290 U.

S 398(1934)
Home Building and Loan association vs. Blassdell

Facts:
In 1933, in response to a large number of home foreclosures, Minnesota, like many other states
at that time, extended the time available for mortgagors to redeem their mortgages from foreclosure. The
extension had the effect of enlarging the mortgagors estate contrary to the terms of the contract.

Issue:
Whether or not the extension given to the mortgagor is a violation of the constitution?

Held:
The supreme court upheld the statute , reasoning that the emergency conditions created by the
Great depression may justify the exercise of continuing and dominant protective power notwithstanding
interference with contracts.

Digested by: Philippe King G.

Dela Pea

146 SCRA 323

Florentina A. Lozano vs Hon Antonio M. Martinez
Yap, J

Facts:

Petitioner , charged of BB 22, assail the laws constitutionality. BP 22 punishes a person "who
makes or draws and issues any check on account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not
have sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the payment of said check in full upon presentment,
which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have
been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment.

Issue:
Whether or not BB 22 impairs the freedom to contract?

Held:

No. The freedom of contract which is constitutionally protected is freedom to enter into lawful
contracts. Contracts which contravene public policy are not lawful. We must bear in mind that checks can
not be categorized as mere contracts. It is a commercial instrument which in this modern day and age, has
become a convenient substitute for money; it forms part of the banking system and therefore not entirely
free from regulatory power of the state.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

94 SCRA 533
Ortigas and Co. Limited partnership vs. Feati bank and trust Co.

Facts:

Plaintiff is engaged in real estate business , developing and selling properties to public. The
plaintiff entered into separate agreement of sale with Agusto and Natividad Angeles. The vendees
transferred their right and interest over the lot to Emma Chavez. The deed of sale has stipulation that the
lot will be used exclusively for residential purposes. The lot was eventually acquired by the defendan and
began the construction of building devoted for banking purposes. The following day the plaintiff
demanded in writing to stopped the construction of the building but the defendant refused to comply
contending that the construction was in accordance of RN 27 of mandaluyong which declares that those
lots are considered commercial and industrial zone.

Issue:

Whether or not Resolution No. 27 can supersede the contract?

Held:

Resolution number 27 was passed in the exercise of police power to promote health,
safety,peace, good order and general welfare of the people. The state in order to promote may interfere
with personel liberty , with prosperity and with business occupations. Non impairment of contract in
constitutionally guaranteed but must be reconciled with the legitimate exercise of police power.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

201 SCRA 13
Presley vs. Bel- air village Association

Facts:

A complaint for specific performance and damages with preliminary injunction was filed by
plaintiff against Teofilo Almendress and Rodolfo Almendres which was substituted by Presley, for the
violation of the Deed restriction of Bel- Air subdivision that the subject lot shall be used only for
residential and not for commercial purposes. The issues raised in the instant petition have already been
dealt within the consolidated cases decided by the court promulgated on December 22 ,1988 entitled
Sangalang Doctrine.

Issue:
Whether or not the deed of restriction is constitutional?

Held:

Yes, there is no new zoning re- classification, ordinance and certification to the effect or
jurisprudence to brought about the attention of the court. The provisions of the deed of restrictions are in
the nature of contractual obligations freely entered by the parties. Undoubtedly they are valid and can be
enforced against the petitioner.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

300 U.S 379 (1937)

West Coast Hotel Co. vs Parish
Justice Highes

Facts:
Elsie Parrish, a chamber maid, working at the Cascadian Hotel in Wenatchee, Washington, along
with her husband,sued the hotel for the difference between what she was paid, and the 48 hrs at $14.50
per week established as a minimum wage by the industrial welfare committee and supervisors of women
in that industry pursuant to Washington state law. The trial court ruled in favour of the dependant. The
Washington supreme court reversed the decision in favour of Parrish. The hotel appealed to U. S supreme
court.

Issue:

Whether or not there is a valid impairment of contract?

