You are on page 1of 9

Constitutional Law II Cases

Article III
Bill of Rights
Sec. 1
Procedural Law Process
56 Pafianco v. Moral, 322 SCRA 439
Former DECS Secretary filed an administrative complaint against respondent for dishonesty.
She was dismissed. Respondent filed a petition for mandamus to compel petitioner to furnish
her a copy of the DECS Investigation Committee Report. It was denied.
ISSUE: Whether
A respondent in an administrative case is not entitled to be informed of the findings
andrecommendations of any investigating committee created to inquire into charges filed
againsthim. He is entitled only to the administrative decision and a reasonable opportunity to
meet thecharges and the evidence presented during the hearings of the investigation
committee.Respondent had been accorded these rights.

57 Roxas v. CA 321 SCRA 106
Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three
haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of
Nasugbu, Batangas. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 was passed
allowing it to be distributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Before the laws passage Caylaway was
already in voluntary sale to DAR as filed by petitioner. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later
placed under compulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL.
In a letter dated September 28, 1992, respondent DAR Secretary informed petitioner that a
reclassification of the land would not exempt it from agrarian reform. Respondent Secretary also
denied petitioner's withdrawal of the VOS on the ground thatwithdrawal could only be based on
specific grounds such as unsuitability of the soil for agriculture, or if the slope of the land is over
18 degrees and that the land is undeveloped. Despite the denial of the Voluntary Offer to sell
withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, on May 11, 1993, petitioner filed its application for
conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad. , through its President, Eduardo Roxas,
reiterated its request to withdraw the VOSover Hacienda Caylaway
WON the courts are in a better position to resolve petitioner's application for conversion of land.
No. Dar has the better position to resolve.
Indeed, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself
authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an
administrative body of special competence.[91] Respondent DAR is in a better position to
resolve petitioners application for conversion, being primarily the agency possessing the
necessary expertise on the matter. The power to determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad
and Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempt from the coverage of the CARL lies with the
DAR, not with this Court.
Finally, we stress that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due
process in the acquisition proceedings does not give this Court the power to nullify the CLOAs
already issued to the farmer beneficiaries. To assume the power is to short-circuit the
administrative process, which has yet to run its regular course. Respondent DAR must be given
the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings.
58 Summary Dismissal Board v. Toricta 330 SCRA 153, GR 130442, April 6, 2000
Respondent was charged with 12 administrative complaints which were consolidated into one
major complaint, which is, conduct unbecoming of a police officer. The Summary Dismissal
Board suspended respondent from service for 20 days, for simple irregularity in the
performance of service. The Board later found respondent to have committed a breach of
internal discipline by taking alcoholic drinks while on duty.
ISSUE: Was there due process?
Respondent was entitled to know that he was being charged with being drunk while in the
performance of duty. Although he was given the opportunity to be heard on the multiple and
broad charges filed against him, the absence of specification of the offense for which he was
eventually found guilty is not a proper observance of due process.

