, OR THE MURDER
WEAPON I PLACED IN THE BACKYARD.. THAT
CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE AS IT
WILL NOW BE CONSIDERED AS FRUITS OF
THE POISONOUS TREE!!! AS OBTAINED AFTER
INVALID CONFESSION!!
4. For any purpose in any proceedings (RA 7438)
IT CANNOT BE USED IN LABOR, CIVIL,
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS… NOTE
HOWEVER THAT CONFESSIONS OBTAINED
UNDER ADMINSTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS
EVEN WITHOUT A LAWYER, IT CAN BE USED IN
ANY PROCEEDINGS… THIS IS EXACTLY THE
OPPOSITE OF THOSE OBTAINED UNDER
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION!!!
No. 9, 2001:
Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of
murder before the RTC of Manila. Accused Joseph
turned state witness against his co-accused Rafael
and Carlos, and was accordingly discharged from
the information. Among the evidence presented by
the prosecution was an extrajudicial confession
made by Joseph during the custodial investigation,
implicating Rafael and Carlos who, he said,
together with him committed the crime. The
extrajudicial confession was executed without the
assistance of counsel.
Accused Rafael and Carlos vehemently objected
on the ground that said extrajudicial confession is
inadmissible in evidence against them.
Which is correct?
(a) The confession of Joseph is admissible
against Rafael and Carlos
(b) The confession of Joseph is admissible
against himself
© If Joseph repeats his story in open court, his
oral testimony will be admissible against Rafael and
Carlos THIS WILL BE CORRECT IN VIEW OF
THE FACT ONCE THE TESTIMONY IS BEING
REPEATED DURING THE TRIAL, IT WILL BE
ADMISSIBLE SINCE IT IS NOT CONFESSION
THAT IS BEING PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE.
MOREOVER, THE WITNESS WILL BE SUBJECT
TO CROSSEXAMINATION!
(d) Such oral testimony will have no more value
in any proceeding for being fruit of a poisonous tree
A team of CAFGU members conducting a patrol
came upon Z riding on his carabao with an
unloaded M-16 across his lap. They promptly
arrested him and brought him to an Army
detachment. After a long interrogation during which
he was not assisted by counsel, Z revealed that he
is an NPA commander and he has 1,000 rounds of
ammunitions for the rifle hidden on a clump of
grass near the place where his carabao was
grazing. A CAFGU unit was immediately
dispatched to the area and they retrieved the
bullets.
Which statement is correct? [5%]
A. both the M16 and the bullets are admissible in
evidence
B. both the M16 and the bullets are inadmissible
C. only the M16 is admissible BECAUSE IT WAS
SEEN IN PLAIN VIEW AND THE OTHERS ARE
FRUITS OF POISONOUS TREE
D. only the bullets are admissible
Sec. 13. Right to Bail. All persons, except those
charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall
before conviction, be bailable by sufficient
sureties. The right to bail shall not be impaired
even when the privilege of habeas corpus is
suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required.
74. An information for murder was filed against X.
After examining the case records forwarded to him
by the prosecution, the trial judge granted bail to X
based on the prosecution's manifestation that it
was not objecting to the grant of bail. Is the trial
judge correct?
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.
40 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
C. No, the trial judge should have conducted a
hearing to ascertain first whether or not X was
validly arrested.
D. Yes, the trial judge may reasonably rely on the
prosecution's manifestation that he had no
objection to the grant of bail.
In which instance is bail a matter of right?
(a) after final judgment where sentence is
only 30 days YOU CANNOT POST BAIL
BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT HAS BECOME
FINAL
(b) during trial for a crime punishable with
reclusion temporal
© during trial for a crime punishable with life
imprisonment NOT ALLOWED UNLESS THE
EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS NOT STRONG
(d) where the case is on appeal involving a
sentence of 12 years and one day to 14 years THIS
IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION ALREADY
Section 13: Right to Bail
When is bail a matter of right ? MEANING THE
JUDGE CANNOT REFUSE YOU TO POST BAIL
1. Before (DURING TRIAL) or after conviction by
the MTC, MTCC, MCTC; (BEFORE CONVICTION-
FOR THE REASON THAT CASES FALLING
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THESE COURTS
DO NOT EXCEED 6 YEARS)… (AFTER
CONVICTION- IT IS STILL A MATTER OF RIGHT
BUT WHEN OR AFTER THE DECISION HAS
BECOME FINAL)
2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense
punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death
[ SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94 ]; and
(MEANING THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY
COUNTS OF THE CRIMES FOR WHICH YOU
HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN THE RTC THE
PENALTY OF IS LESS THAN 20 YEARS OR
LESS THAN RECLUSION PERPETUA, YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT…
SO LONG AS NONE OF THEM EXCEEDS THE
PENALTY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL
3. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense
punishable with reclusion perpetua or death when
the evidence of guilt is not strong. (Constitution,
Art. IV, Sec. 13] [But see Pp. v. Sandiganbaya,
2007, if probability of flight is strong.]
When is bail a matter of right ? MEANING THE
JUDGE CANNOT REFUSE YOU TO POST BAIL
1. Before (DURING TRIAL) or after conviction by
the MTC, MTCC, MCTC (BUT BEFORE FINAL
JUDGMENT); (BEFORE CONVICTION-FOR THE
REASON THAT CASES FALLING UNDER THE
JURISDICTION OF THESE COURTS DO NOT
EXCEED 6 YEARS)… (AFTER CONVICTION- IT
IS STILL A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT WHEN OR
AFTER THE DECISION HAS BECOME FINAL)
2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense
punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death
[ SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94 ]; and
(MEANING THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY
COUNTS OF THE CRIMES FOR WHICH YOU
HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN THE RTC THE
PENALTY OF IS LESS THAN 20 YEARS OR
LESS THAN RECLUSION PERPETUA, YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT…
SO LONG AS NONE OF THEM EXCEEDS THE
PENALTY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL
3. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense
punishable with reclusion perpetua or death when
the evidence of guilt is not strong. (Constitution,
Art. IV, Sec. 13] [But see Pp. v. Sandiganbaya,
2007, if probability of flight is strong.]
When is bail not allowed ?
1. After final judgment by any court; EVEN 1 DAY
IMPRISONMENT BY FINAL JUDGEMENT-BAIL
NOT ALLOWED. YOU CANNOT BUY YOUR
LIBERTY
2. Before conviction for an offense punishable by
death or reclusion perpetua where the evidence of
guilt is strong; [Constitution, Art . IV, Sec. 13]
3. After conviction for a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua or death while the case is on
appeal. [People Vs. Valeriano] THIS IS TOO
OBVIOUS SINCE THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT
HERE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS STRONG IN
VIEW OF THE CONVICTION BY THE LOWER
COURT
4. After conviction for an offense with the penalty
exceeding six years but but not more than 20
years, if; RTC JURISDICTION,- THIS HAPPENS
WHEN YOU ARE CONVICTED OF 12 YEARS
BUT IT HAPPENS THAT YOU ARE RECIDIVIST..
YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST BAIL
A. accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist,
habitual delinquent or has committed a crime
aggravated by reiteracion; RQHARE
B. accused is found to have previously
escaped from legal confinement
41 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
When is bail not allowed ?
ROHARE ACU
C. accused committed the offense while
on probation, parole or conditional pardon;
D. circumstances of accused or his case
indicate the probability of flight; SUBJECTIVE TO
THE JUDGE
E. there is undue risk that during the
pendency of the appeal, accused may commit
another crime. [SC Administrative Circular
No. 12-94. SUBJECTIVE TO THE JUDGE
When is bail a matter of discretion ?
After conviction by the RTC for an offense
punishable by less than reclusion perpetua or death
if any of the circumstance mentioned in [SC
Administrative Circular No. 12-94]. Rule 114 of the
Rules of Court are present. (PENDING APPEAL)
AND THERE IS NO FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE CONVICTED
OF AN offense with the penalty exceeding six years
but but not more than 20 years, AND THE NON
OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES (ROHARE ACU) IN
THE PRECEDING SLIDE IS PRESENT!!!!! TAKE
NOTE THEN THAT THE BAIL HERE IS A
MATTER CONVICTION
Is there a right to bail in extradition?
1. Government v. Purganan (2002)– No. It is not a
criminal proceedings.
2. Government v. Olalia (2007) – Yes. It (THE
RIGHT TO BAIL) is not limited to criminal
proceedings. IT APPLIES TO EXTRADITION!!..
NOTE THAT EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS
DETERMINES ONLY W/N YOU SHOULD BE
THROWN OUT OF THE COUNTRY OR GIVEN
OTHER TO OTHER COUNTRY PROVIDED THAT
YOU ARE NOT A FLIGHT RISK!!!!
But prove that you are not ―flight-risk.‖
Bar questions:
2006, IV (2):
State whether the following are constitutional: (2) A
law denying persons charged with crimes
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death the right
to bail. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! RIGHT OF BAIL
MAY BE ONLY DENIED IN CASES WHERE THE
PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA OR
DEATH WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS STRONG…
THE EVIDENCE MUST BE STRONG HERE!!!
TAKE NOTE VERY TRICKY!!!
2005, VII:
State with reasons whether bail is a matter of right
or a matter of discretion in the following cases: [In
which instance is bail not allowed?] THE REFER
THE ANSWER IN THE PRECEDING SLIDE!!!
(a) the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion
perpetua and the accused is a minor. BECAUSE IT
WILLNO LONGER BE RECLUSION PERPETUAL
IN VIEW OF THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
OF MINORITY- THE PENALTY IS REDUCED TO
1 OR 2 DEGREE
(b) The imposable penalty for the crime charged is
life imprisonment and the accused is a minor. THIS
IS BECAUSE IN SPECIAL LAW, WE DO NOT
APPLY THE MITIGATING OR AGGRAVING
CIRCUMSTANCES.. SO YOU CANNOT SAY
THAT IT IS ONE DEGREE LOWER THAN LIFE
IMPRISONMENT… TAKE NOTE!!! THERE IS NO
SUCH THING AS 1 DEGREE LOWER OF LIFE
SENTENCE
© After conviction for homicide on a charge of
murder and sentenced to suffer an indeterminate
penalty of from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor,
as minimum, to 12 years and 4 months of reclusion
temporal, as maximum. BAIL IS MATTER OF
DISCRETION SINCE THERE IS NO ATTENDANT
CIRCUMSTANCE HERE!!!
(d) after conviction by the RTC for a crime
punishable with prision mayor where accused was
previously granted absolute pardon in a previous
conviction… TAKE NOTE THAT THE ATTENDANT
CIRCUMSTANCE IS ABSOLUTE PARDON AND
NOT CONDITIONAL ONE.. IT IS AS IF THERE IS
NO CIRCUMSTANCE IF ITS IS ABSOLUTE
PARDON….. THE ACCUSED OR PESON MUST
BE UNDER CONDITIONAL PARDON TO
RENDER IT NON BAILABLE!!!
Other rules:
1. The judge cannot determine the strength of
evidence base on the records alone. He must hold
a summary hearing (Mamolo v. Narisma) NOTE
THAT THE JUDGE MUST HOLD HEARING EVEN
IF THE PROSECUTION DOES NOT OBJECT TO
THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL IN CASES WHERE
THE PENALTY IS RECLUSION PERPETUA OR
DEATH!!! the JUDGE MUST HOLD A hearing to
ascertain the quality of the evidence of guilt that the
prosecution
2. Where bail is a matter of right, the judge cannot
hold a hearing to determine whether he should be
allowed bail or not. [People v. Donato] IT IS
BECAUSE IT IS A MATTER OF RIGHT… THE
JUDGE MAY HOLD A HEARING ONLY FOR
42 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE AMOUNT
AND NOT W/N TO GRANT OR DENY IT… THE
CONTEMPLATED HEARING MUST BE HAD
ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING
WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS
STRONG!!!!!
3. In a hearing for bail, the court cannot take into
account the presence of aggravating or mitigating
circumstance, except minority [Peole v. Bravo] IT IS
BECAUSE IF IT IS ALLOWED TO ACCOUNT THE
PRESENCE OF THAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IT
WILL RESULT TO FULL BLOWN TRIAL AND THE
PURPOSE OF THE LAW ON HEARING WOULD
BE DEFEATED AND RENDERED NUGATORY!!!!
THE MITIGAING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY
IS ALLOWED BECAUSE MERE PRESENTATION
OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE WOULD SUFFICE.. IT
IS EASY TO DETERMINE MINORITY!! NOTE
HOWEVER, THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF
MINORITY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO OFFENSES
PUNISHABLE UNDER A SPECIAL WHERE THE
PENALTY IS LIFE IMPRISONMENT OR MORE
FOR THE REASON ALREADY DISCUSSED
EARLIER BY YOURS TRULY, THE
AUTHORITY@!!!!!
4. Bail is not available to military men facing court
martial proceedings for violation of the Articles of
War. [Comendador v. De Villa] THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE BAIL
TO MEN FACING COURT MARTIAL
PROCEEDING FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLES
OF WAR
6. Bail can be waived expressly in writing[Donato]
or impliedly [Manes] by not pursuing one‘s petition
for bail
DONATO- DONATO SIGNED A WAIVER TO
RIGHT OF BAIL ON THE CONDITION THAT HIS
WIFE WILL BE RELEASED.. AFTER THE
RELEASE OF THELATTER, DONATO APPLIED
FOR BAIL AND INVOKED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHT TO BAIL.. HELD: RIGHT TO BAIL MAY BE
EXPRESSLY WAIVED IN WRITING!!! WHAT MAY
NOT BE WAIVED ARE THOS MATTERS WHERE
ONLY THE STATE HAS INTEREST.. HERE IN
BAIL, THE ACCUSED HAS ALSO INTEREST
MANES-HE FILED FOR A BAIL.. BUT HE DID
NOT PURSUE IT UNTIL HIS CONVICTION OF
THE CRIME.. HE IMPUGNED THE SAME HELD;
RIGHT TO BAIL MAY BE IMPLIEDLY WAIVED BY
NOT PURSUING ONE‘S PETITION FOR BAIL
1993, No. 9
Johann was charged with rape. After the
prosecution presented several witnesses, Johann
through counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed a
motion therefor, which was denied outright by the
judge.
Johann claims that he is entitled to bail as a
matter of right, thus the judge should not have
denied his motion to fix bail outright. Is he correct?
THE CORRECT PROCEDURE IS THE
PROSECUTION HAS TO PRESENT EVIDENCES
TO ESTABLISH THAT THE GUILT IS STRONG
AND ALLOW THE ACCUSED TO PRESENT
EVIDENCE TO PRESENT THE OTHERWISE..
ONLY THEN HE CAN MAKE DECISION.. HENCE
THE OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF JUDGE WAS NOT
CORRECT!!
1989, No. 15
May an alien invoke the constitutional right to bail
during the pendency of deportation proceedings?
NOTE THAT IN EXTRADITION, RIGHT TO BAIL
IS AVAILABLE BUT HE MUST PROVE THAT HE
IS NOT FLIGHT RISK!!
HOWEVER IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS IS
DIFFERENT AS IT IS NOT A MATTER OF
RIGHT.. IT IS DISCRETIONARY!!!
2008, No. 7:
JC, a major in the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, is facing prosecution before the RTC of
Quezon City of the murder of his neighbor whom he
suspected to have molested his 15 year old
daughter.
is JC entitled to bail? Why or why not?
IT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED…. IF THE
EVIDENCE IS STRONG, HE IS NOT ENTITLED
TO BAIL.. IF OTHERWISE, HE MUST BE
ALLOWED!!
Where an accused Abu Sayaff member is charged
with homicide, and it is certain as the night follows
the day that he will fled to the jungles of Basilan if
he is granted bail:
(a) the judge can deny bail outright
(b) the judge must first find out if evidence
of guilt is strong
© the judge must receive evidence to find
out if he will take flight
(d) the judge must grant bail THIS IS A
MATTER OF RIGHT BECAUSE THE PENALTY
OF HOMICIDE IS ONLY RECLUSION
TEMPORAL.. YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS HERE
TO DETERMINE W/N HE SHOULD BE GRANTED
BAIL.. THERE MAY BE HEARING BUT ONLY
43 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS

FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE

AMOUNT OF BAIL
Trial Rights of Accused
Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to
answer for a criminal offense without due
process of law.
(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused
shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by
himself and counsel, to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him,
to have a speedy, impartial, and public trial, to
meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance
of witnesses and the production of evidence in
his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may
proceed notwithstanding the absence of the
accused: Provided, that he has been duly
notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
Section 14: Trial Rights of the Accused
DPH CIS IPMC
Olaguer – Trial by judicial process
OLAGUER WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED BY A
MILITARY COMMISSION ESTABLISHED BY
FORMER PRESIDENT MARCOS.. IT WAS HELD
THAT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT
TO DUE PROCESS.. DUE PROCESS UNDER
THIS SECTION MEANS THE TRIAL BY JUDICIAL
PROCESS.. NOT A MILITARY ONE OVER
CIVILIANS!! CIVILIANS MAY ONLY BE TRIED
BY CIVIL COURTS AND NOT BY MILITARY
COUTS EXCEPT THE FORMER IS NO LONGER
FUNCTIONING!!!!!!
2. Presumption of innocence
Reversed presumption is allowed in
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,
1. Right to due process THIS IS THE MOTHER OF
ALL RIGHTS! c. rules of evidence,

2. Presumption of innocence d. Illegal Fishing,

3. To be heard e. Intellectual Property Law,

4. To counsel f. Plunder.

5. To be informed Reasons: (MARFIP)

6. To speedy trial 1. It is ONLY prima facie (MEANING IT IS

SUBJECT TO REBUTTAL.. OTHERWISE
7. To impartial trial STATED, IF HE CAN PROVE THE OTHERWISE,
HE CAN BE ACQUITTED)
8. To public trial
2. There is a logical connection between the fact
9. To meet witnesses proved and the fact presumed.