Held:

Yes. The U. S Supreme court rendered its decision upholding the constitutionality of minimum
wage legislation enacted by the state of Washington because such restriction protects the community,
health, and safety of vulnerable groups.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

384 U. S 436
Miranda vs. Arizona
Justice Warren

Facts:
The Supreme Courts decision in Miranda v. Arizona addressed four different cases
involving custodial interrogations. In each of these cases, the defendant was questioned by police
officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside
world. In none of these cases was the defendant given a full and effective warning of his rights at
the outset of the interrogation process. In all the cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions
and, in three of them, signed statements that were admitted at trial.
Issue:
Whether statements obtained from an individual who is subjected to custodial police
interrogation are admissible against him in a criminal trial?
Held:
The Court held that without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of
persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to
undermine the individuals will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise
do so freely. Therefore, a defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right
to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the
right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed
for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

353 SCRA 307

People vs Endino

Facts:

An information for murder of Dennis Aquino was filed against Edward Endino and his uncle,
Gerry Galgarin,and warrants were issued for their arrest. Gerry was arrested in Antiplo and was fetched
by the Palawan police. On their way to the airport, they stopped at ABS- CBN station and were
interviewed by the reporters. In his Interview, he admits his guilt and points his nephew as the gunman.
During the trial, he disowned his confession and claimed that it was induced by the threats of the arresting
police.

Issue:
Whether or not galgarins confession is admissible as an evidence?

Held:
The confession during the interview was not form part of custodial investigation as it was not
form part of custodial investigation at it was not given to the police but to the media. This type of
confession always remains suspect and therefore should be examined further. The confession is
inadmissible to the court as evidence.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

162 SCRA 642

Gamboa vs Cruz

Facts:
Christopher Gamboa was arrested for vagrancy. Gamboa was brought to precint 2 and was
included in line up of five detainees. He was pointed out by Erlinda Bernal as part of the group who
robbed her. Gamboa instead of presenting his defense , filed a Motion of Demurrer of Evidence
predicating that he was included in the line-up without without notice ang in the absence of his counsel.
The court of First instance denied his motion.
Issue:
Whether or not Gamboa is entitled to counsel , as part of his right in custodial investigation , at
the time he was placed in police line up?

Held:
The police line-up was not part of the custodial investigation, hence Gamboa was not yet entitled
at such stage of his right to counsel.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

329 SCRA 436

People vs Elberto Base,

Facts:
Elberto Base was positively identified as the one who in shot Julianito Luna . Elberto
Base executed a written Sworn Statement with the assistance and presence of Atty. Romeo
Reyes, who testified in court, to the effect that he assisted the accused in the execution of his
statement, by telling Elberto Base of his constitutional rights before said execution.Accusedappellant denied having anything to do with the fatal shooting of the victim and alleges, in sum,
that he was tortured to admit the crime. He was picked up by three armed men in civilian clothes
who told him to come along with them as they would ask him some questions.He was brought at
the house of Amelia Quizon. Upon their arrival at Quizons place, a gun was poked at accusedappellant and he was ordered to lie down facing the ground. As he lay thus, he was trussed up at
the neck, bound hand and foot with abaca rope with his hands tied behind his back.Accusedappellant was brought to the barracks and there he was mauled, pounded with gun barrels and
gun butts by fifteen persons and forced to admit to the shooting of the victim. As a result of the
mauling, his lips bled and he broke a tooth.

Issue:
Whether or not Elbertos statement is admissible to the court alledging that his counsel
was not competent and independent of his own choice?
Held:

While the initial choice in cases where a person under custodial investigation cannot
afford the services of a lawyer is naturally lodged in the police investigators, the accused really
has the final choice as he may reject the counsel chosen for him and ask for another one. A
lawyer provided by the investigators is deemed engaged by the accused where he never raised
any objection against the formers appointment during the course of the investigation

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

63 SCRA 4
Magtoto vs Manguera

Facts:
Judge Miguel M Manguera of Mindanao and judge Villaluz of Pasig declared admissible the
confessions of the accused while District Judge Asaali S. Isnani of Zamboanga Del Sur on the other
hand, declared the confession of the accused inadmissible although they have not been informed of their
right to remain silent and to counsel before they gave the confessions . these confessions are given before
the effectivity of the 1973 constitution.

Issue:
Whether or not the right to counsel and to be informed in such right applies prospectively or
retrospectively?