59 Sec. of Justice v. Lantion, 343 SCRA 377, GR. 139465, Oct. 17, 2000

The DOJ received from the DFA of the United States requesting for the extradition of Mark
Jimenez for various crimes in violation of US laws. In compliance with the related municipal law,
adition Treaty
Between the Government of the Philippines and the Government of the United States of
America, the department proceeded with proceeded with the designation of a panel of attorneys
to conduct a technical evaluation and assessment as provided for in the presidential decree and
the treaty. The respondent requested for a copy of the official extradition request as well as the
documents and papers submitted therein. The petitioner denied the request as it alleges that
such information is confidential in nature and that it is premature toprovide such document as
the process is not a preliminary investigation but a mere evaluation. Therefore, the constitutional
rights of the accused are not yet available
1.Whether or not private respondent, Mark B. Jimenez, be granted access to the official
extradition request and documents with an opportunity to file a comment on or opposition
2.Whether or not private respondents entitlement to notice and hearing during the evaluation
stage of the proceedings constitute a breach of the legal duties of the Philippine Government
under the RP-US Extradition Treaty
The Supreme Court ruled that the private respondent be furnished a copy of the extradition
request and its supporting papers and to give him a reasonable period of time within which to
file his comment with supporting evidence. In this case, there exists a clear conflict between the
obligation of the Philippine Government to comply with the provisions of the treaty and its
equally significant role of protection of its citizens of its right of due process. The processes
outlined in the treaty and in the presidential decree already pose an impending threat to a
prospective extraditees liberty as early as the evaluation stage. It is not an imagined threat to
his liberty, but a very imminent one. On the other hand, granting due process to the extradition
case causes delay in the process. The rule of pacta sunt servanda, one of the oldest and most
fundamental maxims of international law, requires the parties to a treaty to keep their agreement
therein in good faith. The doctrine of incorporation is applied whenever municipal tribunals are
confronted with situations in which there appears to be a conflict between a rule of international
law and the provisions of the constitution or statute of a local state. Efforts should be done to
harmonize them. In a situation, however, where the conflict is irreconcilable and a choice has to
be made between a rule of international law and municipal law, jurisprudence dictates that
municipal law should be upheld by the municipal courts. The doctrine of incorporation decrees
that rules of international law are given equal standing, but are not superior to, national
legislative enactments. In this case, there is no conflict between international law and municipal
law. The United States and the Philippines share a mutual concern about the suppression and
punishment of crime in their respective jurisdictions. At the same time, both States accord
common due process protection to their respective citizens. In fact, neither the Treaty nor the
Extradition Law precludes the rights of due process from a prospective extradite

60 Government of the USA v. Purganan 389 SCRA 623 Sept. 24, 2002
The United States Government sent to the Philippine Government Note Verbale No. 0522dated
June 16, 1999, supplemented by Note Nos. 0597, 0720 and 0809 requesting the extradition of
Mark B. Jimenez, also known as Mario Batacan Crespo. Upon learning of the request for his
extradition, Jimenez sought and was granted a TRO by the RTC of Manila, Branch 25. The TRO
prohibited the DOJ from filing with the RTC a petition for his extradition. Before the RTC could
act on the Petition, Respondent Jimenez filed before it an Urgent Manifestation/Ex-Parte
Motion, which prayed that petitioners application for an arrest warrant be set for hearing. The
RTC granted the Motion of Jimenez and set the case for hearing on June 5, 2001.After the
hearing, the court a quo required the parties to submit their respective memoranda. In his
Memorandum, Jimenez sought an alternative prayer: that in case a warrant should issue, he be
allowed to post bail in the amount of P100, 000.The alternative prayer of Jimenez was also set
for hearing on June 15, 2001. Thereafter, the court below issued its questioned July 3, 2001
Order, directing the issuance of a warrant for his arrest and fixing bail for his temporary liberty at
one million pesos in cash. After he had surrendered his passport and posted the required cash
bond, Jimenez was granted provisional liberty via the challenged Order dated July 4, 2001.
1. Whether or not Jimenez is entitled to notice and hearing before a warrant for his arrest can be
issued, and
2. Whether or not he is entitled to bail and to provisional liberty while the extradition proceedings
are pending.