10. To compulsory process IN ANTI FENCING, THE FACT PROVED THAT

YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF STOLEN GOODS
IS A LOGICAL CONNECTION THAT YOU ARE
THE AUTHOR OF THE THEFT OR THEFT!!
Due Process:

Due process here is procedural, not

substantive. It‘s elements are: (CJOJ)
1. A court or tribunal cloth with judicial
power to hear and decide the case;
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the
person of the accused and over the offense;
3. Accused was given an opportunity to
be heard; and
4. Judgment was rendered upon lawful
hearing. [ Pagasian]
No. 5, 2004:
OZ lost 5 head of cattle which he reported to the
police. He requested several neighbors, including
RR, for help in looking for missing animals. After
an extensive search, the police found 2 head in
RR‘s farm. RR could not explain to the police how
they got hidden in a remote area of his farm.
Insisting on his innocence, RR consulted a
lawyer who told him he has a right to be presumed
innocent under the Bill of Rights. But there is

44 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
another presumption—of theft arising from his
unexplained possession of stolen cattle—under the
penal law.
Are the 2 presumptions capable of reconciliation
in ths case? If so, how can they be reconciled? If
not, which should prevail?
YES IT IS CAPABLE OF RECONCILIATION…
THE REVERSED PRESUMPTION IS ONLY
PRIMA FACIE WHICH IS REBUTTABLE AND
THERE IS LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN
THE FACT PROVED AND THE FACT
PRESUMED!!!
Abad Sample: The right to be presumed innocent
is not violated by a law that establishes a
presumption of guilt based on a certain fact proved
provided that:
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 (RIGHT TO PRESENT WITNESSESS)
NOT MUCH HERE
4. Right to counsel
Elements of Right to Counsel:
1. The court is duty – bound to inform
accused of his right before the arraigned;
2. The court must ask him if he desires
the service of counsel;
3. If he does, and is unable to get one, the
court must assign him a counsel de oficio;
4. If accused wishes to get a private
counsel, the court must give him time to obtain one.
[PP VS. HOLGADO] USUALLY HE IS GIVEN 1
MONTH TO OBTAIN A LAWYER.. THE JUDGE
CANN OT JUST ASSIGN PAO LAWYER TO THE
ACCUSED EVEN IF HE SIGNIFIES HIS INTENT
TO OBTAIN ONE… HE MUST BE GIVEN TIME …
1. What is the effect if accused is convicted and it
turned out that his lawyer is fake? [Delgado,
Santocildes, Tulin
THE CONVICTION HAS TO BE OVERTURNED
BECAUSE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS
VIOLATED.. THIS APPLIES ALSO TO CIVIL
CASES WHERE THE COUNSEL TURNED OUT
TO BE FAKE, THE PARTY REPRESENTED IS
ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL
2. Can a conviction be nullified if one‘s lawyer is
incompetent? [Liwanag, except Callangan]
GENERALLY NO! BECAUSE ALL LAWYERS ARE
PRESUMED TO BE COMPETENT BECAUSE
THEY PASSED THE BAR.. THE EXCEPTION IS IF
THE INCOMPETENCE OF THE LAWYER
AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
THE PERSON REPRESENTED, THE
CONVICTION HAS TO BE REVERSED!!… EX. IS
WHEN A LAWYER NEVER APPEARED AGAIN
AFTER HIS CLIENT HAS BEEN ARRAINGED..
AND THE LATTER WAS CONVICTED BY VIRTUE
THEREOF… THE CONVICTION HAS TO BE
NULLIFIED. NEW TRIAL MUST BE HAD.
3. Can a person defend himself without a lawyer?
[Rules of Court/Sesbreno] IN MTC WE HAVE NO
PROBLEM.. IN THE RTC, YOU MUST MAKE IN
WRITING A REQUEST THAT YOU BE ALLOWED
TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITHOUT A LAWYER..
IF THE JUDGE IS CONVINCED THAT YOU ARE
ABLE TO DEFEND YOURSELF, THEN YOU CAN
PROCEED TO DEFEND YOURSELF EVEN IF
YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER!! WRITTEN REQUEST
IS A MUST!!!
4. What is the extent of the right to retain?
[Chiongbian]
THE RIGHT TO RETAIN MUST BE BALANCE
AND CONSISTENT WITH THE RIGHT TO
PROSECUTE OF THE STATE.. THE EXTENT OF
THE RIGHT TO RETAIN OR CHOOSE A LAWYER
IS UNLIMITED… IT MUST BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO
PROSECUTE… OTHERWISE, THE TRIAL WILL
BE DELAYED.
5. To be informed- to enable him to defend himself
THIS IS USUALLY DETERMINED OR BASED ON
W/N THE INFORMATION WAS PROPERLY
CRAFTED..
-sale and possession- IF YOU ARE CHARGED
OF SALE OF SHABU, AND EVIDENCE
PRESENTED AND ESTABLISHED WAS ONLY
POSSESSION THEREOF, THE ACCUSED MUST
BE ACQUITTED BECAUSE HE WAS DEPRIVED
OF HIS RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF FOR
ILLEGAL POSITION… HE DEFENDED HIMSELF
ONLY FOR SALE AS CHARGED!!
-physical injuries- IF THE CHARGE INCLUDES
LESSER OFFENSE, YOU CAN BE CONVICTED
45 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
OF LESSER OFFENSE.. FOR INSTANCE, YOU
ARE CHARGED WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES, BUT THE PROSECUTION WAS ONLY
ABLE TO PROVE AND ESTABLISHED SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES, YOU CAN BE CONVICTED
OF THE LATTER… SUPPOSED IF IT IS
REVERSED, YOU ARE CHARGED WITH SLIGHT
PHYSICAL BUT EVIDENCE PROVED WAS
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY.., YOU CAN BE
ONLY CONVICTED OF SLIGHT PHYSICAL..
HENCE, YOU CAN BE CONVICTED OF A
LESSER OFFENSE PROVIDED THAT IT IS
EMBRACED IN THE INFORMATION.. THE
LESSER OFFENSE MUST BE NECESSARILY
INCLUDED IN THE CRIME CHARGED.. HENCE
YOU CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE
WHEN YOU ARE ONLY CHARGED OF
ROBBERY!!
-Antido- A PERSON WAS CHARGED OF 1
COUNT OF RAPE BUT THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED SHOWED THAT HE RAPED THE
VICTIM 3 TIMES… THE CONVICTED WITH 3
COUNTS.. HELD: IGNORANCE OF THE LAW… IF
YOU ARE CHARGED WITH 1 COUNT, YOU
CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF 3 COUNTS
BECAUSE THE ACCUSED IS DEPRIVED OF HIS
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED!!
-allegation of retardation- IF YOU WANT TO
AGGRAVATE THE CRIME BECAUSE THE
VICTIM WAS RETARDATE OR MINOR, YOU
MUST ALLEGED THAT IN INFORMATION.. THE
CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED CANNOT BE
AGGRAVATED BY THE SAME IF NOT ALLEGED
IN INFORMATION… SUFFICIENCY OF THE
INFORMATION IS A MUST!!!
6. To speedy trial
Factors:
1. Extent of the delay- HOW LONG… REFERS
TO TIME OF DELAY
2. Reasons for the delay- IT MUST BE
JUSTIFIED.. HEALTH REASONS,.. LOOK AT THE
REASONS FOR THE DELAY!!!
3. Invocation of the right- IT MUST BE INVOKED
ON TIME.. OTHERWISE THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY
TRIAL IS WAIVED!!!
4. Prejudice to the accused- IF THE ACCUSED
IS NOT ON BAIL, IT WILL PREJUDICE HIM AS
HE WILL BE DETAINED FOR A LONGER
PERIOD.. NO PREJUDICE IF HE IS ON BAIL…
Right is only violated if delay is capricious or
whimsical.
DELAY IS NOT A MERE MATHEMATICAL..
REASON BEHIND IT MUST BE CONSIDERED AS
CAPRICIOUS OR WHIMSICAL
7. Right to impartial trial (SIMPLY MEANS THAT
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT BE BIASED!!)
Trial by publicity: What is trial by publicity?
What right is violated? What is the test? [Sanchez.
Teehankee, Webb, Estrada] ALL THESE
CONVICTIONS WERE IMPUGHNED ON THE
GROUND OF IMPARTIAL TRIAL… THE
DECISIONS OF THESE CASES WERE
ATTEMPTED TO NULLIFY ON THE GROUND OF
TRIAL BY PUBLICITY
PUBLICITY BY TRIAL REFERS TO A TRIAL
WHERE TOO MUCH OR EXTENSIVE MEDIA
COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN SUCH A WAY
THAT THE PARTICIPANTS THEREOF OR THE
PUBLIC WILL HAVE PRE-JUDGMENT TO THE
CASE .. THIS DOES NOT APPLY IN
IMPEACHEMENT
TEST: HAS THE JUDGE BECOME ACTUALLY
BIASED OR IMPARTIAL BY REASON OF MEDIA
COVERAGE OR TRIAL BY PUBLICITY? NOTE,
ACTUAL BIAS! IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT
THE PUBLICITY RESULTED TO ACTUAL BIAS…
NOT POSSIBLE BIAS!!!!
1996, No. 2:
At the trial of a rape case where the victim-
complainant was a well known personality while the
accused was a popular movie star, a TV station
was allowed by the trial judge to televised the entire
proceedings like the OJ Simpson trial. The
accused objected to the TV coverage and
petitioned the Supreme Court to prohibit the said
coverage.
As the Supreme Court, how would you rule on the
petition?
IT SHOULD BE RULED IN THIS MANNER… THE
PUBLIC TRIAL WITH MEDIA COVERAGE
INVOLVES RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF PRESS,
THE RIGHT TO REPOR OR NOT TO REPORT,
RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE INFORMED
(BECAUSE TRIAL IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC
CONCERN).. THE RIGHT OF THE COURT TO
CONTROL THE PROCEEDINGS, AND
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE! HOWEVER, SC
RULED IN FAVOR TO THE RIGHT OF THE
ACCUSED TO FAIR AND IMPARTIALTRIAL.. SO
NO COVERAGE.. BUT THE NATIONAL PRESS
CLUB MOVED FOR RECON CONTENDING THAT
THE TRIAL IS A PUBLIC MATTER..
HENCE, THE COURT RULED BACKWARD…FOR
HISTORICAL PURPOSES, IT ALLOWED 1
CAMERA TO BE INSTALLED TO RECORD THE
PROCEEDINGS TO BE LATER ARCHIVED IN
46 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
THE NATIONAL HISTORIC MUSEUM.. ONLY
AFTER THE TRIAL HAS BEEN CULMINATED
SHALL IT BE ALLOWED FOR PUBLIC VIEW..
MEANING.. NO MEDIA COVERAGE DURING
TRIAL!!! ONLY RECORDING~!
Estrada Cases:
1. Re:Request (2001) – freedom of the press, right
to information, and right to fair trial
2. Re: Request (recon) – only for historical
purposes EXPLANATION IN THE PRECEDING
SLIDE!!
Re: Petition for Radio and TV..., 652 SCRA 1
(2011)
Following the November 23, 2009
Maguindanao Massacre, charges for 57 counts of
murder were filed against 197 accused. Various
entities filed a petition before the Supreme Court
praying that live television and radio coverage of
the trial in these criminal cases be allowed,
recording devices (e.g., still cameras, tape
recorders) be permitted inside the courtroom to
assist the working journalists. In effect, petitioners
seek the lifting of the absolute ban on live television
and radio coverage of court proceedings imposed
by the 1991 ruling in Re: Live TV and Radio
Coverage of the Hearing of President Corazon C.
Aquino‘s Libel Cae. Should the Court allow live
media coverage of the trial?
Held: It is about time to craft a win-win
situation that shall not compromise rights in the
criminal administration of justice, sacrifice press
freedom and allied rights, and interfere with the
integrity, dignity and solemnity of judicial
proceedings. Compliance with regulations, not
curtailment of a right, provides a workable solution.
The peculiarity of the subject criminal cases is that
the proceedings already necessarily entail the
presence of hundreds of families. It cannot be
gainsaid that the families of the 57 victims and of
the 197 accused have as much interest, beyond
mere curiosity, to attend or monitor the proceedings
as those of the impleaded parties or trial
participants. It bears noting at this juncture that the
prosecution and the defense have listed more than
200 witnesses each.
The Court allows pro hac vice the live broadcasting
by radio and television of the Maguindanao
Massacre cases, subject to the following
guidelines: (a) Media entities must file a written
application with the trial court; no selective or partial
coverage shall be allowed. (b) A single fixed
compact camera shall be installed inside the
courtroom to provide a single wide-angle full-view
of the sala of the trial court, operated by an
employee of the Supreme Court; no panning and
zooming shall be allowed. (c) The transmittal of the
audio-visual recording from inside the courtroom to
the media entities shall be conducted in such a way
that the least physical disturbance shall be
ensured. (d) The broadcasting of the proceedings
for a particular day must be continuous and in its
entirety. (e) To provide a faithful and complete
broadcast of the proceedings, no commercial break
or any other gap shall be allowed until the day‘s
proceedings are adjourned. (f) To avoid overriding
or superimposing the audio output from the on-
going proceedings, the proceedings shall be
broadcast without any voice-overs, except brief
annotations of scenes depicted therein. (h) No
repeat airing of the audio-visual recording shall be
allowed until after the finality of judgment, except
brief footages and still images derived from or
cartographic sketches of scenes.
PRO HAC VICE RESOLUTION-.. THIS IS TO
CASE BASIS.. THIS DECISION IS FOR THIS
CASE ONLY!!! SO YOU THE PREVAILING
JURISPRDENCE IS NO LIVE COVERAGE OF
TRIAL… HENCE, YOU NEED TO PETITION
BEFORE SUPREME COURT IF YOU WANT TO
HAVE LIVE COVERAGE OF A CERTAIN TRIAL IN
VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS CASE HAS
BEEN ALLOWED BY SC PRO HAC VICE
8. Public Trial – Intended to prevent abuse of
judicial power. In certain cases, however, the public
may be excluded. THIS APPLIES TO RAPE
CASES WHERE SELECTED PERSONS ARE
ONLY ALLOWED
9. Right meet Witnesses – the right to cross
examine witnesses against him. [People v. Nadera]
THIS IS THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE
WITNESSESS.. TO CONFRONT THEM
10. Right to compulsory process
IT IS NOW BROADENED AS IT INCLUDE
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES
Section 14: Trial Rights of the Accused
Requisites for Trial in Absencia: ANF
1. Accused has been arraigned;
2. He was notified of the proceedings;
and
3. His failure to appear is unjustified.
Bar Question 2011:
73. During promulgation of sentence, the presence
of the accused is mandatory but he may appear by
counsel or representative when
A. he is charged with a light offense.
47 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
B. he was able to cross-examine the prosecution‘s
witnesses.
C. he waives his right to be present.
D. he is convicted of a bailable offense.
Bar Question 2011:
57. Accused X pleaded not guilty to the charge of
homicide against him. Since he was admitted to
bail, they sent him notices to attend the hearings of
his case. But he did not show up, despite notice, in
four successive hearings without offering any
justification. The prosecution moved to present
evidence in absentia but the court denied the
motion on the ground that the accused has a right
to be present at his trial. Is the court correct?
A. No, the court is mandated to hold trial in
absentia when the accused had been arraigned,
had notice, and his absence was unjustified. ONCE
THESE REQUISITES ARE PRESENT, THE
COURT MUST HOLD TRIAL IN ABSENTIA….
B. Yes, it remains discretionary on the court
whether to conduct trial in absentia even if the
accused had been arraigned and had notice and
did not justify his absence.
C. Yes, it is within the court's discretion to
determine how many postponements it will grant
the accused before trying him in absentia.
D. No, the court may reject trial in absentia only on
grounds of fraud, accident, mistake, or excusable
negligence.
Sec. 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended except in cases
of invasion or rebellion when public safety
requires it.
-A writ of habeas corpus is an order issued
by a court directed to a person detaining another,
commanding him to produce the body of the
prisoner at a designated time and place
(PRODUCE HIM IN COURT), and to explain the
cause of detention (JUSTIFY THE DETENTION
OR DOES HE HAVE THE WARRANT OF ARREST
TO JUSTIFY HIS DETENTION).
OTHERWISE STATED… THE PERSON
DETAINING ANOTHER MUST EXPLAIN THE
CAUSE OF THE DETENTION!!!! OTHERWISE,
THE PERSON DETAINED MUST BE RELEASED!
-Only the privilege is suspended, not the writ
itself- MEANING IF THE PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSPENDED AND YOU
FILE FOR PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE COURT MUST
ISSUE THE SAME AS THE NIGHT FOLLOWS
THE DAY AS MATTER OF COURSE.. IT IS
BECAUSE THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT ITSELF
IS NOT SUSPENDED BUT ONLY THE
PRIVILEGE..
MEANING ONCE THE PRIVILEGE IS
SUSPENDED, AND YOU FILED FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF THE SAME IT IS FOUND ON THE
RETURN THAT THE PERSON DETAINED IS
CHARGED WITH REBELLION OR OTHER
CRIMES IN FURTHERANCE THEREOF, THE
COURT WILL NOT MAKE INQUIRY… MEANING,
THE COURT WILL STOP THE INQUIRY IN THE
SENSE THAT YOU CANNOT OBTAIN THE
PRIVILEGE OF GETTING RELEASED!!!! ONCE
YOU ARE CHARGED WITH REBELLION, YOU
CANNOT BE RELEASED AS THE PRIVILEGE OF
GETTING RELEASE IS SUSPENDED…
REMEMBER, WHAT IS BEING SUSPENDED IS
THE PRIVILEGE!!! NOT THE ISSUANCE OF THE
WRIT!!!!
-Effects of suspension?
-effect on right to bail? THE RIGHT TO BAIL IS
NOT SUSPENDED IF THE PRIVILEGE IS
SUSPENDED
-May be availed of in cases of illegal deprivation
of liberty: detention w/o charge, or sentenced that
has been SERVE
THIS HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE DETAINED
FOR THE COMMSISION OF THE CRIME AND
YOU ARE NOT CHARGED WITHIN A
PRESCRIBE PERIOD 36 HOURS, YOU MUST
PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.. YOU WILL BE RELEASED
FOR THE DETENTION HAS BECOM ILLEGAL
AFTER THE LAPSE OF 36 HOURS WITHOUT
BEING CHARGE.. EVEN IF YOU ARE ARRESTED
IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO!!! ILLEGAL
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY IS WHAT WE
REFERRING HERE!!
sentenced that has been SERVE- THIS HAS
REFERENCE TO THOSE WHO WERE
CONVICTED OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
FIREARMS FOR 12 YEARS .. LATER THE
REVILLA LAW WAS PASSED REDUCING THE
PENALTY THEROF TO 6 YEARS.. HELD.. INSO
FAR AS THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY SERVED
SENTENCE MORE THAN 6 YEARS, THEY MAY
BE RELEASED BY FILING THE PETITION FOR
THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
IN VIEW OF THE SETTLED RULE THAT
CRIMINAL STATUTES SHALL BE GIVEN
RETROACTIVE EFFECT INSOFAR AS THE IT IS
FAVORABLE TO THE ACCUSED!!!.. THE
PRIVIILEGE MAY BE HAD ALSO WHERE THE A
PERSON IS DETAINED BY CREDITOR FOR
NONPAYMENT OF DEBTS OR THOSE WHO
48 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
WERE NOT RELEASED BY HOSPITAL FOR
FAILURE TO PAY THE BILLS.. THAT IS ILLEGAL
DETENTION
-But see Moncupa and Andan.
MONCUPA-IT ENLARGED THE COVERAGE!! HE
WAS DETAINED BY THE MILITARY… SO
BEFORE THE WRIT COULD BE ISSUED, THE
MILITARY RELEASED HIM THEREBY
CONTENDING THAT THE PETITION HAS
BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC.. HOWEVER
THE RELEASE WAS UPON A CONDITION THAT
MONCUPA WOULD NOT TALK TO MEDIA AND
CHANGE HIS RESIDENCE: HELD;
CONSIDERING THAT THE RELASE WAS WITH
CONDITION AND THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED
UPON HIS RELEASE, THE PETITION MUST
PROCEED.. THE RESTRICTIONS IS
EQUIVALENT TO RESTRAINT OF HIS LIBERTY..
WHILE IT IS NOT A DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY,
IT IS CONSTITUTE DEPRIVATION OF THE
RIGHT TO TRAVEL.. IT IS EQUIVALENT TO
RESTRICTION OF PERSON‘S LIBERTY!
REMEMBER ..ALSO THE CASE WHERE A
PERSON IS WAS ARRESTED AND MANILA AND
BROUGHT TO DAVAO… BEFORE THE
PETITION COULD BE ACTED UPON, THE
PERSON WHO ARRESTED THE PERSON
RELEASED THE PERSON.. THE FORMER
CONTENDED THAT THE PETITION HAS
BECOME MOOT IN VIEW OF THE RELEASE IN
DAVAO CITY.. SO IT MUST BE DISMISSED..
HELD: NO THE PETITION MUST PROCEED
BECAUSE WHEN YOU BRING THE PERSON IN
ANOTHER PLACE WITHOUT MONEY OR ANY
MEANS, IT AMOUNTS TO DEPRIVATION OF
LIBERTY.. IT RULED THAT UNTIL SUCH TIME
THAT YOU BRING THE PERSON IN MANILA,
THE PETITION SHALL NOT BECOME MOOT
AND ACADEMIC!!! THAT IS ANOTHER FORM OF
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY
In re: Aquino v. Esperon, (2007) [conditions of
confinement]
A MILITARY OFFICER WAS DETAINED... HIS
WIFE AND RELATIVES WAS NOT ALLOWED TO
VISIT HIM.. HE WAS HELD INCOMMUNICADO...
THE WIFE FILED A PETITION FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF WHC ON THE GROUND OF THE
CONDITIONS OF HER HUSBANDS
CONFINEMENT.. HELD: CONDITIONS OF
CONFINEMENT IS NOT A GROUND FOR
PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS. NOTE THAT THE PURPOSE
OF ISSUANCE OF WRIT IS TO OBTAIN
IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!!!
- Constitution?
Ampatuan v. Macaraig, (2010) [―restrictive
custody‖] nominal restraint, not actual
AMPATUAN WAS ARRESTED IN MANILA FOR
THE MURDER OF A COMELEC OFFICIALS.. HE
WAS PLACED UNDER RESTRICTIVE CUSTODY
WHEREIN HE WAS PLACED UNDER
RESTRICTIVE CUSTODY… HE WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO GO OUT WITHIN THE A
SPECIFIED AREA.. HE FILED FOR PIWHC..
HELD: RESTRICTIVE CUSTODY IS A ONLY
NOMINAL RESTRAINT.. NOT ACTUAL!!!! DEAN
FINDS THE JUSTIFICATION STRANGE!!!NOT
ACTUAL RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY!!
-Ilagan and Aberca
ILAGAN: PERSONS WAS ARRESTED AND
DETAINED BY THE MILITARY WITHOUT ANY
CHARGE.. THE COURT ORDERED FOR THEIR
RELEASE.. AFTER THEY RECEIVED THE
ORDER, THEY FILED A MOTION FOR RECON..
PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF THE MOR, THE
MILITARY FILED A CASE AGAINST THE
PERSON FOR REBELLION HELD: ONCE A CASE
IS ALREADY FILED AGAINST THE PERSON,
THE PETITION HAS BECOME MOOT AND
ACADEMIC.. THEIR RELEASE MAY NOT NOW
BE HAD IN VIEW OF THE CASE FILED ..
DANGEROUS DOCTRINE PER DEAN!!!
DETENTION WILL BE LEGAL
OTHERWISE STATED, THE ISSUANCE OF
WARRANT OF ARREST RENDERS THE
PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS MOOT AND ACADEMIC
BECAUSE THEIR DETENTION WILL NOW BE
VALID IN VIEW OF THE WOA…
ABERCA-.. PRESIDENT MARCOS SUSPENDED
THE PRIVILEGE OF WHC… SO SINCE DIOKNO
CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY OBTAIN THE
RELEASE OF CERTAIN PERSONS, HE FILED
CIVIL CASE FOR DAMAGE AGAINST MILTARY
OFFICIALS FOR ILLEGAL DETENTION,
STEALING PROPERTIES OF DETAINEES… THE
MILITARY COUNTERED THAT DIOKNO IS
CIRCUMVENTING THE CONSTITUION.. HELD:
THE SC SAID THAT ONCE THE PWHC IS
SUSPENDED, ONLY THE PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT
OF GETTING IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS
SUSPENDED.. CIVIL CASE OF CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES IS NOT SUSPENDED
1991, No. 1.
What is the constitutional Writ of Amparo and what
is the basis for such remedy under the
Writ of Amparo - The petition for a writ of amparo
is a remedy available to any person whose right to
49 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
life, liberty and security is violated or threatened
with violation by an unlawful act or omission of a
public official or employee, or of a private individual
or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
WRIT OF AMPARO WAS CREATED BY VIRTUE
OF THE RULE MAKING POWER OF THE
SUPREME COURT!!
[REMEDY AVAILABLE AGAINST UNLAWFUL
DEPRIVATION OF LIFE LIBERTY AND
SECURITY]
TAKE NOTE THE DISTINCTION WITH HABEAS
CORPUS
1. WRIT OF AMPARO IS A REMEDY
AGAINST LIFE LIBERTY AND SECURITY
WHILE THE LATTER IS LIMITED TO
LIBERTY
2. IT APPLIES TO NOT ONLY TO ACTUAL
VIOLATION BUT ALSO THREATENED
VIOLATIONS WHILE THE LATTER IS
ONLY FOR ACTUAL DEPRIVATION
LIBERTY OR ACTUAL RESTRAINT OF
LIBERTY!!
3. IT MAY BE INSTITUTED AGAINST
PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE OR OF
A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY
WHILE THE LATTER MAY BE INVOKED
AGAINST THE STATE
4. THEY ARE MORE APPLICABLE TO
EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS AND
ENFORCED DISAPPERANCES!!
5. OTHERWISE STATED, THE GENERALLY
FORMER IS MORE EXPANSIVE THAN
THE LATTER..
6. THAT SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO
JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS)
Jurisdiction:
1. RTC –where the threat, act or omission
