You are on page 1of 32



SEC 2 Facts: Officers of the government issued 42 search warrants against Stonehill
et al. and their corporations. The application alleged that the things to be
SJS v DDB seized are books, records, vouchers, all adverted to be in relation to the
(mandatory drug testing; requirement of a valid search) violation of the Central Bank Laws, RPC, Internal Revenue Code, and Tariff
and Customs Laws.
Facts: Petitions emerged assailing the constitutionality of RA 9165 of
otherwise known as the Comprehensive Drugs Act insofar as it required the The SC ruled that the issued warrants were general and does not particularly
mandatory drug testing of different persons. describe the things to be seized, much more the crime for which they were
alleged. The SC further exclaimed that it was possible for the judge, upon
On candidates for public office, the SC held that it was unconstitutional probable cause, to issue warrants because of there was no particular crime
because it added qualifications for senators beyond the mandate of the alleged.
constitution. On students of secondary and tertiary schools, constitutional
because schools and their administrators stand in locus parentis with their As regards the first group, Stonehill et al have no cause of action to assail the
students and have the duty to safeguard their health and well-being.(schools legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance
have the right to impose conditions on applications for admission).On thereof, for the simple reason that said corporations have their respective
employees of public and private offices, valid because of compelling state personalities, separate and distinct from their personality, regardless of the
interest. On persons charged, the SC held that the mandatory drug testing is amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of them in said
unconstitutional as the law’s mandate of randomness and suspicionless is not corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein may be.
present for the accused.
It is well settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the
DOCTRINE: The operative concepts in the mandatory drug testing are party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an
randomness and suspicionless. As the warrantless clause of Sec. 2, Art 3 of unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by
the Constitution is couched and as has been held, reasonableness is the third parties.
touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion.
DOCTRINE: Two points must be stressed in connection with this
REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT constitutional mandate, namely: (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon
probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in said
PEOPLE v. VELOSO (John Doe warrant, description personae) provision (2) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be
Facts: Petitioner’s contention was, the search warrant indicated ―John Doe‖,
instead of ―Jose M. Veloso‖ and hence he shall not be apprehended. CENTRAL BANK v. MORFE (general pattern of business)

The SC ruled that the search warrant was valid insofar as it described in Petitionersextends financial assistance in the forms of loans. Central Bank
detail the premises, and the person, despite it having ―John Doe‖ as its name filed for a search warrant alleging that the Organization is engaging in illegal
banking activities without having first complied with the provisions RA 337.
DOCTRINE: A warrant for apprehension of a person whose true name is
unknown, by the name of John or Richard Doe, is void, without other and The municipal judge granted such. Respondent judge, granted an injunction
further descriptions to be apprehended, and such warrant will not justify the against the previous order, reasoning that the warrant is roving commission
officer in acting under it. Such a warrant must contain the BEST description for not specifying specific transactions of specific persons.
personae possible to be obtained of the person or persons to be apprehended.
Respondent reasoned out that since the complainant knows that the bank is
STONHILL v. DIOKNO (general warrants, rule on exclusion) engaged in illegal activities, the warrant should have covered only the
specific illegal transactions of the Organization with specific persons. To


authorize and seize all the records listed would be to harass the Organization, his witnesses.
and would be a roving commission or fishing expedition.
DOCTRINE: What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and
The SC ruled that the injunction must be lifted because it does not necessarily personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence
mean that there is no personal knowledge by the witness if specific names of probable cause. Following established doctrines and procedure, he shall:
were not enumerated in the complaint. There is no law also which limits
search warrants to things which cannot be secured otherwise 1.Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by
the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof,
An illegal banking transaction complaint must not always connote the issue a warrant of arrest or 

existence of a victim. The line of reasoning of respondent Judge might
perhaps be justified if the acts imputed to the Organization are isolated 2.If on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
transactions. However, such is not the case at bar. The records suggest clearly fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of
that the transactions objected to by the Bank constitute the general pattern of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of
the business of the Organization. 
 probable cause. 