1. No. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants
of arrest. The case under consideration is an extradition and not a criminal action; therefore it is
not sufficient to justify the adoption of a set of procedures more protective of the accused.
2. No. The constitutional provision on bail applies only when a person has been arrested and
detained for violation of Philippine criminal laws. It does not apply to extradition proceedings,
because extradition courts do not render judgments of conviction or acquittal.
Sec. 2
Warrantless Searches and Seizures
133 People v. Lo Ho Wing 193 SCRA 122
People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 F: Peter Lo , together with co-accused Lim Cheng Huat
alias Antonio Lim and Reynaldo Tia, were charged with a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act,
for the transport of metamphetamine hydrochloride, otherwise known as "shabu". The drug was
contained in tea bags inside tin cans which were placed inside their luggages. Upon arrival from
Hongkong, they boarded the taxis at the airport which were apprehended by CIS operatives.
Their luggages were subsequently searched where the tea bags were opened and found to
contain shabu. Only Lo and Lim were convicted. Tia was discharged as a state witness, who
turned out to be a " deep penetration agent" of the CIS in its mission to bust the drug syndicate .
W/N the search and seizure was legal.
YES That search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. One
of the exceptions thereto is a search of a moving vehicle. The circumstance of the case clearly
show that the serach in question was made as regards a moving vehicle.
Therefore, a valid warrant was not necessary to effect the search on appellant and his co-
accused. It was firmly established from the factual findings of the court that the authorities had
reasonable ground to believe that appellant would attempt to bring in contraband and transport
within the country. The belief was based on intelligence reports gathered from surveillance
activities on the suspected syndicate, of which appellant was touted to be amember. Aside from
this, they were also certain as to the expected date and time of arrival of the accused from
China via Hongkong. But such knowledge was insufficient to enable them to fulfill the
requiremnents for the issuance of a search warrant. Still and all, the important thing is that there
was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search, which must still be present in the case.

134 People v. Malmstedt 198 SCRA 401
Malmstedt was a passenger on a bus from Sagada to Baguio which was stopped at a
checkpoint in Camp Dangwa. The checkpoint was set up on the basis of reports that vehicles
from Sagada were being used to transport marijuana. Moreover, information had been received
that a Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited in his possession. During the inspection,
officers noticed a bulge in accuseds waist. When accused refused to comply with the request
for indetification papers, he was made to show what he had on his waist. It was found to contain
hashish. On stepping outside, accused stopped to pick up two travelling bags which upon being
opened, were also found to contain prohibited drugs. Accused claimed illegal research.
Whether or not Malmstedts contention is tenable.
No. The search was made as an incident to his arrest when he was found in possession of
illegal drugs. The arrest was made on probabale cause taht he was committing a crime. The
warrantless search of the bus was a valid search of a moving vehicle.
135 Posadas v. CA 188 SCRA 288
Members of the Integrated National Police (INP) of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned with the
Intelligence Task Force, Pat. Ursicio Ungab and Pat. Umbra Umpar conducted surveillance
along Magallanes Street, Davao City. While in the vicinity of Rizal Memorial Colleges they
spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag and they noticed him to be acting suspiciously. They
approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP. Petitioner
attempted to flee but his attempt to get away was unsuccessful. They then checked the "buri"
bag of the petitioner where they found one (1) caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver with Serial
No. 770196, two (2) rounds of live ammunition for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke (tear gas)
grenade, and two (2) live ammunitions for a .22 caliber gun. They brought the petitioner to the
police station for further investigation. In the course of the same, the petitioner was asked to
show the necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions found in his
possession but he failed to do so. He was then taken to the Davao Metrodiscom office and the
prohibited articles recovered from him were indorsed to M/Sgt. Didoy the officer then on duty.
He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the Regional Trial
Court of Davao City.
Whether or Not the warantless search is valid.
In justifying the warrantless search of the buri bag then carried by the petitioner, argues that
under Section 12, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court a person lawfully arrested may be searched
for dangerous weapons or anything used as proof of a commission of an offense without a
search warrant. It is further alleged that the arrest without a warrant of the petitioner was lawful
under the circumstances.
In the case at bar, there is no question that, indeed, it is reasonable considering that it was
effected on the basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted
suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri bag there was a probable cause that he was
concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to
inspect the same.
It is too much indeed to require the police officers to search the bag in the possession of the
petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant for the purpose. Such an exercise
may prove to be useless, futile and much too late.

Clearly, the search in the case at bar can be sustained under the exceptions heretofore
discussed, and hence, the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and
seizures has not been violated.