occurred
2. SC, CA and Sandiganbayan- (NOTE THAT
SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO JURISDICTION
OVER PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS)
MTC-MAY IS GIVEN SPECIAL JURISDICTION
OVER PETITIONS FOR HABEAS CORPUS
WHERE NO RTC JUDGES ARE AVAILABLE BUT
NOT HABEAS DATA AND AMPARO
NOTE, GENERALLY WRIT ISSUED BY RTC IS
ONLY ENFORCEABLE WITHIN THE JUDICIAL
REGION… SEARCH WARRANT IS ALSO
ENFORCIABLE WITHIN THE JUDICIAL REGION
BUT WARRANT OF ARREST IS ENFORCEABLE
EVERYWHERE!!
In either case, the writ shall be enforceable
everywhere.
Canlas v. Napico Homeowners, 554 SCRA 208
[2008] [demolition of dwelling]
CANLAS- DEMOLITIONS OF DWELLING IS NOT
A GROUND FOR THE ISSSUANCE OF WRIT OF
AMPARO.. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE,
LIBERTY AND SECURITY!!
Reyes v. CA (2009) – right to travel- FR. REYES
WAS ISUED WITH HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER..
HELD: RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH LIFE LIBERTY AND SECURITY!!
Roxas v. GMA (2010) – [return of property
unlawfully seized] Command responsibility –
HELD: RETURN OF PROPERTY SIEZED HAS
NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE LIBERTY AND
SECURITY.. YOU MAY FILE FOR REPLEVIN!!
PROPERTY IS NOT INCLUDED!!
Possible reliefs OF WRIT OF AMPARO: MEMO!!
PIP
1. Protection order - in a government agency or
accredited private institution
2. Inspection order – permitting entry, inspection
and photographing of property or area.
3. Production order – production of documents,
photos and objects
WRIT IN HABEAS DATA- RELIEF IS TO ORDER
THE PERSON OR ENTITY GATHERING DATA
TO STOP THE GATHERING OR DESTROY THE
DATA OR RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN
GATHERED! TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF A
PERSON
Questions:
1. Will the filing of a criminal case render the
petition for a writ of amparo and a writ of habeas
data moot and academic? IT MUST BE
DISTINGUISHED! IN THE LATTER, THE FILING
OF CRIMINAL CASE WILL RENDER THE
DETENTION MOOT AS THE SAME IS CLOTHED
ALREADY WITH WARRANT OF ARREST WHILE
THE FORMER WILL NOT RENDER IT MOOT
FOR THE REASON THAT WHILE IT MAY
RENDER DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY LEGAL, IT
DOES NOT RENDER MOOT OR LEGALIZE AS
TO ACTUAL OR THREATENED VIOLATIONS OF
LIFE AND SECURITY!!!
2. 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?
50 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
NOTE THAT ONLY THE PRESIDENT CAN
DECLARE THE PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.. BUT THERE IS NO AGENCY
OR ENTITY AUTHORIZED TO SUSPEND
AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA.. IT IS NOT
PROVIDED IN THE CONSTITUTION!! IN THE
END MAY LIKELY THE SUPREME COURT WHO
MAY SUSPEND THE LATTER BECAUSE THEY
ARE THE ONE WHO PROMULGATED AND
CREATED THE SAME… SO IN OTHERWORDS,
IF THERE IS SUSPENSION OF PWHC, YOU CAN
STILL FILE AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA…. IN
AMPARO, WHILE THE DEPRIVATION OF
LIBERTY, DURING THE SUSPENSION OF
PWHC, MAY BE RENDERED MOOT, YOU CAN
STILL PURSUE THE SAME SINCE LIFE AND
SECURITY IS COVERED BY THE SAME…………
SAME WITH HABEAS DATA!!! THEY ARE NOT
AFFECTED BY SUSPENSION OF PWHC
2010, X: A, the wife of an alleged victim of enforced
disappearance, applied for the issuance of a Writ of
Amparo before a Regional Trial Court in Tarlac.
Upon motion of A, the court issued inspection and
production orders addressed to the AFP Chief of
Staff to allow entry at Camp Aquino and permit the
copying of relevant documents, including the list of
detainees, if any. Accompanied by court-
designated Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
lawyers, A took photographs of a suspected
isolation cell where her husband was allegedly
seen being held for three days and tortured before
he finally disappeared. The CHR lawyers requested
one Lt. Valdez for a photocopy of the master plan
of Camp Aquino and to confirm in writing that he
had custody of the master plan. Lt. Valdez objected
on the ground that it may violate his right against
self-incrimination. Decide with reasons. (4%)
REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS BY VIRTUE OF A WRIT OF
AMPARO IS SIMILAR TO MODES OF
DISCOVERY OR RULES OF DISCOVERY IN THE
REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE!!.. SEARCH
WARRANT IS NOT NECESSARY.. AFTER ALL,
THE PROSCRIPTIONS RELATIVE ILLEGAL
SEIZURE PROVIDED FOR BY THE
CONSTITUTIONS APPLIES ONLY TO PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS AGAINST THE STATE.. IN THE
CASE AT BAR, WHO IS BEING REQUIRED TO
PRODUCE IS THE STATE.. SO IT CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED AS VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT
AGAINST ILLEGAL SEIZURE…
Assume that the President of the Philippines
suspended the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus due to rebellion. On the same day, X, a
suspected member of the New People‘s Army, was
arrested by the military. State which of following is
WRONG.
a. X can challenge the suspension of the
privilege before the Supreme Court
b. X can be detained indefinitely without being
charged in court for as long as the suspension of
the privilege of the writ is in effect YOU CAN ONLY
BE DETAINED FOR 72 HOURS.. IF AFTER THAT
PERIOD NO CHARGE IS LEVELLED, YOU MUST
BE RELEASED!!
c. X can file a civil case for damages against
the arresting officers on the ground that his arrest
was illegal (ILAGAN CASE)
d. X is entitled to bail if he is not charged with
an offense punishable with reclusion perpetua or
life imprisonment.
Which of the following does NOT render a petition
for the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus
academic?
(a) the issuance of a warrant of arrest
against him
(b) his execution of an extra-judicial
confession with assistance of Counsel admitting
guilt IT IS THE FILING OF THE CASE THAT WILL
RENDER PETITION MOOT.. IT IS NOT THE
CONFESSION THAT RENDERS THE
DETENTION LEGAL!!
(c) the release of the person
(d) the escape of the person
Which case CANNOT prosper if the privilege of the
writ is suspended?
(a) damages arising from illegal searches
(b) a suit to obtain one‘s speedy release
from detention – BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF
WRIT OF HABEAS CURPOS IS TO OBTAIN
YOUR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!
© a criminal case for violation of RA 7438
on interrogation without counsel
(d) an administrative case against the police
for grave misconduct arising from torture
Boac v. Cadapan, 649 SCRA 618 (2011)
Can the doctrine of command responsibility be
applied in writ of amparo petitions?
51 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
Held: Command responsibility may be loosely
applied in amparo cases in order to determine the
author who, at the first instance, is accountable for,
and has the duty to address, the disappearance
and harassments complained of, so as to enable
the Court to devise remedial measures that may be
appropriate under the premises to protect rights
covered by the writ of amparo. As intimated earlier
(ROXAS CASE), however, the determination
should not be pursued to fix criminal liability on
respondents preparatory to criminal prosecution, or
as a prelude to administrative disciplinary
proceedings under existing administrative
issuances, if there be any.
Boac v. Cadapan, 649 SCRA 618 (2011)
Is there a need to file a motion for the issuance
of a writ of execution to enforce a decision in a
petition for a writ of amparo?
Held: There is no need to file a motion for
execution for an amparo or habeas corpus
decision. Since the right to life, liberty and security
of a person is at stake, the proceedings should not
be delayed and execution of any decision thereon
must be expedited as soon as possible since any
form of delay, even for a day, may jeopardize the
very rights that these writs seek to immediately
protect. The argument that the Rules of Court
supplement the Rule on the Writ of Amparo is
misplaced. The Rules of Court only find suppletory
application in an amparo proceeding if the Rules
strengthen, rather than weaken, the procedural
efficacy of the writ. As it is, the Rule dispenses
with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in
securing the life, liberty or security of the aggrieved
party. Suffice it to state that a motion for execution
is inconsistent with the extraordinary and
expeditious remedy being offered by an amparo
proceeding.
ONCE IT IS FINAL, THERE NO NEED FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT
Speedy Disposition of Cases
Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a
speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
1. How is it distinguished from speedy trial?
SPEEDY DISPOSITION IS BROADER THAN
SPEEDY TRIAL
THE FORMER INCLUDES PRE-TRIAL,
POSTRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN PERIODS
OF APPEALS OR PERIODS FROM THE TIME OF
TRIAL UP TO TIME OF DECISION WHILE THE
LATTER REFERS TO TRIAL ONLY OR THE
STAGE OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCES,
WITNESSESS..
THE FORMER APPLIES TO ALL CASES(ADMIN,
CIVIL, CRIMINAL) WHILE SPEEDY TRIAL
APPLIES ONLY TO CRIMINAL CASES
THE FORMER APPLIES TO ALL JUDICIAL,
QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADMINSTRATIVE BODIES..
THE LATTER APPLIES ONLY TO COURTS
2. What are the factors to determine violation?
-right may be invoked only when the delay is
capricious, vexatious and oppressive
-Reasonable causes of delay-
1. voluminous records
2. complex issues
3. frequent reorganization in an office
(reorganization in OMB)
3. Is the right waived by inaction?
REMEMBER THAT THE RIGHT OF SPEEDY
TRIAL MAY BE WAIVED BY FAILURE TO
INVOKE.. BUT IN SPEEDY DISPOSITION, MAY
BE WAIVED OR NOT.. JURISPRUDENCES ARE
CONFLICTING!!
Right Against Self-Incrimination
Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a
witness against himself.
1. When is a question incriminating- IT IS
INCRIMINATING WHEN THE QUESTIONS
LEVELLED TENDS TO SUBJECT YOU TO A
PENALTY.. IF IT TENDS TO SUBJECT YOU TO A
PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME.. BUT IT DOES
NOT COVER QUESTIONS WHICH ARE
EMBARRASSING
2. The right in various proceedings
a. Criminal (Chavez v. CA)- prohibition of inquiry
(MEANING, YOU CAN REFUSE TO TAKE THE
WITNES STAND)
b. Civil (Bagadiong v. Gonzales) –an option to
refuse to answer an incriminating question
(MEANING, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE WITNESS
STAND AND INVOKE ONLY THE RIGHT WHEN
QUESTIONS ASKED IS INCRIMINATING!!)
c. Administrative case (Pascual v. Board, Cabal
v. Kapunan
GENERALLY, an option to refuse to answer an
incriminating question IS APPLIED IN ADMIN
CASES., HOWEVER IN THE FOLLOWING
CASES, THEY APPLIED PROHIBITION OF
INQUIRY;
PASCUAL CASE- A PHYSICIAN WAS FACING
REVOCATION OF HIS MEDICAL LICENSE FOR
52 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
THE MALPRACTICE, THE RESPONDENT
PHYSICIAN REFUSED TO TAKE THE WITNES
STAND BEFORE THE PRC.. HELD.. WHILE THIS
IS NOT A CRIMINAL CASE, THIS CAN BE
LIKENED TO THE SAME SINCE THE PENALTY
OF WHICH COULD RESULT TO REVOCATION
OF LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE.. YOU
CANNOT BE FORCED TO TAKE THE WINESS
STAND
CABAL- THIS INVOLVED THE FORFIETURE OF
IL GOTTEN WEALTH.. HELD.. YOU CANNOT BE
FORCED TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND SINCE
THE OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS MIGHT
RESULT TO LOSS OF PROPERTY..
BUT IN OTHER ADMIN CASE, YOU NEED TO
APPLY THE APPROACH OF CIVIL CASE..
d. Legislative investigation [In re:Sabio]
YOU CANNOT REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS
STAND BUT ONLY REFUSE TO ANSWER
INCRIMINITANG QUESTIONS
SIMILAR TO THE APPROACH OF CIVIL CASES
26. The right of the State to prosecute crimes by
available evidence must yield to the right of
A. the accused against self-incrimination.
B. another State to extradite a fugitive from justice.
C. the State to deport undesirable aliens.
D. the complainant to drop the case against the
accused.
Bar questions:
1990, No. 4:
The privilege against self-incrimination must be
timely invoked, otherwise it is deemed waived:
1. In a civil case, the plaintiff called the defendant a
hostile witness and announced that the defendant
would be asked incriminating questions. When
should the defendant invoke the right? ONLY
WHEN QUESTION BECOME INCRIMINATING!!
2. In a criminal case, the prosecution called the
accused t the witness stand as the first witness.
When should the accused invoke the privilege
against self-incrimination? AT THE TIME HE IS
CALLED!
3. In an administrative case for malpractice and the
cancellation of a license to practice medicine filed
against C, the complainant called C to the witness
stand. When should C invoke the privilege against
self incrimination? [1988, No. 3. Board of Dentistry]
SAME WITH APPROACH OF CRIMINAL CASE..
ONLY WHEN QUESTION BECOME
INCRIMINATING!! HE NEED NOT WAIT THE
QUESTIONS TO BECOME INCRIMINATING…
3. Scope of the Right
It covers only testimonial self incrimination, not
mechanical and physical acts. Thus: 1) it exempts
the witness from testifying against himself (2) it
exempts him from producing documents and
articles demanded of him (EXAMPLE.. THE
FISCAL CANNOT SUBPEONA THE DOCUMENTS
OR COMPELL YOU TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS), except
a) Baseco –Corporation/Officers
PCCG REQUIRED A CORPORATION TO
PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS.. THE LATTER
INVOKED THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION!! HELD: THE CORPORATION
CANNOT INVOKE THE RIGHT OF SELF
INCRIMINATION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT IT
IS ONLY A CREATURE OF THE STATE.. THE
EXISTENCE OF WHICH IS OWED TO THE
STATE.. SO IT CANNOT INVOKE SUCH RIGHT
AGAINST THE STATE… THE STATE CAN EVEN
DISOLVE IT..
AS TO THE CORPORATE OFFICERS, IT WILL
NOT BE SELF INCRIMINATION AGAINST
THEM… GRANTING THE DOCUMENTS
REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED IS
INCRIMINATING, IT WILL NOT INCRIMINATE
THEMSELVES BUT THE CORPORATION THEY
REPRESENT.. HENCE.. IT IS NOT SELF
INCRIMINATION.. THEY MAY BE COMPELLED
TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS
NOTE: THE GUARANTEE IS SELF
INCRIMINATION.. MEANING DO NOT COMPELL
ME TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AGAINST
MYSELF!
b) Almonte – (THE RIGHT OF SELF
INCRIMINATION DOES NOT APPLY TO) Public
officers WHO ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE
public documents- THIS IS PREMISED ON THE
FACT THAT PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC
CONCERN.. THE ONLY EXCEPTION TO THIS
RIGHT IF IT MAY BE COVERED BY EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE!! NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHT OF
SELF INCRIMINATION!!!
EXAMPLE IS THE ONE STATED IN THE BAR
WHERE THE MILITARY OFFICER WAS
ORDERED TO SUBMIT THE PLAN AND MAP OF
THE CAMP ACQUINO.. HE CANNOT REFUSE
THE SAME AS HE IS A PUBLIC OFFICER
REQUIRED TO PRODUCE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS
… IT CANNOT BE A GROUNT OF SELF
INCRIMINATION
53 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
Specific Instances:
US v. Tan Teng (gonorrhea) A PERSON WAS
ACCUSED OF RAPING A GIRL AND WHOM HE
INFLICTED WITH GONORRHEA.. HE FORCED
TO REMOVED HIS CLOTHES AND REMOVE
SUBSTANCE FROM HIS BODY TO DETERMINE
W/N HE HAD GONORRHEA.. HE INVOKED THE
RIGHT HELD: THAT IS NON-TESTIMONIAL..
YOU CANNOT INVOKED THE RIGHT AGAINST
SELF INCRIMINATION!!!
Villaflor v. Summers (pregnancy) A WOMAN WAS
ACCUSED OF ADULTERY AND SHE WAS
REQUIRED TO UNDERGOE A TEST TO
DETERMINE W/N SHE IS PREGNANT.HELD:
THAT IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT.. YOU
CANNOT INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION!!! SHE WAS NOT SUBJECTED
TO ANSWER QUESTIONS!!
Gamboa (paraffin) – THIS IS A MECHANICAL
ACT.. NOT A TESTIMONIAL ACT
Tranca (ultra violet radiation) MECHANICAL ACT ..
NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT!!!!
Rodero (hair strands)- THE CHILD VICTIM WAS
ABLE TO PULL THE HAIR OF THE RAPIST.. THE
LATTER WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE SOME OF
HIS HAIR FOR EXAMINATION AND
COMPARISION HELD: THIS IS NON
TESTIMONIAL.. MEANING, IT CAN BE USED AS
EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU!
Codilla (line up)- PERSON PLACED IN POLICE
LINE UP IS NOT TESTIMONIAL
Yatar (DNA) (BLOOD SAMPLE OBTAIN FROM
HIM IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT:
SO THE GENERAL RULE IS, IF IT IS NOT
TESTIMONIAL ACT, YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE
RIGHT OF SELF INCRIMINATION.. THE
EVIDENCE OBTAINED CAN BE USED AGAINST
YOU
Exceptions: EVEN IF SEEMINGLY NOT
TESTIMONIAL BUT COVERED BY THE RIGHT
1. Handwriting –Beltran v. Samson (requires the
use of intelligence and attention)
A PERSON CHARGED OF FALSIFICATION
CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE DICTATION
OR MAKE WRITING FOR PURPOSES OF
IDENTIFICATION AND COMPARISON-HELD-
WHILE IT IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT, IT IS
COVERED BY THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION FOR IT REQUIRES THE USE
OF INTELLIGENCE AND ATTENTION!!!!
2. Reenactment-Olvis (communicative in nature)
A PERSON WAS REQUIRED TO UNDERGOE
REENACTMENT OF THE COMISSION OF THE
CRIME HELD: WHILE IT IS NOT TESTIMONIAL
ACT, IT IS COMMUNICATIVE IN NATURE
Bar Questions
1992, No. 3:
Congress: Congress is considering a law agaisnt
drunken driving. Under the legislation, police
authorities may ask an driver to take a
―breathalyzer test‖ wherein the driver exhales
several times into a device which can determine
whether he has been driving under the influence of
alcohol. The result of the tst will be used in any
legal proceeding against him. Does it violate the
right? NO! THE INSTRUMENT FOR WHICH THE
DRIVER IS REQUIRED TO TAKE AND EXHALE
IS NON TESTIMONIAL ACT.
2000, No. 11:
Borja was arrested as a suspect in a killing. After
his arrest, he was brought to the police precinct
where his pants, shirt and boots were forcibly taken
and he was weighed, measured, photographed,
fingerprinted and subjected to paraffin testing. At
his trial, Borja objected to the admission of the
above items on the ground that his right against self
–incrimination was violated. Rule on the objection.
THE OBJECTION MUST FAIL AS WEIGHING,
MEASURING, PHOTOGRAPHING,
FINGERPRINTING AND PARAFFIN TESTING
ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT.. HENCE IT CAN
BE USED AGANST BORJA!!!
2006, No. VII:
Select the best answer and explain. An accused
right against self-incrimination is violated in the
following cases:
A. When he is ordered by the trial court to undergo
a paraffin test to prove he is guilty of murder; NOT
VIOLATIVE SINCE IT IS NON TESTIMONIAL ACT
B. When he is compelled to produce his bankbooks
to be used as evidence against his father charged
with plunder. THE PERSON WILLL NOT BE
COMPELLED TO PRODUCED PURSUANT TO
BANK SECRECY LAW
C. When he is ordered to produce a sample of his
handwriting to be used as evidence that he is the
author of a letter wherein he agreed to kill the
victim; WHILE IT IS NOT A TESTIMONIAL ACT, IT
REQUIRES THE USE OF INTELLIGENCE AND
ATTENTION!
54 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
D. When the president of a corporation is
subpoenaed to produce certain documents as proof
he is guilty of illegal recruitment. NOT COVERED
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SELF INCRIMINATION!!!
CORPORATION AND ITS OFFICERS CANNOT
INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION!!!
2008, 5:
Having received tips that the accused was selling
narcotics, two police officers forced open the door
of his room. Finding him sitting partly dressed on
the side of the bed, the officers spied two capsules
on the night stand beside the bed. When asked,
"Are these yours?", the accused seized the
capsules and put them in his mouth. A struggle
ensued, in the course of which the officers pounced
on the accused but failed to extract the capsules.
The officers handcuffed the accused, took him to a
hospital where at their direction, a doctor forced an
emetic solution through a tube into accused's
stomach against his will. This process induced
vomiting. In the vomited matter were found two
capsules which proved to contain heroin. In the
criminal case, the chief evidence against the
accused was the two capsules.
a) As counsel for the accused, what constitutional
rights will you invoke in his defense? (4%) THIS IS
COVERED BY THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION AS AMERICAN
JURISPRUDENCE WOULD STATE…
COMPELLING A PESON IS FORCE TAKE
SOMETHING IN HIS BODY IS SOME KIND OF A
TORTURE… THIS IS INCRIMINATING!!!
b) How should the court decide the case? (3%)
Which provision of RA No. 9165 violates the right
against self-incrimination?
(a) requiring candidates to a public office to
undergo drug-testing THIS WAS NOT ALLOWED
BECAUSE IT ADDS QUALIFIACTION IN
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
(b) requiring secondary and tertiary students to
undergo drug-testing ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS
RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS
© requiring public and private employees to
undergo random drug-testing ALLOWED
BECAUSE IT IS RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS
(d) requiring persons accused of crimes to
undergo drug-testing THIS IS NOT ALLOWED..
THIS IS NOT ALREADY RANDOM AND
SUSPICIONLESS BECAUSE ONCE THE
ACCUSED IS FOUND POSITIVE, IT WILL
AGGRAVATE HIS PENALTY THAT WILL BE
CONSIDERED AS AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE : NOTE THAT ONLY THOSE
PERSON CHARGED WITH OFFENSES OTHER
THAN SALE AND POSSESSIN OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS ARE COVERED BY THE RIGHT
MEANING, THOSE WHO ARE CHARGED WITH
SALE AND POSSESSION OF CAN BE
REQUIRED TO TAKE DRUG TEST!!! AND THESE
PERSONS CANNOT INVOKE RIGHT AGAINST
SELF INCRIMINATION!!!.. THIS HAS BEEN
ALLOWED AND A PRACTICE NOW… IN
OTHERWORDS, IT CAN BE USED AGAINST
YOU!!!
SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board, GR No. 157870,
Nov. 3, 2008
NOTE: THE GENERAL TEST INORDER TO
PROPERLY INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION IS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS
TESTIMONIAL ACT
HOWEVER IN DRUG CASES (URINATING), THE
SUPREME COURT USES THE TEST : W/N THE
DRUG TESTING IS RANDOM AND
SUSPICIONLESS
NOTE:
Students- ―random and suspicionless‖ right to
enroll not absolute .. THIS IS THE TEST IN DRUG
CASES
(Laserna) – charged before the Prosecution
Which statement is CORRECT?
(a) an accused in a criminal case can be compelled
to take the witness stand if assured that no
incriminating question will be asked HE CAN
REFUSE IF CALLED TO THE WITNESS STAND
(b) the defendant in a civil case cannot be
compelled to take the witness stand .. HE CANNOT
REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND
© a defendant in a civil case can be asked if he
borrowed P1M from plaintiff THIS IS NOT
INCRIMINATING!!!! IT IS INCRIMINATING ONLY
IF IT SUBJECTS YOU TO A CRIME!!!
(d) the right against self-incrimination is narrower in
criminal than in civil cases .. NO!! IT IS MORE
EXPANSIVE
55 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS

In which instance can one invoke the right against EXAMPLE: SINGNSON AS WITNESS TESTIFIED
self-incrimination? AGAINST ESTRADA FOR JUETING
OPERATIONS.. IF GRANTED WITH USE
a. compelling a person to provide blood sample IMMUNITY, SINGSON CAN STILL BE
NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT PROSECUTED FOR JUETENG PROVIDED THAT
HIS TESTIMONY AGAINST ESTRADA IS NOT
b. compelling a public officer to produce public ADMITTED AGAINST HIM.. SINGSON MAY BE
records THE PEOPLE HAS THE RIGHT TO PROSECUTED FOR EVIDENCES OTHER THAN
INFORMATION WHEN THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HIS COMPELLED TESTIMONY AGAINST
PRODUCE PUBLIC RECORDS ESTRADA..
c. compelling a person to participate in a police IF GRANTED WITH TRANSCATIONAL
lineup NONE TESTIMONIAL ACT
IMMUNITY, SINGSON CANNOT BE
d. compelling a person to reenact his participation PROSECUTED FOR ANY GAMBLING OR
in a crime JUETING BECAUSE HIS COMPELLED
TESTIMONY RELATES TO JUETING….
YES THERE IS VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT
AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION HERE AS IT IS 2. Transactional –immunity to the witness from
COMMUNICATIVE IN NATURE prosecution for any offense to which his compelled
testimony relates.

THIS IS MORE BROADER.. YOU CANNOT BE

Which of the following is covered by the right PROSECUTED FOR ANY OFFENSE TO WHICH
against self-incrimination? YOUR COMPELLED TESTIMONY RELATES!!

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 ACT COVER BY
THE RIGHT INCLUDEDS producing documents
and articles demanded of him.. HENCE.. HE
CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS DEMANDED OF HIM EXCEPT
PUBLIC PUBLIC CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC
OFFICERS.. THEY CAN BE COMPELLED TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
D. compelling him to bare portions of his body
Use immunity v. Transactional immunity VIP
IMMUNITY- IS THE WEAPON OF THE STATE
AGAINST RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION!! IT IS BECAUSE ONCE YOU
INVOKE SUCH RIGHT, THE STATE CANNOT
COMPELL YOU TO DISCLOSE OR PRODUCE
SOMETHING WHICH TENDS TO SUBJECT YOU
TO A CRIME OR PUBISHMENT.. SO THE ONLY
WAY FOR THE STATE TO COMPELL YOU TO
DISCLOSE OR PRODUCE DOCUMENT IS TO
GIVE YOU IMMUNITY IN THE SENSE THAT THE
PERSON WILL NOT BE INCRIMINATED BY HIS
TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTS PRODUCED..
HENCE, THE PURPOSE OF IMMUNITY
STATUTE IS TO DEFEAT YOU RIGHT AGAINST
SELF INCRIMINATION!!!
Use (Use and Fruit Immunity)- prohibits the use of
the witness compelled testimony in connection with
the criminal prosecution of the witness.
Bar Question, 2011
4. When a witness is granted transactional
immunity in exchange for his testimony on how his
immediate superior induced him to destroy public
records to cover up the latter's act of malversation
of public funds, the witness may NOT be
prosecuted for
A. direct contempt.
B. infidelity in the custody of public records. HE
CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR ANY OFFENSE
TO WHICH HIS COMPELLED TESTIMONY
RELATES
C. falsification of public documents.
D. false testimony.
Bar Question, 1998, V:
Summary: Suppose Congress passes a law
requiring that an employee can be compelled to
testify even if it tends to incriminate him, provided
his testimony cannot be used in evidence against
him. (USE IMMUNITY)
Supposed further that A, a member of the PRC
Board was required to answer questions pertaining
to a leakage in the medical examination. Can he
refuse to answer on the ground of self-
incrimination? NO! SHE CANNOT REFUSE
BECAUSE SHE CAN NO LONGER BE
PROSECUTED FOR THE OFFENSE IN VIEW OF
THE USE IMMUNITY