BACHE & CO v. RUIZ (depositions made by clerk) Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges will be unduly laden
with the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints
Petitioners are assailing such warrant’s validity, because the judge did not instead on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts.

personally examine the complainant and his witness. The asked his clerk to
do the examination because he is hearing a case.
LIM SR. v. JUDGE (certification used by judge)
The examination of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce, should
Information of murder was filed against respondent Lim with the Masbate
be conducted by the judge himself and not the others. Such personal
RTC. Lim filed a petition for change of venue. The records of the preliminary
examination by the judge is necessary to enable him to determine the
investigation were still in Masbate when Judge Felix issued warrants of
existence or non-existence of a probable cause
arrest. There was no basis for him to make his own personal
determination regarding the existence of probable cause.
In the present case, NO personal examination at all was conducted by
respondent Judge of the complainant and his witness.
While it is true that the The determination of probable cause for the warrant of arrest is made by
complaint’s application for search warrant and the witness’ printed-form the Judge. The preliminary investigation proper is the function of the
deposition were subscribed and sworn to before respondent Judge, the latter Prosecutor. 

did not ask either of the two any question the answer to which could possibly
be the basis for determining whether or not there was probable cause.
If a Judge relies solely on the certification of the Prosecutor as in this case
where all the records of the investigation are in Masbate, he or she has not
SOLIVEN v. MAKASIAR( judge not required to personally examine)
personally determined probable cause. The determination is made by the
Provincial Prosecutor. Because of this, the Court ruled that constitutional
Soliven questions the manner in which the judge issued the warrant of arrest. requirement has not been satisfied.
His understanding of Section 2 Article III was that judges should personally
examine the complainant and his witness. DOCTRINE: In making the required personal determination, a Judge is not
precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible
The Court ruled that this was a wrong interpretation, as judges will be officers. The extent of the reliance depends on the circumstances of each case
burdened with examination and investigation if it were so. In satisfying and is subject to the Judge’s sound discretion. However, the Judge abuses
himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of that discretion when having no evidence before him, he issues a warrant of
arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and


arrest. Members of the police went at Ogayon’s house. They found

shabuparaphernalia in the bathroom 5 meters away from his home. He
PEOPLE v. FRANCISO (different address of house) questions the validity of the warrant claiming it was defective for lack of
transcript showing that the issuing judge conducted examinations of applicant
and his witness.
SPO2 Teneros together with police officers conducted a search and seizure
operation in Apartment no. 120 of Annabelle Francisco. There they
confiscated several drug paraphernalia which was used as evidence in the SC ruled that failure to attach to the records the depositions of the
prosecution of Annabelle. The validity of the search is being questioned as it complainant/witness or transcript of the judge’s examination does not nullify
conducted the search in a different place rather than that written in the the warrant. However, in this case there is no record that the issuing judge
warrant (Apartment no. 122). personally and thoroughly examined the applicant and his witnesses. SPO4
Caritos was among those who conducted the surveillance but he was not the
the search warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched is to the one who applied for the warrant and he did not know who applied for it.
end that no unreasonable search warrant and seizure may not be made and
abuses may not be committed. However, this is not without exception. A DOCTRINE: A search warrant is a nullity if there is no evidence that an
description of the place is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can with examination was made for the determination of a probable cause
reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended.
MHP v. CA (boy scout, enough time to secure a warrant)
The SC ruled that the search and seizure conducted was invalid as the
officers, although familiar with the place to be searched, acted outside the MHP Garments was awarded the exclusive franchise to sell and distribute
authority granted by the warrant. scout uniforms. Petitioner de Guzman, employee of MHP Garments, raided
respondents in their stores for selling scout uniforms without a search
DOCTRINE: The place to be searched, as set in the warrant, cannot be warrant.
amplified or modified by the officers own personal knowledge of the
premises. The particularization of the description of the place to be searched The SC ruled that the search and seizure was invalid. Such search and seizure
may properly be done only by the judge and only in the warrant itself. It did not fall under any of the exceptions There was ample time for petitioners
cannot be led to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search to secure a judicial warrant but they deliberately failed to do so. There was
also no probably cause and the arrest was against the mandate of the LOI.
DOCTRINE: Under the Rules of Court, a warrantless search can only be
Police officers went to the office of respondents to obtain information undertaken under the following circumstance: Sec. 12. Search incidental to a
regarding the said unauthorized use of Microsoft and adobe software. They lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
then filed for a search warrant and computers were seized containing copies weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an
of software. RTC ruled that petitioner should have identified which specific offense, without a search warrant.
computer had the pirated software.
PEOPLE v. CFI (moving vehicle)
SC ruled that initial hearsay info. from confidential informant could serve as
a basis for the issuance of a search warrant since the officers were able to RASAC agents were informed of a shipment of highly dutiable goods from
verify the tip. Thus the requirement of personal knowledge of the applicant Angeles City to Manila. When they spotted the car, the agents stopped them
and witness was satisfied in this case. for questioning and introduced themselves as RASAC agents. Hope and
Medina were brought to Camp Aguinaldo. In their presence and of agents of
OGAYON v. PEOPLE BOC, BIR, and PC, a total of 11 boxes of highly dutiable watches and
bracelets were retrieved and seized. When a case was being filed against
them in violation of Tariff and customs laws, Hope and Medina contend that