136 Bagalihog v. Fernandez 198 SCRA 614
Rep. Moises Espinosa was shot to death shortly after disembarking at the Masbate Airport.
Witnesses said one of the gunmen fled on a motorcycle. On the same day, the petitioner's
house, which was near the airport, was searched with his consent to see if the killers had
sought refuge there. The search proved fruitless.
Two days later, Capt. Julito Roxas and his men from the Philippine Constabulary seized the
petitioner's motorcycle and took it to the PC headquarters in Masbate. They had no search
warrant. The motorcycle was impounded on the suspicion that it was one of the vehicles used
by the killers.

137 People v. Cuachon 238 SCRA 540
There was a rampant selling of the illegal drug Shabu in Makati. And accused-appellant in t
his case was one of the suspected pushers and was subjected to a buy-bust operation or
entrapment. Using marked money the operatives purchased from Cuachon and upon
confirmation that it was indeed shabu he was selling. The operatives raided the residence of
Cuachon with in which it was found a pot session of 6 people including the accused with all the
drug paraphernalia scattered around.
Was the arrest, search and seizure valid?

Yes. All the requisites of valid search and arrest was present.

For a valid arrest the person to be arrested must be commiting or actually committing the crime
which he was. The warrantless search was also valid because of the incidental nature of the
search prior to the arrest. The item to be search was well-known to be in the custody of the
Warrantless Arrest
180 Larranaga v. CA 287 SCRA 521

Petitioner Larranaga was charged with two counts of kidnapping and serious illegaldetention
before the RTC of Cebu City. He was arrested and was detained withoutthe filing of the
necessary Information and warrant of arrest. The petitioner allegedthat he must be released and
be subject to a preliminary investigation. Howeverpending the resolution of the Court for the
petition for certiorari, prohibitionand mandamus with writs of preliminary prohibitory and
mandatory injunction filedby the petitioner, RTC judge issued a warrant of arrest directed to the
1.Whether petitioner is entitled to a regular preliminary investigation.
2.Whether petitioner should be released from detention pending theinvestigation.
1.Yes. Our ruling is not altered by the fact that petitioner has been arraigned onOctober 14,
1997. The rule is that the right to preliminary investigation iswaived when the accused fails to
invoke it before or at the time of entering aplea at arraignment. Petitioner, in this case, has been
actively andconsistently demanding a regular preliminary investigation even before hewas
charged in court. Also, petitioner refused to enter a plea during thearraignment because there
was a pending case in this Court regarding hisright to avail of a regular preliminary investigation.
Clearly, the acts of petitioner and his counsel are inconsistent with a waiver.
Preliminaryinvestigation is part of procedural due process. It cannot be waived unlessthe waiver
appears to be clear and informed.
2.No. The filing of charges and the issuance of the warrant of arrest against aperson invalidly
detained will cure the defect of that detention or at leastdeny him the right to be released
because of such defect.The originalwarrantless arrest of the petitioner was doubtless illegal.
Nevertheless, theRegional Trial Court lawfully acquired jurisdiction over the person of
thepetitioner by virtue of the warrant of arrest it issued on August 26, 1993against him and the
other accused in connection with the rape-slay cases. Itwas belated, to be sure, but it was
nonetheless legal.

181 People v. Olivarez GR 77865, Dec. 4, 1998
Involved in this case is the crime of robbery with homicide committed during the season of
yuletide. Rafael Olivarez, Jr. And Danilo Arrellano was being accused of killing Mr. Sy a
business man and his father on December 26. They were convicted and was sentenced to
death. Hence, Olivarez appealed and contented that he was arrested without warrant and was
not given competent counsel in the case.
ISSUE: Can Olivarez be acquitted based from the contentions?
HELD: Yes. The weight of the facts resulting to his conviction were light and are not sufficient to
prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
First, appellants were arrested without a valid a valid warrant of arrest and their arrest cannot
even be justified under any of the recognized exceptions for a valid warrantless arrest. The
evidences they have gathered is rendered inadmissible.
The confession made by Olivarez extrajudicially was inadmissible due to the missing requisite of
having a competent counsel by his side during the confession.
The appellants are aquitted.