56 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 18: (1) No person shall be detained solely
by reason of his political beliefs and
aspirations.
(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall
exist except as a punishment for a crime
whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted.
A. Freedom of conscience
YOU CANNOT BE IMPRISONED FOR BELEIVING
IN COMMUNISM… BUT IF YOU ACT IN
ACCORDANCE OF THE YOU BELIEF OR
IDEOLOGY OF COMMUNISM, AND YOU ARE
CAUGHT WITH HIGH POWERED FIREARMS,
YOU ARE NOT NOW PROTECTED BY THESE
SECTION
B. Involuntary Servitude
Aclaration v. Gatmaitan:
Estrada Case: THERE WAS A LAW RA 1329
PROVIDING THAT ALL GOVERNMENT
EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS FACING
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES ARE NOT
ALLOWED TO RETIRE OR RESIGN.. NOTE THAT
ESTRADA WAS CONSIDERED BY THE SC TO
HAVE RESIGNED VOLUNTARILY OF HIS
PRESIDENCY.. SAGUISAG NOTED THAT
ESTRADA COULD NOT HAVE RESIGNED FROM
HIS POST SINCE HE WAS FACING
IMPEACHMENT CASE AT THE TIME HE
RESIGN.. SO HE WAS PROHIBITED FROM
RESIGNING!! HELD: SC HELD THAT IF WE
INTERPRET RA1319 LITERALLY, WE MIGHT
END UP VIOLATING THE INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE PROVISON OF THE
CONSTITUTION BECAUSE YOU ARE FORCING
PEOPLE TO WORK AGAINST THEIR WILL!!! SO
THE RULE NOW IS THAT EVEN IF YOU ARE
FACING ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES, YOU ARE
ALLOWED TO RESIGN OR RETIRE PROVIDED
THAT HIS BENEFITS SHALL BE WITHOLD
PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE!!!
1993, No. 16: GATMAITAN CASE!!!
Joy, an RTC stenographer, retired at the age of
65. She left unfinished the transcription of her
notes in a criminal case which was on appeal. The
Court of Appeals ordered Joy to transcribe her
notes. She refused to comply with the order
reasoning that she is no longer in the service. The
CA declared Joy in contempt of court and she was
incarcerated. Joy filed a petition for habeas corpus
arguing that her incarceration is tantamount to
illegal detention and tp require her to work sans
compensation would be involuntary servitude.
Decide.
HELD.. YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE CLAUSE INTHIS
CONTEXT FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THE
POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT TO
ADMINISTER JUSTICE IS SUPERIOR TO THE
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE CLAUSE..
OBITER CASE SINCE THE CASE WAS SETTLED
DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SAME
Which of the following is prohibited by the
―involuntary servitude‖ clause of the Constitution?
a. An order of the Secretary of Labor for strikers to
return to work IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE BECAUSE IT
IS VOLUNTARY ON YOUR PART BECAUSE IF
YOU DO NOT WANT TO RETURN, YOU ARE
DEEMED TO HAVE RESIGNED!
b. An law prohibiting public officers and employees
from retiring during the pendency of an
administrative case against them .
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 INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE CLAUSE
Bar Question, 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. REASON IS CODAL..No involuntary
servitude in any form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted. AS OF TO DATE,
THERE IS NO LAW PROVIDING FOR
INVOLUNTARY SERVICE AS PENALTY ..
HOWEVER, THERE IS A law providing for hard
labor as a sentence for soldiers guilty of desertion ..
THIS IS PROVIDED FOR BY LAW… IT IS NOT
VIOLATIVE TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED
THERE IS CONVICTION~~ IT IS ONLY IN THE
MILITARY
D. condition precedent to one's valid arraignment.
57 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 19.
(1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor
cruel, degrading or inhuman punishment
inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be
imposed, unless, for compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes, the Congress
hereafter provides for it. Any death penalty
already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.
(2) The employment of physical, psychological,
or degrading punishment against any prisoner
or detainee or the use of substandard or
inadequate penal facilities under subhuman
conditions shall be dealt with by law.
NOTE THAT DEATH PENALTY MAYBE RE-
IMPOSED, BUT THREE CONDITIONS MUST BE
MET:
1. THERE MUST BE A LAW PROVIDING
THE SAME
2. ONLY FOR COMPELLING REASONS
3. INVOLVING HEINOUSE CRIMES
Cruel and inhumane punishment: HOW DO WE
DEFINE IT
1. Those which public sentiment would regard as
cruel and obsolete to law. It has something to do
with the form, not severity. OBSOLETE-MEANING
THOSE NO LONGER USED IN ANOTHER
COUNTRY!!!
2. Those which are disproportionate to the offense
as to shock the moral sense. MEANING, IT MUST
BE DISPROPORTIONATE AND IT MUST SHOCK
THE MORAL SENSE
NOTE: THAT DEATH PENALTY WAS IMPUGNED
AS CRUEL AND INHUMAN, BUT WAS UPHELD
BY THE SC IN VIEW OF THE POWER OF THE
CONGRESS TO RESTORE OR REIMPOSE THE
SAME
NOTE ALSO THAT LETHAL INJECTION WAS
CHALLENGED FOR BEING CRUEL AND
INHUMANE… SC HELD THAT IT CANNOT BE
CRUEL AND INHUMANE SINCE IT IS USED BY
SEVERAL COUNTRIES.. HENCE, NOT
OBSOLETE!! WHILE LETHAL INJECTION MAY
INFLICT PAIN, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE NO PAIN..
WHAT IS UNCONSTITIUTIONAL IS THE
PENALTY THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO
INFLICT PAIN… HERE, THE PAIN IS ONLY
INCIDENTAL OF THE PENALTY.. IN FACT ALL
PENALTY INFLICTS PAIN!! WHAT IS
PROSCRIBED IS PAIN THAT IS INHERENT TO
THE METHOD.. MEANING THE PURPOSE OF
WHICH IS REALLY INFLICT PAIN..
Agbanlog –1993, malversation of 21,000 – 11-16
years. HE WAS CONVICTD FOR
MALVERSATION OF 21,000 AND SENTENCED
TO 11- 16 YEARS OF IMPRISONMENT IN 1993..
HELD: IT RULED THAT IT IS NOT CRUEL OR
UNUSUAL.. THE PENALTY IS NOT
DISPROPORTIONATE AS TO SHOCK THE
MORAL SENSE IN VIEW.. YOU CANNOT
COMPLAIN BEFORE US, YOU GO TO
CONGRESS AND HAVE IT AMENDED…
Lim – estafa through BP 22, P360 –T – Perpetua
HELD: IF YOU THINK IT IS
DISPROPORTIONATE, YOU GO TO CONGRESS
AND HAVE IT AMENDED!!
Serrano – full back wages [excessive fine]
SERRANO DECISION. SC STATED THAT
BACKWAGES SHALL BE FROM THE TIME OF
THE DISMISSAL UNTIL SUCH TIME THE COURT
DECIDES THE CASE WITH FINALITY!!! IF THE
CASE DRAG UP TO 20 YEARS, BACKWAGES
SHALL COVER THE AMOUNT COVERING THE
PENDENCY OF THECASE!!! IT WAS IMPUGNED
ON THE GROUND SAID BACKWAGES ARE
EXCESSIVE FINES.. HELD: BACK WAGES ARE
NOT FINES!!! FINES ARE THOSE WHICH
ACCRUE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE… HERE,
THE BACKWAGES ARE DUE TO THE PERSON
ENTTILED TO IT OR TO THE EMPLOYEE..
HENCE, FULL BACKWAGES CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED AS VIOLATIVE TO THE
CONSTITUTION!!
Bar Question, 2011
78. The Constitution prohibits cruel and inhuman
punishments which involve
A. torture or lingering suffering.
B. primitive and gross penalties. THIS CAN BE
CONSIDERED AS OBSOLETE!!
C. unusual penal methods.
D. degrading and queer penalties. CONSTITUTION
ALSO PROHIBITS DEGRADING PUNISHMENT
NOTE MOST ANSWERS ARE GOOD.. BUT
TORTURE IS THE MOST CLEAR ANSWER
58 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
2010 Bar Exam:
XI
Which statement best completes the following
phrase: (1%)
―Freedom from torture is a right
A. subject to derogation when national security is
threatened.‖
B. confined only during custodial investigation.‖
C. which is non-derogable both during peacetime
and in a situation of armed conflict.‖
D. both (a) and (b)
E. none of the above.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for
debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
A. Non-imprisonment for debt
(DEBT HERE REFERS ONLY TO CONTRACTUAL
DEBT… WALAY MAPRISO SA UTANG!!!!..
HENCE, IF IT IS NOT A CONTRACTUAL DEBT,
YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE PROVISION!!!
B. Non-payment of poll tax
Debt- applies only to contractual debt, express or
implied
1. Lozano v. Martinez – BP 22 (BP 22, YOU ARE
BEING PUNISHED FOR ISSUING A BOUCING
CHECK WHICH POISONS BLOODSTREAM OF
THE ECONOMY.. NOT BECAUSE OF
NONPAYMENT OF DEBT..)
2. People v. Nitafan – Trust Receipt law (REFERS
TO ESTAFA, YOU ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR
YOUR DECEIT, OR FAILURE TO DELIVER THE
PROCEEDS OF THE GOODS.. AND NOT FOR
NONPAYMENT OF DEBTS).. WHAT IS BEING
PUNISHED HERE IS THE ACT OF ABUSING THE
CONFIDENCE OF OTHERS!!! IT IS REALLY NOT
FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CREDITOR.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!
3. People v. Merillo – Salary of Workers- THERE IS
A LABOR LAW PROVIDING THE COMPLIANCE
OF EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE SALARY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH MINIMUM WAGE LAW..
VIOLATION THEREOF EMPLOYERS WILL GO
TO JAIL… THIS WAS IMPUGNED FOR BEING
VIOLATIVE OF THIS SECTION HELD: THE SAME
WAS HELD TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL AS VALID
EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER OF THE STATE..
MOREOVER, THIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED
AS CONTRACTUAL DEBT IN THE SENSE THAT I
BORROWED MONEY FROM YOU AND I FAILED
TO PAY.. HENCE, NONPAYMENT OF SALARY
OF WORKER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
WAGE BOARD CAN BE PUNISHED WITHOUT
VIOLATING THE PROVISION!! Sentencing an
employer to imprisonment for non-payment of
minimum wage IS VALID!!
Which is violative of the constitutional provision
against non-payment of debt?
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 THE CIVIL PROCEDURE
BECAUSE IF THERE IS A JUDGMENT,
YOU FILE FOR MOTION FOR
EXECUTION… CONTEMPT IN
JUDGEMENT IS HAD ONLY JUDGMENT
ORDERING OTHER PERSON TO BE
RESTORED TOHIS POSITION!!
VIOLATIVE
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.. DEAN SAYS THIS IS WRONG!!
SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT FOR NON
PAYMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY CANNOT
BE DONE BECAUSE THE RPC DOES
NOT ALLOW IT. HOWEVER
NONPAYMENT OF FINE IS NOT
VIOLATIVE TO THIS SECTION BECAUSE
FINE BECAUSE FINE ACTUALLY DOES
NOT ARISE EX CONTRACT . IT IS NOT A
CONTRACUAL DEBT.IT ARISES EX
DELICTO OR OUT OF CRIME AND IT
GOES TO THE STATE… VIOLATIVE
d. Convicting an accused of estafa for
converting money received in trust or on
commission NOT VIOLATIVE
Double Jeopardy MEMO!!!!
Sec. 21, No person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If
an act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the
same act.
Two Kinds:
1. For the same offense
59 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
2. For the same act
Sec. 1. Double Jeopardy (SAME OFFENSE)
Requisites for Double Jeopardy:
1. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the
second;
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated; and
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same
offense.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS TO SAME OFFENSE
AND AS TO SAME ACT HAVE THE SAME
ELEMENTS EXCEPT NO. 3 OF WHICH IT IS NOT
REQUIRED IN THE LATTER
1999, No. VII:
A. Discuss the right of every accused against
double jeopardy. No person shall be twice put in
jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If an
act is punished by a law and an ordinance,
conviction or acquittal under either shall constitute
a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
B. What are the requisites for double jeopardy?
Requisites for Double Jeopardy:
1. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the
second;
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly
terminated; and
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same
offense.
Applicable to criminal cases only: Garcia v.
Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA 348 (2009)-Plunder
and Forfeiture of Ill-Gotten Wealth
GARCIA- THE GOVT FILED A PLUNDER CASE
AGAINST HIM.. LATER IT FILED A FORFEITURE
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM BEFORE THE
SANDIGANBYAN. HELD: FORFEITURE OF ILL
GOTTEN WEALTH IS NOT A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS!! THEREFORE THE 2 CASES
CAN PROCEED TOGETHER WITHOUT
VIOLATING DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! DOUBLE
JEOPARDY APPLIES ONLY IN CRIMINAL CASES
I. First Jeopardy has Attached
NOTE THAT THE 3 SUB REQUISITES MUST
CONCURE INORDER THAT THE FIRST
JEOPARDY HAS ATTACHED!! NAMELY:
1. VALID COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION
2. FILED BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT AND
3. ACCUSED WAS ARRAIGNED.
1. Valid complaint or information (VALID ONE IS
ONE SUFFICIENT TO
a. Information charging no offense/element
missing [Pu yi Kun]
b. information not signed by offended party
(Manaba)
c. Info not filed/signed by proper authority
(Cudua)
[Lasoy v. Senerosa]
2. Filed before a competent court
a. No jurisdiction over offense [Binay]
b. Filed in wrong venue [Us v. Arceo]
c. See next slide
3. Accused was arraigned
1. Valid complaint or information (VALID
COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS ONE
SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT A PERSON) IF
SOMETHING IS DEFECTIVE IN THE INFO OR
COMPLAINT, THEN YOU CANNOT CONVICT
THE ACCUSED AND CONSEQUENTLY WE CAN
SAY THAT THE FIRST SUB-REQUISITE IS
ABSENT!!
a. Information charging no offense/element missing
[Pu yi Kun] (IN THE INFORMATION OF THEFT, IT
WAS NOT ALLEGED OR (ONE ELEMENT OF
THEFT WAS MISSING) THAT THE TAKING OF
PROPERTY WAS WITHOUT THE CONSENT..
THAT WILL RENDER THE INFORMATION
DEFECTIVE AND NOT SUFFICIENT TO
CONVICT THE PERSON AND IT CHARGES NO
OFFENSE AT ALL BECAUSE ONE ELEMENT IS
MISSING. SO THE ACCUSED CANNOT INVOKE
DOUBLE JEOPARDY HERE WHEN THE
SECOND INFO WAS FILED FOR THE REASON
THAT THE FIRST INFO WAS DEFECTIVE AND
INSUFFICIENT FOR VALID CONVICTION..
OTHERWISE STATED.. THE RIGHT OF THE
ACCUSED TO BE INFORMED OF THE CAUSE
AND NATURE OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE IS
BEING CHARGE IS VIOLATED.. NO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY!!
b. information not signed by offended party
(Manaba) (NOTE THAT PRIVATE CRIMES CAN
ONLY BE INITIATED BY THE PRIVATE
COMPLAINANTS (THE INFORMATION FOR
ADULTERY WAS FILED WITHOUT THE
SIGNATURE OF THE WIFE) OR INFORMATION
OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITHOUT THE
SIGNATURE OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT
60 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
(PRIVATE CRIMES).. SO IT THE SAME WAS
DISMISSED.. WHEN THEY FILED THE SECOND
INFORMATION WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY, THE ACCUSED INVOKED
DOUBLE JEOPARDY. HELD: NO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.. CONSIDERING THAT THE FIRST
INFORMATION WAS NOT INITIATED AND
SIGNED BY THE OFFENDED PARTY, THERE
CAN BE NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THAT COULD
NOT HAVE RESULTED TO VALID CONVICTION!!
THEREFORE, THE NEW INFO FILED, THIS TIME
SIGNED BY THE OFFENDED PARTY, WILL BE
OKAY!!!
c. Info not filed/signed by proper authority
(Cudua)[Lasoy v. Senerosa]
EX.. WE KNOW THAT TAGUM CITY IS UNDER
THE PROVINCE OF DAVAO DEL NORTE.. THE
LATTER HAS A PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
(ENAD) AND FORMER ALSO HAS ITS CITY
PROSECUTOR (GALAGALA).. THE OFFENSE OF
ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
OCCURRED IN TAGUM CITY BUT THE ONE
WHO FILED/SIGNEDTHE INFORMATION WAS
THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR (ENAD)
CONSIDERING THE PROVINCE ALSO HANDLES
ITS COMPONENT CITY. LATER ON THE ONE
FILED BY PROSECUTOR ENAD WAS
DISMISSED. WHEN THE SECOND
INFORMATION WAS FILED NOW BY
PROSECUTOR GALAGALA, THE ACCUSED
VILLACORTE MOVED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF
THE SAME INVOKING DOUBLE JEOPARDY..
HELD.. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
CONSIDERING THAT THE FIRST INFORMATION
WAS NOT FILED/SIGNED BY THE PROPERTY
AUTHORITY (WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN BY
PROSECUTOR ENAD).. SO IT COULD NOT
HAVE RESULTED TO A VALID CONVICTION!!
SO HE CAN BE CHARGED AGAIN!!
(LASOY CASE) A was charged with illegal
possession of 4 kilos of shabu. Apparently with A‘s
connivance, someone erased the word ―kilos‖ and
changed it to ―grams.‖ Accused pleaded guilty and
due to the small amount the RTC judge sentenced
him to less than 6 years in prison and placed him
on probation. When the anomaly was discovered,
the Fiscal filed a new information against A. A
claimed double jeopardy. Is accused correct?
a. No, because there was no valid complaint or
information
b. No, because the court had no jurisdiction
over the offense the information having been
falsified
c. No, because there was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the judge
d. Yes, because there was a valid complaint or
information sufficient to convict A FALSIFIED IS A
VALID INFORMATION!! NOTE THAT THE
INFORMATION WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT
THE ACCUSED AND IN FACT HE WAS DULY
CONVICTED!! ONCE HE HAS BEEN DULY
CONVICTED, YOU CANNOT OPEN THE CASE
ANYMORE BECAUSE THE FIRST JEOPARDY
HAS ALREADY ATTACHED!!!
2. Filed before a competent court (MEANING IT
MUST BE A COURT WITH JURISDICTION OVER
THE OFFENSE)
a. No jurisdiction over offense [Binay] NOTE
THAT IF YOU ARE CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL
OFFENSE BY REASON OF YOUR PUBLIC
OFFICE (AS MAYOR), THE JURISDICTION IS
VESTED IN THE SANDIGAN BAYAN!! THE
PROBLEM IS THAT THE OMBUDSMAN FILED A
CASE AGAINST BINAY BEFORE THE RTC
(WITHOUT JURISDICTION).. UPON REALIZING
THE ERROR, THE OMB FILED A CASE BEFORE
THE SANDIGANBAYAN.. SO THE CLEVER
LAWYERS OF BINAY HAD THE LATTER
PLEADED GUILTY BEFORE THE RTC KNOWING
THE SAME TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION..
WITH THAT, THEY MOVED FOR THE DISMISSAL
OF THE ONE FILED IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN
INVOKING DOUBLE JEOPARDY!. HELD-
CONSIDERING THAT THE RTC HAS NO
JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE, BINAY
WAS NOT PLACED IN JEOPARDY!! THE CASE
BEFORE THE RTC MUST BE DISMISED AND
LET THE ONE FILED BEFORE THE
SANDIGANBYAN PROCEED!!
b. Filed in wrong venue (VENUE IS
JURISDICTIONAL) [Us v. Arceo] THIS CASE
INVOLVED BIGAMY… THE FIRST MARRIAGE
WAS HAD IN COTABATO AND THE SECOND
MARRIAGE WAS HAD IN TAGUM CITY! THE
BIGAMY CASE WAS FILED IN COTABATO
(ERRONEOUS).. IT WAS DISMISSED FOR
IMPROPER VENUE.. WHEN IT WAS FILED IN
TAGUM, THE HUSBAND INVOKED DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.. HELD.. NO! THERE IS NO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY!! CONSIDERING THAT THE FIRST
INFO WAS FILED BEFORE AN IMPROPER
VENUE, THE ACCUSED WAS NOT PLACED IN
DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
c. See next slide Heirs of Honrales v.
Honrales, 629 SCRA 423 (2010)
Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales, 629 SCRA 423
(2010)
Accused was charged with parricide before the
RTC. After a reinvestigation, the prosecutor filed
a motion to withdrew information, to give was to
the filing of an information against the accused for
61 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Parricide. The
motion to withdraw was not acted upon by the court
in view of an appeal with the DOJ, and later with
the Office of the President, by the heirs of the victim
questioning the downgrading of the charge
Reckeless Imprudence. Meanwhile, accused
pleaded guilty to reckless imprudence and was
sentenced to a maximum of 2 years and 10 months
by the MeTC. Due to the dismissal by the Office of
the President of the appeal of the heirs, the RTC
also granted the motion to withdrew the information
for parricide. The dismissal turned out to defective
because the judge did not make an independent
evaluation but relied merely on the motion of the
fiscal and the findings of the DOJ. Considering that
accused had been convicted by the MeTC (TAKE
NOTE THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
BEFORE THE RTC WAS DEFECTIVE), can the
case be reinstated in the RTC without placing the
accused in double jeopardy?
HELD: NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THE METC
ACTUALLY HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE
OFFENSE BECAUSE THE CASE IS STILL
PENDING BEFORE THE RTC AND REMEMBER
THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONCE JURISDICTION IS
ACQUIRED, IT CONTINUES UNTIL IT IS VALIDLY
TERMINATED… MOREOVER, THE CASE OF
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO
PARRICIDE IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE
CASE OF PARRICIDE. HENCE, THE METC
ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE
CASE MAY BE REFILED AND REINSTATED IN
THE RTC WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED IN
DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! TRICKY EXAMPLE!!
LITTLE SUMMARY: BEFORE FIRST DOUBLE
JEOPARDY HAS ATTACHED, THERE IS A
REQUIREMENT THAT
1. THERE MUST BE A VALID COMPLAINT
2. THAT IT MUST BE FILED BEFORE A
COMPETENT COURT
3. Accused was arraigned
NOTE: WHY IS IT THAT WITHOUT NO. 1 OR NO
2 SUBREQUISITE, THERE IS NO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY? YOU ARE NOT IN DANGER OF
BEING CONVICTED BECAUSE THEY ARE NULL
IN VOID ANYWAY.. SO YOU CANNOT SAY THAT
YOU ARE PLACED IN DANGER OF GETTING
CONVICTED!!
3. Accused was arraigned
3. Accused has been arraigned
1. Antone v. Beronilla, 637 SCRA 615 (2010)
Accused was charged with bigamy. He filed a
motion to quash the information on the ground that
his first marriage was declared null and void after
he contracted the second marriage, which the trial
court granted. His wife filed a certiorari before the
Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed it on the
ground that it will violate the rule on double
jeopardy. Is the CA correct?
NO! THE FIRST JEOPARDY HAS NOT YET
ATTACHED IN VIEW OF THE GRANTING
MOTION TO QUASH.. IN OTHER WORDS, THE
ACCUSED HAS NOT BEEN ARRAIGNED!! IF THE
INFORMATION IS DISMISSED BY REASON THE
GRANTING OF MOTION TO QUASH, THE
FISCAL CAN FILE A CASE AGAIN AND AGAIN!!!
Vincoy [Fiscal‘s Office of Pasay
THE FIRST COMPLAINT FOR ESTAFA WAS
FILED WITH FISCAL‘S OFFICE OF PASAY..
THEN A CASE FOR THE SAME ESTAFA WAS
FILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED WITH FISCALS
OFFICE OF PASIG.. WAS THERE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY? HELD: NO! EMPHASIS SHOULD BE
PLACED ON THE FACT THE FIRST COMPLAINT
WAS FILED ONLY BEFORE THE FISCAL‘S
OFFICE.. THERE WAS NEVER AN
ARRAIGNMENT THERE.. ARRAIGNMENT
COMES ONLY BEFORE A COURT… YOU CAN
BE CHARGED BEFORE THE FISCAL‘S OFFICE
10 TIMES WITHOUT PLACING IN DOUBLE
JEOPARDY!!
Exceptions:
1. Balisacan – not valid plea/self-defense
THE PERSON WAS CHARGED WITH
HOMICIDE.. THE ACCUSED PLEADED GUILTY
ON THE CONDITION THAT HE BE GIVEN
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES.. THIS WAS
ALLOWED BY THE COURT. DURING TRIAL, HE
PRESENTED EVIDENCE (SELF DEFENSE).. THE
JUDGE ACQUITTED HIM… THE FISCAL
APPEALED BEFORE THE SC.. IS THERE
DOUBLE JEOPARDY? HELD- NO! THERE IS NO
DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!! SOMETHING‘S WRONG
WITH THE PROCEEDINGS.. SC EMPHASIZED
THAT WHEN THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY
AND DURING TRIAL HE PRESENTS EVIDENCE
WHICH TENDS TO EXCULPATE HIM, THE
JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HAD HIM
REARRAIGNED AND SHOULD HAVE ASKED
HIM TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY! THE
ARRAIGNMENT WAS NULL AND VOID (THE
FIRST ONE).. HENCE, THE CASE MAY BE
REOPENED WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED
62 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THERE WAS NO VALID
PLEA!!.. HIS EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS
INCONSISTENT WITH HIS PLEA OF GUILTY..
THERE WAS NO VALID ARRAIGNMENT
2. grave abuse:Dimatulac v. Villon, 297 SCRA 679
(1998) – rushing arraignment despite pendency of
appeal with DOJ
THE RESOLUTION OF THE FISCAL WAS
HOMICIDE AND INFORMATION FOR HOMICIDE
WAS FILED WITH THE COURT.. THE RELATIVE
OF THE OFFENDED PARTY APPEALED TO THE
DOJ QUESTIONING THE RESOLUTION FOR
THE FILING OF HOMICIDE.. PENDING THE
APPEAL, THE JUDGE ARRAIGNED THE
ACCUSED FOR HOMICIDE.. DOJ RULED THAT
THE A CASE OF MURDER BE FILED INSTEAD
OF HOMICIDE… ACCUSED OBJECTED TO
MOVE ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY SINCE HE HAS BEEN ALREADY
ARRAIGNED: HELD- NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
THE JUDGE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION WHEN HE RUSHED THE
ARRAIGNMENT FOR HOMICIDE
NOTWIDSTANDING THE PENDENCY OF THE
APPEAL BEFORE THE DOJ!! HENCE, THE SC
ALLOWED THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION
FOR MURDER WITHOUT PLACING THE
ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!! GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE
JUDGED RESULTED TO INVALIDITY OF THE
ARRAIGNMENT HAD BY THE ACCUSED!!
Cerezo v. People, 650 SCRA 222 (2011)
Respondents were charged with libel before
the RTC. On motion for reinvestigation, the City
Prosecutor reversed itself and found no probable
cause to charged them. Meanwhile, they were
arraigned and pleaded not guilty. The offended
party appealed to the DOJ for a review of the
resolution of the City Prosecutor. Despite the
pendency of the appeal, a motion to withdrew
information was filed by the prosecutor which was
granted by the court (TAKE NOTE THAT
ACCUSED WAS SO CLEVER THAT THEY HAD
THEMSELVES ARRAIGNED FIRST BEFORE THE
INFORMATION COULD BE DISMISSED!). Later,
when the DOJ reversed the resolution of dismissal