the evidence is inadmissible because there was no warrant. The SC ruled that the seizure was legal as Manila Police Department is given
authority to conduct such search pursuant to the Tariff and Customs Code.
The SC ruled that there are certain cases wherein a warrant may be
indispensable. One of those is the case at bar, the authorized agents were The Tariff and Customs Code does not require warrant in the instant case.
simply performing their duties under the Tariff and Customs laws. Under the
law on Tariff and customs, authorized agents may enforce the law without DOCTRINE: The Code authorizes persons having police authority under
need of warrant. Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter, pass through, or search
any land, enclosure; warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house
DOCTRINE: ―Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons and also to inspect search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk,
exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search and package, box or envelope or any person on board, or stop and search and
seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws.‖ examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding conveying any
dutiable or prohibited article introduced into the Philippines contrary to law.

ROAN v. GONZALES (custodial legis)
PEOPLE v. LO HO WING (drug case-Hongkong)
Gonzales issued a search warrant following the application of Quillosa. Two
days later, Roan’s house was searched and none of those listed articles were Facts: Tia was recruited as a deep penetration agent by the Philippine
seized; except when they discovered a revolver. Roan contends that the Constabulary to bust his co-accused. Peter Lo bought tin cans of tea bags
search warrant is invalid because there were no depositions and the judge did from a local store. The tea bags then contained meth. Upon their arrival in the
not follow rule 26 of the Rules of Court requiring personal examination. Philippines, their taxi cabs were searched by the officers without a valid
The SC ruled that Gonzales did not conduct a personal examination on
Quillosa. In this case, Gonzales did not ask his own searching questions. And The SC affirmed the warrantless search. SC held that a search of a moving
limited himself to the contents of the affidavit. He did not take the applicant’s vehicle without a warrant is permissible because the vehicle can quickly
deposition in writing and attach them to the record together with the affidavit move out of the locality.
presented to him.
DOCTRINE: Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the
Seeing that there were defects in determination of probable cause, the warrant ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be
is invalid. Following that, although the pistol is necessarily illegal, a valid quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
warrant is still required. Thus, the pistol and bullets were confiscated sought 