Held:
The provision should be given effect only when the right already existed. Since the confession of
the accused were taken before the effectivity of the constitution in accordance with the rules then in
force, no right had been violated as to render them in admissible because no such right existed at that
time.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

302 SCRA 385

People of the Philippines vs. vs. Larry Mahinay

Facts:

Larry Mahinay, working as houseboy with Maria Isip, was accused for raping
and killing Ma. Victoria Chan.Mahinay was arrested in Barangay Obario Matala,
Ibaan, Batangas. He was brought to the Valenzuela Police Station. On 7 July 1995,
with the assistance of Atty. Restituto Viernes, Mahinay executed an extra-judicial
confession wherein he narrated in detail how he raped and killed the victim. Also,
when Mahinay came face to face with the victim's mother and aunt, he confided to
them that he was not alone in raping and killing the victim. He pointed to Zaldy and
Boyet as his co-conspirators. Thus, on 10 July 1995, Mahinay was charged with rape
with homicide, to which he pleaded not guilty. After trial, the lower court rendered a
decision convicting Mahinay of the crime charged.

Issue:
Whether or not Larrys confession is admissible to the court as evidence?
Held:
Said confession of Mahinay given with the assistance of Atty. Restituto
Viernes is believed to have been freely and voluntarily given. That accused did not
complain to the proper authorities of any maltreatment on his person. The Court
noted that a lawyer from the Public Attorneys Office Atty. Restituto Viernes and as
testified by said Atty. Viernes he informed and explained to Mahinay his
constitutional rights and was present all throughout the giving of the testimony.
There being no evidence presented to show that said confession were obtained as a
result of violence, torture, maltreatment, intimidation, threat or promise of reward
or leniency nor that the investigating officer could have been motivated to concoct
the facts narrated in said affidavit; the confession of the accused is held to be true,
correct and freely or voluntarily given. In his extrajudicial confession, Mahinay
himself admitted that he had sexual congress with the unconscious child.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

332 SCRA 190

People vs Jimmy Obrero y Corla
Mendoza, J
Facts:

This is an appeal from the decision of RTC , branch 12 of Manila. The accused testified that he
had worked for Angie Cobasas, neighbour of his sister in Pangasinan. He delivered dressed chickens to
Emma Cabresas in Claro M Recto Manila. Emmas house was robbed and her maids were killed. Jimmy
was arrested and denies his participation in the commission of the crime and claimed that he was
arrested without warrant. He also claimed that after being informed of the charges against him he was
beaten up , detained for a week and made to execute a extrajudicial confession. He denied having known
or seen of Atty. Delos Reyes and stated that he did not understand the content of the extrajudicial
confession because he does not know how to read.

Issue:

Whether or not his extrajudicial confession is valid?

Held:
No. The reading of Miranda right is inadequate to transmit information to the suspect. Article III
sec 12 of the constitution requires having an independent counsel of his own choice. Atty Delos Reyes
being the PC captain and station commander is not an independent counsel. There is also no other
evidence presented except such confession.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea

240 SCRA 541

People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Agustin
Davide Jr. J

Facts:
Dr. Bayquen , a dentist , and his sons girlfriend were killed on their way aboard their Brasilia at
Malvar St. Baguio city. Quiao, an alleged former military who have been picked up by the police
authorities, confessed during the investigation that he was the triggerman. He implicated that Abenoja
Jr. Engaged him to kill Dr. Bayquen for a fee. Stenographic notes of the proceedings during the
investigation as transcribed with the sworn statement of Quiao was signed with the assistance of Atty.
Cajucom. Agustin, the one who hired him, was apprehended and investigated w/ privilege like with
Quiao. His defense interpose that he was forced to admit the involvement and that Atty cajucom
interviewed him only for two minutes in English and Tagalog and not in Ilokano, the dialect he
understand.

Issue:
Whether or not his extrajudicial statements are admissible as evidence?

Held:

No. Extrajudicial statement is not extrajudicial confession. In a confession , there is an

acknowledgement of guilt of the accused. The rule on inadmissibility, however expressly includes
admission not just confession. The appellant was not also told of his right to have a competent and
independent counsel of his own choice.

Digested by: Philippe King G. Dela Pea