and ordered the prosecutor to refile the case, the
judge granted the motion to reinstate the
information. Both orders of the judge were not
based on his independent consideration but relied
merely on the finding of the DOJ. Can the case be
reinstated without placing the accused in double
jeopardy?
YES! THE CASE CAN BE REINSTATED
WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE
JEOPARDY! THE JUDGE ACTUALLY
COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
WHEN HE ACTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS
BASED ON THE FINDING OF THE DOJ
WITHOUT HIS INDEPENDENT
CONSIDERATION.. HENCE, THE CASE CAN BE
REINSTATED AS THE ARRAIGNMENT WAS
PATENTLY NULL AND VOID!! NOTE THAT
WHEN A PROSECUTOR MOVES FOR THE
DISMISAL OF THE INFORMATION, THE JUDGE
MUST RELY ON HIS INDEPENDENT
ASSESSMENT OR ARGUMENT AND NOT
MERELY DEPEND ON THE ASSESSMENT OR
RESOLTION OF THE PROSECUTOR..OR THE
DOJ… IT IS BECAUSE ONCE THE
INFORMATION IS FILED WITH COURT, THE
CASE IS NOW THE PROPERTY OF COURT AND
THE JUDGE THEREOF MUST MAKE PERSONAL
AND INDEPENDENT EVALUATION TO ANY
MOTION FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAME..
HE MUST RESOLVED THE SAME BASED ON
HIS INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT!! HENCE,
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART
OF THE JUDGE WHICH RESULTED TO THE
INVALIDITY OF THE ARRAIGNMENT HAD
BEFORE HIS SALA!!!!
People v. Dumlao. 580 SCRA 409 (2009)
Dumlao and several other ranking officials of
the Marcos regime were charged before the
Sandiganbayan of violating the Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act. After arraignment, he filed a
motion to quash invoking the ground that ―the facts
charged do not constitute an offense.‖ The
Sandiganbayan, based on the Pre-Trial Stipulation
entered into by the accused and the prosecution,
however, dismissed the case on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence. Can the Supreme Court
review the dismissal without placing the accused in
double jeopardy?
YES.. THE SC CAN… HOW CAN THE JUDGE
DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE WHEN THERE
WAS NO TRIAL!! THAT IS GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION!!! THEREFORE, THE CAN BE
REFILED AGAIN… GAD CAN BE IN SEVERAL
FORMS
LASOY CASE) A was charged with illegal
possession of 4 kilos of shabu. Apparently with A‘s
connivance, someone erased the word ―kilos‖ and
changed it to ―grams.‖ Accused pleaded guilty and
due to the small amount the RTC judge sentenced
him to less than 6 years in prison and placed him
on probation. When the anomaly was discovered,
the Fiscal filed a new information against A. A
claimed double jeopardy. Is accused correct?
63 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
a. No, because there was no valid complaint or
information
b. No, because the court had no jurisdiction
over the offense the information having been
falsified
c. No, because there was grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the judge
d. Yes, because there was a valid complaint or
information sufficient to convict A FALSIFIED IS A
VALID INFORMATION!! NOTE THAT THE
INFORMATION WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT
THE ACCUSED AND IN FACT HE WAS DULY
CONVICTED!! ONCE HE HAS BEEN DULY
CONVICTED, YOU CANNOT OPEN THE CASE
ANYMORE BECAUSE THE FIRST JEOPARDY
HAS ALREADY ATTACHED!!!
II. IST Jeopardy Terminated
Nitafan – 21 criminal cases
SEVERAL CASES WAS FILED AGAINST A
PERSON FOR VIOLATION OF CENTRAL BANK
CIRCULAR.. JUDGE NOTICED THAT THERE
ARE 21 CRIMINAL CASES FILED AGAINST THAT
PERSON BEFORE HIS SALA… HE ORDERED
THE DISMISSAL OF THE OTHERS.. HELD: FOR
AS LONG AS CASES WERE PENDING, YOU
CANNOT MOVE FOR THE DISMISSAL OF ONE
SINCE THERE WAS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY
BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THEM HAS BEEN
VALIDLY TERMINATED… WAIT THE CASE TO
BE VALIDLY TERMINATED BEFORE YOU CAN
VALIDLY INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
Jeopardy is terminated by:
ACQUITTAL, CONVICTION AND DISMISSAL,
A. Acquittal –Immediately final, ONCE IT THE
SENTENCE OF AQUITTAL IS READ, IT IS
ALREADY FINAL..
Pp. V. CA – convicted of homicide but reversed by
CA- Certiorari- HELD: CONSIDERING THAT
THERE IS A JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL BY
THE LOWER COURT, CERTIORARI CANNOT BE
ENTERTAINED.
Paluay – Annulment of judgment : HELD: A
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL CAN NO LONGER
BE SUBJECT OF ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
Reconsideration- Serrano – Notice of appeal-
THE PERSON WAS ACQUITTED OF RAPE.. A
NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED.. THE JUDGE
WHO WAS IGNORANT OF THE LAW, HE
FORWARDED THE RECORDS TO THE SC FOR
REVIEW.. HELD: THE SC FINED TE JUDGE
20,000.00 FOR IGNORANCE OF THE LAW..
Argel v. Pascua –acquitted, reversed 5 days after
[revised] THE JUDGE ACQUITTED THE
ACCUSED FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER ON
THE REASON THAT NON OF THE WITNESSESS
WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED ..
HOWEVER, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE
WAS STENOGRAPHIC NOTES SHOWING THAT
A WITNESS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED
THEWITNESS.. SO THE JUDGE ISSUED A
REVISED DECISION 5 DAYS AFTER THE
PROMULGATION.. HELD: A JUDGMENT OF
ACQUITTAL IS IMMIEDIATLY FINAL!!!.. THE
JUDGE WAS DISMISSED FOR GROSS
IGNORANCE OF THE LAW!!
People v. Sandiganbayan, 631 SCRA 128 (2010)
After trial wherein the Ombudsman
prosecutor and the accused presented witnesses
and numerous documents, the Sandiganbayan
acquitted accused of violation of the Anti-Graft Act.
The Ombudsman filed a petition for certiorari to
overturn the Sandiganbayan‘s conclusion that
―there was no doubt that dredging work was
performed‖ considering that when the work was
allegedly done, there was yet no approve
specification and plans as required by law. Can the
Court review the decision without violating the right
of the accused against double jeopardy?
Held: No. The foregoing is essentially an issue
involving an alleged error of judgment, not an error
of jurisdiction. Petitioner has not convincingly
shown that the prosecution has indeed been
deprived of due process of law. There is no
showing that the trial court hampered the
prosecution's presentation of evidence in any way.
On the contrary, the prosecution was given ample
opportunity to present its ten witnesses and all
necessary documentary evidence. The case was
only submitted for decision after the parties had
duly rested their case. The trial court clearly stated
in its decision which pieces of evidence led it to its
conclusion that the project was actually undertaken,
justifying payment to the contractor. Petitioner
failed to show that there was mistrial resulting in
denial of due process. When the trial court arrives at
its decision only after all the evidence had been
considered, weighed and passed upon, then ―any
error committed in the evaluation of evidence is
merely an error of judgment that cannot be
remedied by certiorari. IN OTHER WORDS,
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL CANNOT BE
REVIEWED EVEN IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE
JUDGE COMMITTED AN ERROR!!!
64 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
Exceptions: THAT JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL
MAY BE REVIEWED.. NOTE THAT THIS CAN BE
A GROUND FOR CERTIORARI
1. Deprivation of due process
2. Grave abuse of discretion
3. Galman and Bellaflor – recon/ De Grano
GALMAN- THIS CASE INVOLVED ACQUITTAL
OF VER FOR THE DEATH OF NINOY ACQUINO..
THE PROSECUTION FILED A MOTION FOR
RECON BUT DISMISSED ON THE GROUND
THAT JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL CANNOT BE
SUBJECT FOR REVIEW ANYMORE AS IT
WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY..
AFTER CORY ASSUMED PRESIDENCY, IT WAS
DISCOVERED THAT THE CASE WAS RAFFLED
TO MARCOS TUTA JUDGE.. IT WAS ALSO
LEARNED THAT MONITORING DEVICE WAS
HAD INSIDE THE COURTROOM BY THE
MILITARY.. SOME OF THE WITNESSESS
DISAPPEARED… HELD: THE COURT RULED
THAT THE STATE WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE
PROCESS.. SO RE-TRIAL WAS ALLOWED AND
THE ACCUSED WERE CONVICTED
BELLAFLOR- THE JUDGE CONVICTED THE
ACCUSED.. UPON MOTION FOR RECON, THE
JUDGE ACQUITTED THE ACCUSED.. BUT THE
SAID DECISION ONLY INDICATED ―FINDING
THE MOTION FOR RECON MERTITORIOUS,
THE ACCUSED IS HEREBY ACQUITTED‖. HELD:
THERE WAS AN GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE.. IT
IS NOTEWORTHY THAT IN RENDERING
JUDGMENT REVERSING YOUR PREVIOUS
JUDGMENT UPON MOR, YOU MUST STATE
THE LAW AND THE FACTS… A JUDGMENT OF
THE SAME WITHOU STATEMENT OF LAW AND
FACTS IS UNCONSTITTIONAL…
De Grano
People v. De Grano, 588 SCRA 550 (2009)
Six (6) people were charged with murder, but
only four (4) were arraigned, the rest being at-large.
After trial, the RTC convicted the four (4). During
the promulgation, only one, Lacaba, was present.
Despite the fact that the three (3) had become
fugitives from justice, through counsel, all four (4)
filed a motion for reconsideration. The judge,
however, acted on the motion by acquitting two (2)
of the accused and downgrading the conviction of
the two (2) others, including Lacaba, to homicide.
A petition for certiorari filed by the prosecution with
the Court of Appeals was dismissed on the ground
of double jeopardy. May the Supreme Court review
the judgment of acquittal without placing the
accused in double jeopardy?
YES! NOTE THAT AFTER THE 3 ABSCONDED
WITHOUT APPEARING THE PROMULGATION
OF CONVICTION, THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE
LOST THEIR STANDING.. IN OTHERWORDS,
THEY WERE WITHOUT STANDING IN FILING
THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.. SO IN
SO FAR AS THE 3 WHO HAD ABSCONDED,
THEIR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR
DOWNGRADING OF SENTENCE ARE NULL AND
VOID.. IT WAS ISSUED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE!!!
HENE, THE ACQUITTAL MAY BE REVIEWED ON
THE GROUND OF GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE!!
Lejano v. People, 639 SCRA 760 (2011)
After the Supreme Court reversed the Court of
Appeals and acquitted accused Webb and others,
complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, filed a motion for
reconsideration, claiming that it ―denied the
prosecution due process of law; seriously
misappreciated the facts; unreasonably regarded
Alfaro as lacking credibility; issued a tainted and
erroneous decision; decided the case in a manner
that resulted in the miscarriage of justice; or
committed grave abuse in its treatment of the
evidence and prosecution witnesses.‖ Can the
Court reconsider its decision? NO MORE!! THE
COURT CANNOT RECONSIDER ITS
DECISION..!! A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
CANNOT BE REVIEWED… DOUBLE JEOPARDY
ALREADY SET IN.. IT IS DOUBTED W/N THE SC
WOULD REVERSE ITS DECISION ON THE
GROUND OF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS BY
THEM OR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY
THEM….
Jacob v. Sandiganbayan, 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
Due to repeated postponements by
Ombudsman prosecutors and their failure to submit
their reinvestigation report, Justice Nario of the
Fourth Sandiganbayan Division, during its session,
issued a verbal order dismissing the cases. The
dismissal was duly recorded in the minutes of the
hearing of the said date which was attested to by
the Clerk of Court and signed by the parties. On
motion of the prosecution, the Special Fourth
Division reversed the order 6 months later. Will the
reversal of the order of dismissal which was based
on speedy trial violate the rights of the accused
against double jeopardy? WHAT HAPPENED
HERE WAS THAT THE JUDGE ORDERED THE
DISMISAL BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION DID
NOT ARRIVE, A FEW MINUTES LATER, THE
WITNESS ARRIVED AND WAS PRESENTED..
65 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
AFTER THAT HE REVERSED HIS VERBAL
ORDER
HELD: NOTE THAT A DISMISSAL OF A CASE
BASED ON THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT OF
THE ACCUSED BASED ON SPEEDY TRIAL WILL
RESULT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS WE WILL
LEARN LATER ON… HOWEVER, EMPHASIS
SHOULD BE PLACED THAT TO HAVE A VALID
JUDGEMENT OR ORDER OF DISMISSAL, THE
SAME MUST BE MADE IN WRITING AND
SIGNED BY THE JUDGE.. WHAT HAPPEN HERE
WAS THAT THE JUDGE REVERSED HIS ORDER
(VERBAL) AFTER THE WITNESS HAD SHOWN
UP AND PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION..
SO THE PRINCIPLE HERE IS THAT UNTIL THE
JUDGMENT HAS BEEN REDUCED INTO
WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE
(DISMISSAL ORDER), DOUBLE JEOPARDY HAS
NOT YET SET IT.. IN THE CASE AT BAR, THERE
WAS NO VALID JUDGMENT OR ORDER AS IT
WAS NOT IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE
JUDGE.. CORRECT PROCEDURE FOR A VALID
ORDER OR JUDGMENT IS IT MUST BE IN
WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE (ONCE
SIGNED, IT CANNOT BE REOPENED ANYMORE,
DOUBLE JEOPARDY COMES IN) AND IT IS
READ. ONCE IT IS READ, IT BECOMES
IMMEDIATELY FINAL….
Ordinary errors: Laggui: No error, however
flagrant, committed by the court against the state
can be reviewed by the Supreme Court (EVEN IF
IT IS VERY CLEAR AND VERY OBVIOUS)
WITHOUT RESULTING TO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY..
HOW DO WE KNOW W/N THE ERROR IS
ORDINARY OR GRAVE ABUSE?
ORDINARY ERRORS- THE JUDGE
MISAPPRECIATION EVIDENCE OR HE CANNOT
UNDERSTAND OR MISUNDERSTOOD THE LAW
THE LAW
FOR INSTANCE, ONE JURISPRUDENCE HAS IT
THAT WHERE A JUDGE CONVICTED THE
ACCUSED FOR MURDER AND THE PENALTY
PRESCRIBED BY TO THAT IS DEATH..
BECAUSE THE JUDGE ARE NOT AKIN OF
DEATH PENALTY, HE ONLY SENTENCED THE
ACCUSED OF RECLUSION PERPETUA! NOW,
HE IS BEING INTERVIEWED ABOUT HIS
DECISION AND HE STATED IN THE INTERVIEW
THAT HE DID NOT IMPOSED THE DEATH
PENALTY BECAUSE HIS CONSCIENCE
CANNOT BEAR PUTTING PEOPLE TO DEATH..
IN THAT CASE, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS
ORDINARY ERRORS.. BUT HAD HE PUT THAT
STATEMENTS IN THE DECISION OF
CONVICTION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION SINCE HE KNEW THE
LETTER OF THE LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY IT
CAN BE REVERSED BY THE SC.. ON THE
OTHER HAND, HOWEVER, IF HE WAS
INTERVIEWED AND HE VERBALLY SAID THAT
HE COMMITTED MISTAKE IN NOT IMPOSING
WHAT PRESCRIBED BY LAW, IT WOULD BE
CONSIDERED AS ORDINARY ERROR.. HENCE
IT CANNOT BE REVIEWED BY THE SC, EVEN
HOW FLAGRANT AND OBVIOUS..
B. Conviction – may be appealed by accused. But
if he appeals, entire case is open open for review.
Pp. v. Rondero]
Phil. Rabbit: To decrease civil liability
On Certiorari to alter conviction to a more serious
crime? Castro v. People
B. Conviction – (IT BECOMES FINAL 15 DAYS
FROM PROMULGATION) may be appealed by
accused. But if he appeals, entire case is open for
review. Pp. v. Rondero]
RONDERO-THE POLICE OFFICER WAS
CHARGED WITH RAPE WITH HOMICIDE..
AFTER TRIAL, HE WAS CONVICTED ONLY FOR
HOMICIDE AND NOT WITH RAPE SINCE NO
EVIDENCE FOUND TO ESTABLISH THE
LATTER… SO CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE
ONLY.. SO THE ACCUSED APPEALED BEFORE
SC.. HELD: SC HOWEVER FOUND HIM GUILTY
OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE… EMPHASIS
SHOULD BE PLACED THAT ONCE THE
ACCUSED APPEAL HIS CONVICTION, HIS
ENTIRE CASE IS OPEN FOR REVIEW.. THAT IS
RISKY..!!
Phil. Rabbit: To decrease civil liability
THE BUS DRIVER WAS CONVICTED OF
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE..AND SENTENCED
TO PAY BIG AMOUNT AS CIVIL LIABILITY… BUT
THE DRIVER ESCAPED AND CONSEQUENTLY
HE HAD NO LONGER STANDING TO APPEAL..
NOTE THAT IN DAMAGES, IF THE ACCUSED IS
INSOLVENT, THE EMPLOYER WILL BE
SUBSIDIARILY LIABLE.. NOW HERE, THE BUS
COMPANY FILED AN APPEAL ONLY IN SO FAR
AS THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE CASE IS
CONCERNED… CAN THAT BE ALLOWED?
HELD: THE BUS COMPANY CANNOT APPEAL
AS TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY BECAUSE ONLY
THE ACCUSED IS ONLY ALLOWED TO
APPEAL.. THIS IS PREMISED ON THE RULE
THAT IF THE CASE IS APPEALED BY THE
ACCUSED AND THE ENTIRE CASE WILL OPEN
FOR REVIEW, THERE IS A GREAT POSSIBILITY
THAT THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED
MAY BE INCREASED! THEREFORE IT IS ONLY
HE, THE ACCUSED DRIVER, CAN APPEAL THE
SAME.. SINCE HE ALREADY ESCAPED AND
THEREFORE CANNOT MAKE APPEAL, THE
EMPLOYER SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED SINCE
66 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
DOUBLE JEOPARDY PRINCIPLE IN THIS CASE
WILL SET IN..
On Certiorari to alter conviction to a more serious
crime? Castro v. People
IN THIS INSTANCE, THE ACCUSED WAS
CHARGED WITH FRUSTRATED MURDER BUT
WAS ONLY CONVICTED OF SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURIES.. SO YOU APPEAL FOR PURPOSES
OF HAVING THE CONVICTION RESTORED TO
THE CRIME ORIGINALLY CHARGED! HELD:
THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED.. to alter conviction
to a more serious crime CANNOT BE HAD AS
DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN THIS CASE HAS
ALREADY SET IN..
What about to increase penalty only?
Pp. v. Leones, 3 counts of rape- 17 years.
THE ACCUSED HERE PLEADED GUILTY OF 3
COUNTS OF RAPE.. BUT INSTEAD OF
SENTENCING HIM OF 3 COUNTS OF DEATH
PENALTY, HE ONLY SENTENCED HIM FOR 17
YEARS.. SO THERE WAS A CLEAR AND
OBVIOUS ERROR HERE ON THE PART OF THE
JUDGE.. CAN THE PROSECUTION APPEAL TO
INCREASE THE PENALTY ONLY? HELD : NO!
ONLY THE ACCUSED CAN APPEAL THE
JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN VIEW OF THE
FACT THAT THE SAME MAY RESULT TO
ENTIRE CASE SUBJECT FOR REVIEW… SAME
RULING IF YOU WANT TO ALTER THE
CONVICTION TO A MORE SERIOIUS CRIME..
Pp. v. CA, 4 BP 22, fined by CA
THE ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED IN THE
LOWER COURT AND SENTENCED TO
IMPRISONMENT.. UPON APPEAL, THE CA ONLY
SENTENCED HIM TO A FINE.. IT WAS
APPEALED BY THE PROSECUTION.. HELD.. IT
CANNOT BE ALOWED.. YOU CANNOT APPEAL
FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING THE
NATURE OF THE PENALTY.. PRINCIPLE OF
DOUBLE JEOPARDY SET IN HERE
IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROSECUTION IS
PROHIBITED FROM APPEALING A JUDGMENT
OF ACQUITAL AND CONVICTION!!
C. Dismissal – Tupaz v. Ulep
When is there consent to the dismissal?
RECAP: JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS
IMMEDIATELY FINAL.. IT CANNOT BE SUBJECT
TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION,
CERTIORARI, ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT..
BUT IN RARE CASES, MAY BE REVIEWED BY
THE SC IF THERE IS
1. VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
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
1. ALTERING THE CONVICTION OF TO A
MORE SERIOUS CRIME;\
2. INCREASING THE PENALTY THEREOF
3. CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE
PENALTY FROM FINE TO
IMPRISONMENT
BUT TAKE NOTE ON THE RARE EXCEPTIONS
PROVIDED FOR BY THE JURISPRUDENCE!!
C. Dismissal – Tupaz v. Ulep
IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW W/N THE
DISMISSAL IS WITH CONSENT OR NOT..
BECAUSE IF IT IS WITH CONSENT, PRINCIPLE
OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT APPLY.. OF
THERE IS NON, THERE WILL BE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY
When is there consent to the dismissal? PDO
WSID
1. Provisional dismissal (HERE, IT MUST BE
DISTINGUISHED!! IN THE MTC, THE
PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL SHALL BECOME
FINAL AFTER THE LAPSE OF 1 YEAR.. IN THE
RTC, THE PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL SHALL
BECOME FINAL AFTER THE LAPSE OF 2
YEARS.. MEANING, DOUBLE JEOPARDY WILL
SET IN AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE 1 YEAR OR
2 YEARS, AS THE CASE MAY BE..!!! SO THE
FISCAL MUST RE-FILE THE CASE WITHIN THAT
PERIODS
2. Dismissal with prejudice- Dismissal without
prejudice means that the dismissal shall be without
prejudice of refiling… that which WITH
PREJUDICE, Cannot be refiled again
3. On motion of accused- BY MOTION TO QUASH
OR TO DISMISS FILED BY THE ACCUSED.. SO
THERE WILL BE NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY
HERE!!
4. When he agrees (WITH THE DISMISSAL OF
THE CASE)
Exceptions:
1. Speedy trial [Salcedo v. Mendoza](NOTE THAT
EVEN IF THE DISMISSAL IS PROVISIONAL, OR
67 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
WITH PREJUDICE, OR ON MOTION OF THE
ACCUSED, OR WITH HIS AGREEMENT, THE
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BASED ON OR ON
THE GROUND OF1. THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY
TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED OR INSUFFICIENCY
OF EVIDENCE, THERE IS DOUBLE
JEOPARDY… IT WILL RESULT TO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY!! MEANING, IF I ASKED THE JUDGE
FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE ON THE
GROUND OF SPEEDY TRIAL AND THE LATTER
DISMISSES THE SAME ON THE GROUND, THE
CASE CANNOT BE REFILED ANYMORE AS
DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THERE..!!
Exceptions:
1. Speedy trial [Salcedo v. Mendoza](NOTE THAT
EVEN IF THE DISMISSAL IS PROVISIONAL, OR
WITH PREJUDICE, OR ON MOTION OF THE
ACCUSED, OR WITH HIS AGREEMENT, THE
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BASED ON OR ON
THE GROUND OF1. THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY
TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED OR INSUFFICIENCY
OF EVIDENCE, THERE IS DOUBLE
JEOPARDY… IT WILL RESULT TO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY!! MEANING, IF I ASKED THE JUDGE
FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE ON THE
GROUND OF SPEEDY TRIAL AND THE LATTER
DISMISSES THE SAME ON THE GROUND, THE
CASE CANNOT BE REFILED ANYMORE AS
DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THERE..!! IF IT IS
GROUNDED ON SPEEDY TRIAL, IT CANNOT BE
REFILED AGAIN!!
2. Insufficiency of evidence [Demurrer – Ong v.
People, MTC granted, RTC reversed, CA granted]
REMEMBER THAT THE ACCUSED FILES A
DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE (FOR
INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE) AND IT IS
GRANTED, IT AMOUNTS TO ACQUITTAL TO
HIM… HENCE, IT CAN NO LONGER BE RE
FILED ANYMORE EVEN IF THE FISCAL
DISCOVERS ANOTHER EVIDENCE!!
3. Discharge as state witness
IF THE STATE USES ONE OF THE SEVERAL
ACCUSED WHO IS THE NOT THE MOST
GUILTY, DISCHARGES HIM AS STATE WITNESS
AND EVENTUALLY DISCHARGES HIM FROM
THE INFORMATION AND THE LATTER
COMPLIES THE CONDITION ATTACHED
THERETO AS STATE WITNESS, THE CASE
CANNOT BE REFILED AGAINST HIM ANYMORE
EVEN IF THE ACCUSED IS ACQUITTED IN THE
CASE FOR WHICH HE IS BEING DISCHARGED
AS STATE WITNESS..
IN RELATION TO THIS, A JUDGE DISCHARGED
THE ACCUSED AS STATE WITNESS AND
REMOVED HIM FROM THE INFORMATION AND
EXECUTED AND AFFIDAVIT… THE FISCAL
MOVED FOR RECON.. DURING THE PENDENCY
OF WHICH, THE JUDGE WAS REPLACED BY
ANOTHER ONE.. THE LATTER ACTING UPON
THE MOTION FOR RECON, REVERSED THE
ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR.. CAN IT BE
ALLOWED? HELD: IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED..
ONCE THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN DISCHARGED
FROM THE INFORMATION AND AS A WITNESS,
HE CAN NO LONGER BE REINSTATED TO THE
INFORMATION.. DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN
THERE!!! TRUST THE AUTHORITY!!!!
When is there no consent? REMEMBER THAT
WHEN THE DISMISSAL IS WITHOUT CONSENT,
DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THE EVEN THE
CASE AGAINST IS REFILED (HERE THE
ACCUSED DOES NOT WAIVED HIS RIGHT TO
DOUBLE JEOPARDY!)
1. Silence/failure to object [Ilagan] HERE, THE
FISCAL ASKED THE COURT THAT THE CASE
FILED BE DISMISSED…. THE ACCUSED WAS
CAUGHT SURPRISE AND DID NOT OBJECT TO
THE SAME.. SO IT WAS DISMISSED.. LATER
ON, THE FISCAL FILED THE SAME CASE OR
ANOTHER OF MORE SERIOUS CRIMEAGAINST
THE ACCUSED WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THE DISMISSAL WAS WITH CONSENT( THAT
HE AGREED TO THE DISMISSAL-WITH
CONSENT) BY REASON OF THE SILENCE OR
FAILURE TO OBJECT OF THE ACCUSED … IS
THERE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? THE HENCE…
HELD: THE SILENCE OR FAILURE TO OBJECT
BY THE ACCUSED OF THE DISMISSAL IS
EQUIVALENT TO NO CONSENT.. IT MUST BE
NOTED THAT UNDER THE REVISED RULES OF
COURT, THE DISMISSAL TO BE CONSIDER
EDAS WITH CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED
MUST BE ―DISMISSAL WITH THE EXPRESSED
CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED‖!!! MEANING,
SILENCE OF THE ACCUSED AMOUNTS TO NO
EXPRESS CONSENT.. THEREFORE, THE CASE
CAN NO LONGER BE REFILED AGAINST THE
ACCUSED AS DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN
THERE!!
2. Reinvestigation [P. v. Vergara] but not motion
for reconsideration [Bellaflor]
VERGARA- THE ACCUSED HERE WAS
CHARGED IN COURT.. SO INFORMATION WAS
DULY FILED.. THEN THE ACCUSED FILED FOR
REINVESTIGATION OF THE COMPLAINT
DETERMINE W/N THERE IS PROBABLE
CAUSE… THE FISCAL FOUND THAT THERE
WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE PROMPTING THE
AGGRIEVED PARTY TO APPEAL THE
RESOLUTION OF THE FISCAL.. THE LATTER
FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE
INFORMATION PURSUANT TO THE OUTCOM
OF HIS REINVESTIGATION FINDING NO
PROBABALE CAUSE.. NOTE THAT THE
ACCUSED HERE HAD ALREADY BEEN
ARRAIGNED.. SO AFTER THE CASE WAS
68 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS

DISMISSED, THE DOJ ORDERED THE REFILING BASED ON SUCH RADIO REPORT!!...HELD.
OF THE CASE….. THE ACCUSED INVOKED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION!!
DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THE PROSECUTION
CONTENDED THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS WITH NOTE: SHOULD THERE BE MOVE TO DISMISS
CONSENT SINCE IT IS THE ACCUSED WHO A CASE FOR LACK OF PROBABLE CAUSE, THE
MOVED FOR THE REINVESTIGATION HELD: JUDGE MUST PERSONALLY EVALUATE AND
REINVESTIGATION IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO ASSESS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE..
CONSENT.. HE MUST RESOLVE IT BASED ON HIS
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.. IF HE
Exceptions: [Loose] DISMISSED IT BASED ON THE ARGUMENT OF
THE PROSECTUION OR THE DOJ, IT WILL
1. Grave abuse RESULT TO GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION!!
IN THAT CASE, THE CASE MAY BE REFILED
2. Violation of due process Serino v. Zosa State
Prosecutor v. Murro C. 2nd Jeopardy is for Same Offense
BELLAFLOR CASE- THE ACCUSED WAS TAKE NOT THE WORD ―THE SAME‖ AS HAVING
CONVICTED BY THE COURT.. HE FILED A A VERY EXPANSIVE MEANING
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.. THIS TIME
THE JUDGE REVERSED HIS DECISION.. HE a. Identical offenses (THIS HAPPENS WHEN
CHALLENGED THE REVERSAL BEFORE THE THE FIRST CASE IS IDENTICAL WITH
SC ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. THE SECOND CASE)
HELD: THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY
BECAUSE YOU FILED A MOTION FOR b. 2nd is an attempt to commit the first
RECONSIDERATION WHICH IS TANTAMOUNT
TO A CONSENT!! REFER THIS TO DEAN c. 2nd is a frustration of the first (B AND C
MEANS THAT THE CONSUMATED
REMEMBER THAT IF THE DISMISSAL IS HOMICIDE IS THE SAME WITH
WITHOUT CONSENT, THERE IS DOUBLE ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED
JEOPARDY!! HOMICIDE FOR PURPOSES OF DOUBLE
JEOPARDY!!) MEANING, I CANNOT FILE
Exceptions: [Loose] ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE AND LATER
CHANGE IT TO FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
1. Grave abuse OR CONSUMMATED ONE)-WITHIN THE
MEANING OF THE ―SAME OFFENSE‖
2. Violation of due process
d. 1st necessarily includes the 2nd (THIS
Serino v. Zosa
HAPPENS WHEN THE ELEMENTS OF
THE JUDGE WAS CALLING FOR A TRIAL .. HE BOTH ARE ALMOST THE SAME)-EX. I
TOLD THE ACCUSED TO RETURN AT 10 AM CHARGE YOU WITH MURDER, AND THE
FOR A COFFE BREAK.. HOWEVER AT 9AM HE CASE WAS DISMISSED AT MY
DISMISSED THE CASE WHEN HE FOUND THAT INSTANCE AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN
THE FISCAL AND THE ACCUSED WAS NOT ARRAIGNED, NOW I FILED THIS TIME A
PRESENT WHEN HE RESUMED.. UPON CASE FOR HOMICIDE. MURDER
REALIZING THE MISTAKE, THE JUDGE NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE CRIME
REINSTATED THE CASE AGAINST THE OF HOMICIDE.. HENCE, DOUBLE
ACCUSED.. THE LATTER OBJECTED ON THE JEOPARDY SETS IN HERE.
GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. HELD.. NO e. 1st necessarily included in the second (I
DOUBLE JEOPARDY SET IN.. THERE WAS A CHARGE YOU WITH THEFT.. THE CASE
VIOLATION OF DUE OF PROCESS AND GRAVE WAS DISMISSED AT MY INSTANCE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN ARRAIGNED..
JUDGE.. HE SET THE HEARING AT 10 AM AND THEN I FILED ROBERRY AGAINST YOU..
YET HE DISMISSED IT AT 9AM.. THE CASE CAN ROBERRY NECESSARILY INCLUDES
BE REINSTATED
THE CRIME OF THEFT.. SAME
State Prosecutor v. Murro PRINCIPLE.. SOME ELEMENTS IS
MISSING (FORCE, VIOLENCE)
IMELDA MARCOS WAS CHARGED WITH
CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF CENTRAL EXCEPTONS:
BANK CIRCULARS.. JUDGE, WHILE HAVING HIS a. Supervening fact /Melo doctrine
BREAKFAST, HEARD OVER THE RADIO THAT
THE CB CIRCULARS HAVE BEEN REPEALED b. Newly discovered fact
PROMPTING HIM TO DECLARE IN THE COURT
AND ORDERED THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE
69 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
c. Plea to lesser offense without consent of
offended party or fiscal
[Garcia Plunder Case]
EXCEPTONS:
a. Supervening fact /Melo doctrine EX. YOU
STABBED.. YOU ARE CHARGED AND
ARRAIGNED FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES FOR
STABBING ME .. AFTER ARRAIGNMENT, I DIED
AS A RESULT OF THE STABBING WOUNDS.. SO
A NEW CHARGE OF HOMICIDE IS LEVELLED
AGAINST YOU.. HELD.. THAT IS OK IN VIEW OF
THE SUPERVENING FACT… WHILE PHYSICAL
INJURIES IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN
HOMICDE, MY DEATH IS THE SUPERVENING
FACT.. THAT IS ALLOWED.. THE FACT OF
DEATH OCCURRED AFTER THE ACCUSED HAS
BEEN ARRAIGNED.. THAT IS SUPERVENING
FACT.. ALLOWED BY THE AUTHORITY!!!
b. Newly discovered fact .. IST DAY YOU
WERE STABBED.. 2ND DAY A CASE WAS FILED
FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES AGAINST ME.. 3RD
DAY I DIED WITHOUT THE FISCAL HAVING
KNOWN OF MY DEATH.. ON THE 4TH DAY, THE
ACCUSED PLEADED GUILTY ON PHYISICAL
INJURIES..SO HERE, THE FISCAL IS ALLOWED
TO AMEND THE INFORMATION IN VIEW OF THE
NEWLY DISCOVERED FACT.. THAT IS
ALLOWED.. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY THERE IN
VIEW OF THE NEWLY DISCOVERED
EVIDENCE.. IT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED WITH
SUPERVENING FACT IN THAT IN THE LATTER,
THE FISCAL HAD KNOWLEDGE OF MY DEATH
THERE.. HERE, THE FISCAL HAS NO
KNOWLEDGE..
c. Plea to lesser offense without consent of
offended party or fiscal IT MUST BE NOTED THAT
IN A PLEA OF GUILTY, THE CONSENT OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY AND THE FISCAL MUST BE
HAD IN ORDER FOR THE SAME TO BE VALID..
ABSENT ANY OF THE 2, THE PLEA FOR
LESSER OFFENSE IS NULL AND VOID
c. Plea to lesser offense without consent of
offended party or fiscal IT MUST BE NOTED THAT
IN A PLEA OF GUILTY, THE CONSENT OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY AND THE FISCAL MUST BE
HAD IN ORDER FOR THE SAME TO BE VALID..
ABSENT ANY OF THE 2, THE PLEA FOR
LESSER OFFENSE IS NULL AND VOID AND THE
CASE CAN BE REINSTATED!!
[Garcia Plunder Case] GARCIA WAS CHARGED
WITH PLUNDER .. HE PLEADED GUILTY TO A
LESSER OFFENSE OF BRIBERY WITH THE
CONSENT OF THE PROSECUTORS OMB
WHICH IS BAILABLE.. (PROBABLY WITH THEIR
CONNIVANCE).. THE PROBLEM IS ALL
ELEMENTS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY ARE
PRESENT.. THIS IS A CASE OF PLEA OF
GUILTY FOR A LESSER OFFENSE
1. VALID COMPLAINT
2. FILED BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT
3. VALIDLY ARRAIGNED
4. VALIDLY TERMINATED BY CONVICTION
Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
Due to a vehicular accident, Iyvler was charged
before the Metropolitan Trial Court with two
separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case
No. 82367) for injuries sustained by Evangeline L.
Ponce; and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Homicide and Damage to Property (Criminal Case
No. 82366) for the death of Ponce‘s husband
Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses
Ponce‘s vehicle. He pleaded guilty to the charge in
Criminal Case No. 82367 and was meted out the
penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction,
accused moved to quash the Information in
Criminal Case No. 82366 for placing him in
jeopardy of second punishment for the same
offense of reckless imprudence. Should the
information be quashed? [As judge:]
A. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the
same offense as the first
B. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the
same act as the first.. THERE IS ONLY ONE
OFFENSE THERE.. THOUGH THE SAME
RESULTS TO 2 OR MORE EFFECTS..
EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE OR NEGLIGENCE
AND NOT ON THE RESULTS OF THE SAME
C. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a
different offense
D. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a
different act
2nd Type of Jeopardy: For the same act
NOTE THAT THE REQUISITES FOR DOUBLE
JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME ACT IS SIMILAR TO
THAT ―SAME OFFENSE‖ EXCEPT THE NO 3
REQUISITES.. KNOW THE DISTINCTION
Distinction between same act/same offense
1. As to basis of charge: ordinance and statute
70 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
IN THE FORMER, THE BASIS IS THE
ORDINANCE AND THE STATUTE WHILE THE
LATTER IS BASED ON THE STATUTE EITHER
UNDER THE REVISED PENAL CODE AND
SPECIAL LAWS
2. As to point of analysis: the act in time and space
[How many acts did accused perform]
THE FORMER, YOU LOOK AT THE ACT IN TIME
AND SPACE BY DETERMINING HOW MANY
ACTS DID THE ACCUSED PERFORM AND IF
FOUND TO BE INVOLVED WITH ONLY 1 ACT,
THE FORMER MUST APPLY.. WHILE IN THE
LATTER, YOU LOOK AT THE ELEMENTS OF
THE 2 OFFENSES, ONE OF THE ELEMENT IS
ONLY MISSING IN THE OTHER OFFENSE..
Cases:
1.P. v. Saley – Illegal recruitment and estafa-
THE COURT HELD THAT ILLEGAL
RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA AS NOT
CONSTITUTING DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE
SAME OFFENSE FOR THE REASON THAT THE
ELEMENTS OF ONE IS CLEARLY DISTINCT TO
THE OTHER..
2. Merencillo v. P. – Direct bribery [Art. 210,
RPC] and Anti-Graft [directly requesting a gift] THE
ELEMENTS OF THESE CRIMES ARE DISTINCT
FROM EACH THAT THE ACCUSED HEREOF
CAN BE CONVICTED ON THE RESPECTIVE
CASES EVEN FOR THE SAME ACT WITHOUT
PLACING THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE
JEOPARDY!! EVEN FOR THE SAME ACT THEY
CAN BE CONVICTED ON THESE SEPARATE
OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY ARE UNDER
PUNISHABLE UNDER THE STATUTES
3. Diaz v. DLPC – Theft of electricity [under Art.
308 of RPC] and unauthorized installation of
electrical connection [under RA 7832] THE
ELEMENTS OF BOTH OFFENSES ARE REALLY
DIFFERENT .. SO EACH CASE MAY BE
PURSUED EVEN FOR THE SAME ACT WITHOUT
VIOLATING DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. THEY DO
NOT CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR
THE SAME OFFENSE
Bar Questions:
1993, No. 13:
A pajero driven by A sideswiped a motorcycle
driven by B causing damage to the motorcycle and
injuries to B. The fiscal filed 2 informations against
A, to wit (a) reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property with physical injuries under Art.
365, RPC and (2) abandonment of one‘s victim
under Art. 275 of the RPC.
Can A claim double jeopardy in the second
charge if he is convicted in the first?
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 THE STATUTES WITH
ELEMENTS SO DISTINCT FROM EACH
OTHER!! THERE CAN BE NO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSES.
ACCUSED WAS CHARGED WITH CONSENTED
ABDUCTION AND GOT ACQUITTED.. THEN HE
WAS CHARGED AGAIN FOR QUALIFIED
SEDUCTION.. IS THERE DOUBLE JEOPARDY
FOR THE SAME OFFENSE?
1997, No. 2:
The SP of Manila approved ordinance 1000
prohibiting the operation in the streets within the
city limits of taxicab units over 8 years old. The
imposable penalty for violation thereof is a fine of
P4,000 or imprisonment for one year on the
operator. While the ordinance was in effect,
Congress enacted RA 500 prohibiting the the
operation throughout the country of taxicab units
beyond ten years old. The imposable penalty for
violation thereof is the same as in the ordinance.
A, an operator of a taxicab unit in Manila was
charged with violating it. But after arraignment, the
case was dismissed due to failure of witnesses to
show up. The prosecutor filed another information
for violation in of RA No. 500. Is there double
jeopardy?
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
71 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
1999, No. 7:
Consented Abduction & Qualified Seduction
CA QA
1. Virgin/12-18 1. Same
2. Abduction 2. Sexual intercourse
3. Lewd design 3. Abuse of authority
4. Consent of victim
THERE is NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE
SAME OFFENSE.. THE ELEMENTS OF BOTH
OFFENSES ARE CLEARLY DISTINCT AND
DIFFERENT.. HENCE, THE CRIME OF
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION MUST PROCEED !!
2000, No. 15:
Charged with libel, Pablo was arraigned on January
3,2000. Pre-trial was dispensed with and
continuous trial was set for March 7, 8 and 9, On
the first setting, the prosecution moved for its
postponement and cancellation of other settings
because its principal and probably only witness, the
private complainant Francisco, suddenly had to go
abroad, to fulfill a professional commitment. The
judge instead dismissed the case for failure to
prosecute (ON THE GROUND OF SPEEDY
TRIAL). Would the reversal of the trial court‘s order
of dismissal of the case place the accused in
double jeopardy?
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 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
surface 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 FOR 7
YEARS… A DISMISSAL OF CASE BASED
ON SPEEDY TRIAL CANNOT BE
REVIEWED EVEN IF THE SAME IS AT
THE INSTANCE OF THE ACCUSED!!
d. yes, because the dismissal was without the
expressed consent of accused
2002, No. 9
A Tamaraw FX driven by Asiong Cascasero, who
was drunk, sideswiped a pedestrian along Edsa in
Makati, resulting in physical injuries to the latter.
The public prosecutor filed 2 informations against
him for reckless imprudence resulting in physical
injuries under the RPC and the second for violation
of an ordinance in Makati penalizing driving under
the influence of liquor.
After his conviction for reckless imprudence,
Cascacero filed a motion to quash the charge
under the ordinance on the ground of double
jeopardy. Is he correct?
a. yes, because Asiong is being charged of
the same offense
b. yes, because he is being charged for the
same act…SO THIS IS FOR THE SAME
ACT PUNISHABLE UNDER THE STATUTE
AND ORDINANCE... YOU NEED TO
CONSIDER THE ACT IN TIME AND
PLACE.. HOW MANY ACTS DID THE
ACCUSED PERFORMED! HENCE,
DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME
ACT..
c. no, because the Fiscal committed grave
abuse of discretion
72 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
d. no, because the two offenses are not the
same
2008, No. 7:
Assume that upon being arraigned [murder], JC
entered a plea of guilty and was allowed to present
evidence to prove mitigating circumstances of self-
defense because the latter was strangling him and
that he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities.
Subsequently, the trial court rendered a decision
acquitting JC. Would an appeal by the prosecution
from the decision of acquittal violate JC‘s right
against double jeopardy? Why or why not?
BALISACAN CASE
YES IT CAN BE APPEALED!! ONCE THE
ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY AND HE PRESENTS
EVIDENCE WHICH TENDS TO EXCULPATE HIM,
THE JUDGE SHOULD DISMISS THE CASE AND
HAVE THE ACCUSED REARRAIGNED ON THE
VERY REASON THAT THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE ACCUSED IS
INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLEA OF GUILTY..
THE ARRAIGNMENT HERE IS NULL AND VOID.
THERE, THE FIRST JEOPARDY HAS NOT YET
ATTACHED…
A. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the
same offense as the first
B. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the
same act as the first
C. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a
different offense
D. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a
different act
Bar Question 2011:
16. There is double jeopardy when the dismissal of
the first case is
A. made at the instance of the accused invoking his
right to fair trial.
B. made upon motion of the accused without
objection from the prosecution.
C. made provisionally without objection from the
accused.
D. based on the objection of the accused to the
prosecution's motion to postpone trial. SO THE
ACCUSED IS INVOKING SPEEDY TRIAL HERE!!
DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN WHEN THE
ACCUSED MOVES FOR THE DISMISSAL OF
THE CASE BASED ON SPEEDY TRIAL
Sec. 22: Ex post Facto law- A criminal law with
retroactive effect prejudicial to the accused.
NOTE THE REQUISITES:
a. IT MUST BE A CRIMINAL STATUTE
b. IT IS GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT
c. IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ACCUSED
ABSENT ANY OF THESE REQUISITES, A LAW
CANNOT BE CONSIDERED EX POST FACTO
LAW!!
SITUATIONS OF A EX POST FACTO LAW
MEMO!!
1. A law which makes an action done before the
passage of the law, which was innocent when
done, criminal. EX. A LAW PUNISHING SMOKING
GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT.. I CANNOT BE
PROSECUTED FOR SMOKING YESTERDAY
UNDER THE SAID LAW… AT TE TIME I SMOKE,
IT WAS NOT STILL PUNISHABLE.. NOW THE
ORDINANCE PASSED TODAY PROHIBITING
SMOKING CANNOT PUNISH ME FOR SMOKING
YESTERDAY!!
2. A law which aggravates a crime or which makes
it greater than when it was committed. THE
PASSAGE OF PLUNDER LAW CANNOT BE
GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT
3. A law which changes the punishment and inflicts
a greater punishment than the law annexed to the
crime when committed. LAW PROVIDING DEATH
PENALTY CANNOT BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE
EFFECT!!
4. A law which assumes to regulate civil rights and
remedies only, but in effect imposes a penalty, or
the deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful.
5. A law which deprives persons accused of a
crime of some lawful protection to which they have
become entitled, such as the protection of a former
conviction or acquittal, or of proclamation of
amnesty.
Cases:
1. Bayot v. Sandiganbayan – preventive
suspension
He committed a crime now.. Later on the congress
passed a law amending the anti graft law providing
that people facing charges under the law shall
undergoe preventive suspension.. It was made
applicable to people who committed prior to
ammendment. HELD: PREVENTIVE
SUSPENSION IS NOT A PENALTY. THEREFORE
IT CAN BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE
APPLICATION..
73 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS
2. Binay v. Sandiganbayan –changing jurisdiciton
A LAW CHANGING COURTS JURISDICTION
OVER THE OFFENSE CAN BE GIVEN
RETROACTIVE EFFECT SINCE IT IS NOT A
PENAL LAW!!
3. Katigbak v. Solicitor – forfeiture of wealth
A LAW WAS PASSED PROVIDING PROCEDURE
FOR FORFEITURE OF WEALTH..
FORFIETURE OF WEALTH PROCEEDING WAS
INSTITUTED AGAINST THE KATIGBAK
COUPLES.. THE IMPUGNED THE SAME TO BE
EXPOST FACTO LAW IN VIEW OF THE FACT
THE SUCH WEALTH WAS STOLEN PRIOR TO
THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE LAW.. HELD: IT IS AN
EX POST FACTO LAW!! IT IS A law which
assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only,
but in effect imposes a penalty, or the deprivation of
a right for something which when done was lawful.
IT IS A LAW WHICH IN EFFECT EVENTUALLY
DEPRIVE THEM OF PROPERTY!!
4. P. v. Nitafan –Can a court without motion from
the accused dismiss a case on the ground that the
law on which the charge is based in ex post factO?
NO! REMEMBER IN CONSTI 1.. A LAW MAY BE
ONLY DECLARED UNCONSTITTIONAL IF THE
REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY ARE
PRESENT IN THAT THERE MUST BE VALID
ACTUAL CONTROVERSY, STANDING,ETC.. IF
NOBODY IS RAISING THE
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, THE COURT HAS NO
BUSINESS OF DISMISSING IT ON THE GROUND
OF IT IS EXPOSTFACTO LAW..
5. Fajardo v. CA. For issuing a bouncing check in
1981, accused was convicted of violation of BP Blg.
22 on May 26, 1988 by the Regional Trial Court.
His appeal to the Court of Appeals resulted to the
affirmance of the conviction on Feb. 27, 1993. He
applied for probation but it was denied because
under the amendment to PD No. 968 which
became effective in 1986, one who has perfected
an appeal is not eligible for probation. Accused
now contends that applying a 1986 amendment to
a crime committed in 1981 violates the prohibition
against ex post facto laws.
a. correct, because the probation law is a penal
statute
b. wrong, because the law is not being applied
retroactively…. THE LAW WAS PASSED ON
1986.. HE WAS CONVICTED ON 1993.. SO
THERE WAS NO RETROACTIVE APPLICATION!!
c. wrong, because the law is not unfavorable to
accused
d. wrong, because the ex post facto laws have
no application to amendments
2005, No. 2: The Philippines and Australia entered
into a Treaty of Extradition on Sept. 10, 1990. It
also took effect in 1990.
The Australian government is requesting the
Philippine government to extradite its citizen. A,
who has committed the indictable offense of
Obtaining Property by Deception in 1985. It is
listed as an extraditable offense.
A A claims that treaty violates the prohibition against
ex post facto law. Decide. [1996, No. 6][2007/3]
a. correct, because the treaty is penal in nature
b. wrong, because the treaty is not being applied
retroactively
c. wrong, because the treaty is not unfavorable
to accused
d. wrong, because the ex post fact laws have no
application to treaties
NO! THE TREATY IS NOT A CRIMINAL
STATUTE!!!
Which of the following would violate the prohibition
against ex post facto laws if given retroactive
effect?
A. A law which makes the prescriptive period for a
crime longer; IT IS PREJUICIAL TO THE
ACCUSED IF GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT!!
B. A law extending the allowable period of
detention of persons under investigation;
C. A law expanding the territorial jurisdiction of a
court;
A law authorizing preventive suspension of public
officers accused of crimes.
Lumanog v. People, 630 SCRA 42 (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 IS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION
AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAW BECAUSE IT IS
IN FACT FAVORABLE TO THEM!!
74 | P a g e
 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
BILL OF RIGHTS