PEOPLE v. MALMSTEDT (bus to sagada)
DOCTRINE: To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by probable
cause to be determined by the judge or some other authorized officer after
examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. The bus was searched during a checkpoint.Police officer asked for the
presentation of identification/passport but Malmstedt refused. He then
noticed a bulge on Malmstedt waist, which he asked to reveal. It contained
PAPA v. MAGO (Bureau of Customs)
suspicious looking objects wrapped in brown packaging tape. It was later
identified as hashish.
Facts: Alagao, head of the counter intelligence unit of Manila Police
Department, received information of illegal goods to be released in the
Malmstedt was asked to alight the bus, in his travel bags was found two teddy
customs zone in the port of Manila. His team intercepted two trucks and
bears. Inside the bears were also hashish.
seized the goods inside. Respondent Mago claims that the seizure was
The SC held that, as an exemption to the general rule, the warrantless search


is legal. He was caught in flagrante delicto. (also falls under search of a SC held that due to the circumstances surrounding the case, there being a
moving vehicle) coup, simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity and in the nearby
Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces, courts in the
The Court sustained the warrantless arrest of the accused because there was surrounding areas were obviously closed, a warrantless search is valid to
a bulge in his waist that excited the suspicion of the arresting officer 
 protect the society, government and its authorities.

Malmstedt was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs. A There was more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. Under
crime was actually being committed by the accused and he was caught in such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully
flagrante delicto. 
 be dispensed with.

Under the circumstances of the case, there was sufficient probable cause for ANIAG v. COMELEC (gun ban, checkpoint)
officers to believe that the accused was then and there committing a crime. 

Aniag then instructed his driver Arellano to deliver said firearms to Congress.
The car was searched in a PNP checkpoint. There the PNP found the firearms
POSADAS v. CA and detained Arellano.

The petitioner was arrested for illegal possession of firearms. Police officers, SC ruled that since there was no reasonable or probable cause to search the
spotted petitioner Posadas carrying a ―buri‖ bag and they noticed him to be car, the search was illegal and violative of the right against unlawful searches
acting suspiciously. They approached petitioner Posadas, and identified and seizures. Arellano did not have the firearms tucked in his waist, nor did
themselves as members of the INP, which led for Posadas to flee but was the package evince that it contained firearms, and there was no unnatural
eventually caught. 
 reaction from Arellano when they flagged the car down.

The SC ruled that the arrest was valid, there being a probable cause as far as DOCTRINE: An extensive search without warrant could only be resorted to
his suspicious acts and bag was concerned. That even if the policemen did if the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to
not catch him in the act of the commission of the crime, probable cause is believe before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that
present when they checked his bag. they would find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to the commission
of a crime in the vehicle to be searched.
The probable is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to
flee, there was a probable cause that he was concealing something illegal in MALACAT v. CA (fast moving eyes)
the bag and it was the right and duty of the police officers to do inspection. It
is too much to require the police to only search the bag after obtaining a RTC ruled that the warrantless search and seizure of Malacat was akin to a
 ―stop and frisk‖ where a ―warrant and seizure can be effected without
necessarily being preceded by an arrest and whose object is either to maintain
DOCTRINE: A peace officer or a private person may without a warrant the status quo momentarily while the police officer sees to obtain more
arrest a person: (1) When in his presence, the person to be arrested has information.‖
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense
SC held not a valid stop and frisk. In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, the
PEOPLE v. DE GRACIA law requires that there first be a lawful arrest before a search can be made –
the process cannot be reversed. Here, no valid in flagrante delicto preceding
The incidents of the present case took place during a coup d’etat . De Gracia the search in light of the lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the
was arrested during a raid conducted by military officers. During said raid, arresting officer, or an overt physical act, on the part of Malacat a muslim,
they found numerous ammunitions and explosives, which was confiscated. indicating that a crime had just been committed, was being committed or was
going to be committed. Moving your eyes fast from side to side is not a


crime. Neither will it be categorized as a search of a moving vehicle, as in the

instant case she was apprehended after going down the bus. She was literally
While probable cause is not required to conduct a stop and frisk, it in the middle of the street. 

nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a stop and
frisk. A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police office’s experience ASCUNCION v. CA
and surrounding conditions to warrant the belief that the person has weapons
concealed about him. 
 Vic Vargas, is charged for violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. His car was
flagged down, where the authorities found a plastic packet of shabu in his
DOCTRINE: A stop and frisk serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general possession. He consented to the search of the vehicle. he operatives had to act
interest of effective crime prevention and detection, in which a police officer quickly. Since the Nissan car was already identified as that which sells shabu,
may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, upon sight, the authorities do not have enough time to secure a search
approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior warrant. 

even without probable cause; (2) the pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself Vic is assailing the admissibility of the evidence as the search was made
that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that without warrant.
could be used against him.
SC ruled that the shabu was admissible, for the reason that: he consented to
PADILLA v. CA the search of his car, and that search of moving vehicles is one of the
exceptions that allow admissibility of evidence found through warrantless
The policeman’s warrantless arrest of the petitioner is justified under exigent searches.
circumstances of hot pursuit because he just committed an offense of hit and
run and he was committing an offense of illegal possession of firearms in the DOCTRINE: No arrest, search, and seizure can be made without a valid
presence of the police. (caught in flagrante delicto) warrant issue by competent judicial authority. However, this rule is not
absolute. One of the exceptions provided by law is that of a search in a
The seizure of the revolver and rifle was justified because they were in plain moving vehicle.
view. Warrantless search of a moving vehicle also applies.
PEOPLE v. VALDEZ (plain view)
Law enforcers received a tip from an unidentified informant that a certain
Aruta was arrested and charged for transporting drugs. She was arrested right Dela Cruz had cannabis planted near his nipa hut. They caught Dela Cruz and
after she was dropped off by a bus. Basically the respondent’s contention is took photos of him with the marijuana plants.Dela Cruz contended that there
that the search is invalid, it being issued without probable cause and that was unlawful search because the records show that the law enforcers had
there was no warrant presented upon her arrest. ample time to secure a search warrant.

The SC ruled that the search and arrest was invalid. There was an absence of SC held that ―plain view‖ doctrine cannot be applied, because it was evident
probable cause (only the furtive finger of informant), there was no warrant of that the discovery of the cannabis was not inadvertent.
arrest presented (hence the drugs recovered are inadmissible).
DOCTRINE: The seizure of evidence in ―plain view‖ applies only where the
The search and seizure of the respondent’s bag would not be justified as police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
seizure of evidence in ―plain view‖. The marijuana was obviously not inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
immediately apparent as shown by the fact that the policemen had to request
the respondent to open her bag. 
 For the doctrine to apply, the following elements must be present:


1.A prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the distance, plain view doctrine was applied. During the search, the officers
police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties 
 followed the requirements of a valid stop and frisk. Thus arrest without a
warrant was valid.
2.Theevidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have 
right to be where they are 
 DOCTRINE: In a stop and frisk, genuine reason must exist to warrant the
belief that the person who manifests unusual suspicious conduct has weapons
or contraband concealed about him
3.The evidence must be immediately apparent

PEOPLE v. CANTON (airport search)
PO2 Alteza flagged down Luz for violating an ordinance because he is not
Susan Canton was departing the country Upon entry, the metal detector wearing a helmet. He invited Luz to the sub-station since it’s almost in front
beeped, which lead to the attending employee to conduct a search on Susan. of the place where Luz was flagged down. While issuing a ticket he noticed
There they found a bulge which turned out to be shabu. She appealed to the Luz’s uneasy behavior and asked him to open the tin can which turned out to
SC, claiming that the arrest was not valid due to it being warrantless, and that be containing shabu. Luz claimed there was no lawful search and seizure
the search was invalid as well since it was not incidental to an arrest. because there was no lawful arrest.

SC ruled that, the search and seizure was not incidental to a lawful arrest. SC ruled that there was no valid arrest. First there was no intention for the
Susan’s arrest did not precede the search. 
 SC ruled as well that, Susan, officer to arrest Luz, deprive him of his liberty or take him into custody. The
having been caught flagrante delicto, was lawfully arrested without a warrant. period inside the station was merely a waiting time.
The search conducted on Susan resulted in the discovery of the packages
containing shabu.
DOCTRINE: NO valid arrest = NO valid search and seizure = items seized
during the illegal arrest are inadmissible.
The search made pursuant to airport security procedure is not that of the
Terry search, which is only limited to weapons, as it also is a search for
prohibited materials or substances. 