OBSERVATION HOWEVER HAS IT THAT IT MAY 3. EXPOST FACTO LAW

CONSTITUTE LIMITATION ON THE POWER OF
THE PLENARY POWER OF PRESIDENT TO 4. BILL OF ATTAINDER
GRANT EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY INCLUDING
PAROLE WHICH SOLELY BELONGS TO THE 5. IMPRISONMENT FOR NON PAYMENT OF
PRESIDENT.. HOW CAN THEY HAVE THIS!! IT IS DEBT!! AND SO ON!!!
A FORM OF RESTRICITON TO THAT POWER OF MEMO ALL THE BILL OF RIGHTS
THE PRESIDENT PROVISIONS!!!!!

BILL OF ATTAiNDER- a law which inflicts THANK YOU DEAN!!! OUR GREAT PRIVILEGE
punishment without judicial trial. AND UTMOST GRATITUDE!!!
BILL OF ATTAINDER IS NOT ALLOWED
BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY A VIOLATION OF
SEPARATION OF POWER!! IT IS THE COURT
WHO DETERMINES GUILT NOT BY CONGRESS
BY MEANS OF A LAW!!

A GOOD EXAMPLE IS A LAWYER WAS

ACQUITTED FOR TREASON.. SO WHAT THE
CONGRESS DID, IT PASSED A LAW
CONVICTING HIM!! BILL OF ATTAINDER!!

ANOTHER IS WHEN PRESIDENT MARCOS

PASSED A LAW PROVIDING THAT CHARGED
WITH OFFENSES AGAINST NATIONAL
SECURITY SHALL BE NOT ALLOWED TO RUN
OR CANNOT RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. HELD:
THIS IS A CLEAR BIL OF ATTAINDER!! AS IT
ALREADY CONVICTS PEOPLE CHARGED ONLY
(NOTE NOT YET CONVICTED HERE) OF SAID
OFFENSES.

Republic v. RMDC [Mining permit]

THE PRESIDENT WITHDREW THE MINING

PERMITS.. IT WAS IMPUGNED FOR BEING BILL
OF ATTAINDER. HELD.. BILL OF ATTAINDER
APPLIES ONLY TO CRIMINAL STATUTES..
WITHDRAWING MINING PERMITS IS NOT A
PUNISHMENT.. NOTE IT IS ONLY A PRIVILEGE
GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT WHICH MAY BE
WITHDRAWN;.

Bar Question, 1988

WHAT ARE THE LIMITS ON THE POWER OF

THE CONGRESS IN PASSING CRIMINAL
STATUTES?

THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE LIMITATION OF

THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT!! MEMO
BILL OF RIGHTS!! WE ARE TAKING THE BAR..
THIS IS A GOOD LEARNING FROM DEAN

CONGRESS CANNOT PASS A LAW

1. PROVIDING INHUMANTE TREATMENT

2. PUNISHING PEOPLE BY REASON OF

RELIGIOUS BELIEFS

75 | P a g e