Section 12 that authorizes collection or recording of traffic data in real-time
The search was made in pursuant to a routine airport security procedure. This is unconstitutional. Section 12 empowers law enforcement authorities ―with
constitutes another exception to the proscription against warrantless searches due cause‖ to collect or record data in real-time. The authority that this
and seizures.
Section gives is too sweeping and lacks restraint.

DOCTRINE: Ordinary constitutional protection against warrantless searches Section 14 that authorizes disclosure of computer data under a court-issued
and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures warrant is constitutional because it follows the same process as subpoena,
and it envisions the enforcement of a duly-issued court warrant.
ESQUILLO v. PEOPLE (stop and frisk)
Section 15 that authorizes the search, seizure and examination of computer
Police officer saw Esquillo placing inside a plastic sachet in a cigarette case. data under a court-issued warrant is constitutional because it merely
When the officers inquired about it, she tried to flee. She was caught and the supplements existing laws on searches and seizures.
plastic containing shabu was confiscated. She argues that the arrest was
invalid. Section 19 that authorizes the DOJ to restrict or block access to suspected
Computer Data when it is prima facie found to be in violation of the
SC: Regarding her arrest, when the officer saw the white substance from a provisions of this Act is unconstitutional because the DOJ order cannot


substitute a court warrant. The Court ruled that the warrantless search in his home was illegal. The
consent was given by a certain Luzviminda and Damaso’s maid, and not by
DELA CRUZ v. PEOPLE Damaso. The PC Officers had no right to invade Damaso’s home, especially
since Damaso was not around when this occurred. There is no evidence that
would establish the fact that Luz was indeed Damaso’s helper, or if it were
Dela Cruz was at the port. When He placed his bag on the x-ray scanning true, that Damaso had given her the authority to open his house in his
machine, the operator saw a firearm inside the bag. The bag was then absence.
inspected and Dela Cruz was charged with illegal possession of firearm. He
contends that there was no voluntary waiver against the warrantless search
because he knew that there was nothing incriminating in the bag. DOCTRINE: The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and
seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except the person
whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or
SC held that port authorities are public persons because actions of port her behalf.
personnel during routine security checks at ports have the color of a state-
related function. However, there is a reduced expectation of privacy when
coming into airports or ports of travel. The search conducted on petitioner’s
production of documents)
bag is valid. X-ray machine scanning and actual inspection upon showing of
probable cause that a crime is being or has been committed are part of
reasonable security regulations to safeguard the passengers passing through Material Distributors is contesting the orders issued by JudgeNatividad which
ports or terminals allowed for the production and inspection of books and documents by said
corporation. Material Distributors contend that the orders violate their
constitutional right against self-incrimination and guarantee of privacy of
DOCTRINE: Routine baggage inspections conducted by port authorities,
communication and correspondence.
although done without search warrants are not unreasonable per se. These are
done to safeguard and ensure the safety of the travelling public
The SC ruled that courts, upon lawful order, may request the disclosure of
communications and correspondence. The provisions of Rule 21 pertain to a
LOPEZ v COMMISION ON CUSTOMS civil procedure that cannot be identified or confused with the unreasonable
searches prohibited by the Constitution.
Members of the police entered the hotel room of Velasco. Velasco was not
present at that time but a certain Mrs. Tomas Velasco allowed the police to CAMARA v. MUNICIPAL COURT (housing inspector)
enter and volunteered to open the suitcase and luggage of Velasco. The police
did not search the room nor forcible opened the luggage. Respondents
A housing inspector conducted a routinary inspection of the building,
contended that there was consent since Ibañes who appeared to be the wife of
wherein Camara was living. Camara refused to allow the search by the
Velasco voluntarily gave the documents and invited the officers to enter.
inspector because of lack of warrant. After a few more refusals, a complaint
by the inspector was charged against for violation of a lawful inspection.
SC ruled that under the circumstances it can readily be concluded that there Camara contends that such search is unconstitutional because it allows
was consent sufficient in law to dispense with the need for search warrant. warrantless search of a private property without probable cause.
The officers in law cannot be blamed if they would act on appearances.
The SC ruled that a warrantless search by the housing inspector is
DOCTRINE: a search or seizure cannot be stigmatized as unreasonable and unconstitutional. Because (1) it leaves the discretion to the inspector to
offensive to the Constitution if consent be shown. Immunity from conduct the search without knowing whether there is proper authority, or the
unwarranted intrusion is a personal right which may be waived either lawful limits of the inspector’s power to search; and (2) that although public
expressly or impliedly. safety may warrant it, it was not urged that the inspection programs could not
achieve their goal within the confines of a reasonable search warrant
PEOPLE v. DAMASO requirement.


HARVEY v. DEFENSOR SANTIAGO (pedophilia) Masalmok made testimonies that Burgos is a member of the NPA who is in
possession of firearms. Police members, acting on the information, went to
Harvey and Sherman contend the validity of the arrest and seizure made by the house of Burgos; he was plowing that time. They then arrested and seized
agents of CID for they were done without warrant. the firearms buried in house of Burgos. He was charged with illegal
possession in furtherance of subversion.
Arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after close
surveillance for three months during which period their activities are The SC ruled in favor of Burgos saying that at the time of the arrest no crime
 was being committed, nor was there evidence that a crime has actually been
The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a Judge, does
At the time of defendant’s arrest, he wasn’t in actual possession of any
not extend to deportation proceedings.
firearm or subversive document, and was not committing any ―subversive‖
act for he was plowing his field 

What is essential is that there should be a specific charge against the alien
intended to be arrested and deported, that affair hearing be conducted.
DOCTRINE: It is not enough that there is reasonable ground to believe that
Therefore, the seizure of the phot negatives and photographs without a the person to be arrested has committed a crime in a warrantless arrest. An
warrant were seized as an incident to a lawful arrest, therefore admissible in essential precondition is that a crime must have been in fact or actually have
evidence. been committed first; it isn’t enough to suspect a crime may have been
DOCTRINE: Deportation proceedings do not constitute a criminal action,
they are administrative in character, summary in nature, and need not be UMIL v. RAMOS (continuing offense)
conducted strictly in accordance with the ordinary court proceedings.
the arrest of Rolando Dural without a warrant is justified as it can be said that
PEOPLE v. AMINUDIN (disembarking from ship) within the contemplation of Sec. 5a Rule 113, Dural was committing an
offense when arrested, for being a member of the New People’s Army and
PC officers received a tip that a certain IdelAminudin was on board the M/V for subversion. 

Wilcon and was carrying with him marijuana. He was only descending the
gangplank, and to all appearances he was like any of the other innocent Subversion like rebellion (or insurrection) is perceived as a continuing
passengers. It was only when the informer pointed to him that he suddenly offense. Unlike other so-called common offenses such murder, arson, etc.
became the suspect and subject to apprehension. The identification by the which generally end upon their commission, subversion and rebellion are
informer was the probable cause.
 anchored on ideological base which compels repetition of the same acts of
lawlessness and violence until the objective of overthrowing the government
SC ruled that his case did not fall under those exceptions wherein a is attained.
warrantless search was allowed. The PC officers knew all the details about
Idel: his name, the vessel he rode, hi arrival two days prior to its happening. DOCTRINE: Given the ideological content of membership in the CCP/NPA
They had time to procure a search warrant and they could have convinced the which includes armed struggle for the overthrow of organized government,
judge that there was probable cause but they didn’t. Moreover, the present one does not cease to be, or become less of a subversive, for purposes of
case presented no such urgency. The search was not incidental to a lawful arrest even under confinement.
arrest as there was no warrant, and the warrantless arrest did not come under
the exceptions allowed by the Rules of Court. The absence of a judicial warrant is of no legal impediment to arresting or
capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against government
PEOPLE v. BURGOS (seditious materials; arrested while plowing) forces because such arrest is justified by the exigencies of the situation.


GO v. CA (arrested without warrant six days after commission) committed it 

Go and Maguan nearly bumped each other. Go alighted from his car and shot 3.When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
Maguan. A security guard was able to get a photo of the plate. When a establishment... 

manhunt was launched against Go, he submitted himself to the Police station
6 days later and was then arrested. Go contends that he was unlawfully MANALILI v. CA
arrested without warrant.
Petitioner Manalili was charged of illegal possession of marijuana residue, a
The SC ruled that the arrest was unlawful because: (1) it does not fall within prohibited drug. RTC convicted him, which was affirmed by the CA. Hence,
the exception of Sec 5(a) because the alleged offense was not committed in a petition was filed by Manalili, assailing the validity of the search and arrest.
the presence of the arresting officer; (2) in relation with 5(b), the offense does
not fall within the purview of ―just committed‖ and that since the information
was based on eyewitnesses, arresting officers had no personal knowledge. SC ruled that the search was valid, as he was wandering with red eyes and
Nonetheless, he is still guilty of murder based on the evidence presented. was swaying (he was high), hence there was probable cause for the
policemen to perform a stop-and-frisk search.
PEOPLE v. MENGOTE (looking side to side)
Besides him being high, the SC noted as well that Manalili essentially waived

the inadmissibility when he did not raise the violation of his right to a valid
An informant called the police about three suspicious looking persons in an
search in the RTC. 

area in Tondo, Manila. Surveillance team was dispatched and upon seeing
two men who were ―looking side to side‖ and one man holding his abdomen,
officers approached them and identified themselves as policemen. They tried A valid waiver of right has the ff requirements:
to escape but because they were unable to, they were searched. The person
holding his abdomen turned out to be Mengote, in his possession a revolver 1.Right to be waived existed 

with live bullets was found. An information for violation of Illegal
Possession of Firearmswas filed.
2.Person waiving it had knowledge, actual or constructive, thereof 

SolGen stated that the case fell under one of a valid warrantless search. SC
ruled that it was not justified. There was no crime being committed / about to 3.He or she had an actual intention to relinquish that right
be committed. Nor did the policemen have personal knowledge of the fact
that a crime had just been committed. Moreover,Mengote’s action of DOCTRINE: In Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule is that a search
―looking side to side‖ and holding his abdomen could not have created and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant;
reasonable suspicion to induce the law enforcers that Mengote committed an otherwise such search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject to
offense. challenge. Any evidence obtained in violation of such is rendered as
inadmissible evidence, being a ―fruit of the poisonous tree‖. But note, that
DOCTRINE: A warrantless search cannot be justified if it does not fall this right is not absolute. ex. Stop and frisk.
under Rule 113 Section 5 of the Rules of Court which states that a peace
officer or private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person: PEOPLE v. JAYSON

1.When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually Jayson is being held as guilty of possession of unlicensed firearms, and is
committing or is attempting to commit an offense 
 held responsible of the shooting incident in the vicinity of the nightclub
where he works as a bouncer. He is contesting the validity of his arrest, it
2.When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has personal being without a warrant.
knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has


SC held that authorities possessed personal knowledge they being in the the facts that the persons to be arrested committed it. By the use of the word
crime scene shortly after the incident happened, so the warrantless arrest is ―invited’ it is enough that the intention is to arrest. It is an authoritative
valid. command. The police in this case had arrived at the scene of the crime in less
than one hour, it’s reasonable to conclude that they have personal knowledge
DOCTRINE: A peace officer or private person may, without a warrant, of the facts justifying petitioners warrantless arrest.
arrest a person when: an offence has in fact just been committed, and he has
personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has Reason for immediacy- as the time gap from the commission of the crime
committed it. widens, the pieces of information gathered are prone to be contaminated and
subjected to external factors, interpretation and hearsay.
Police officers received an info about drug trading. So they went at the house
of Miclat. Thru a small opening in the curtain covered window, PO3 Antonio Police officers spotted at a distance of 10 meters and a speed of 30kp/hr two
peeped inside and saw Miclat arranging small plastic sachets believed to be men showing improper and unpleasant movements and one handing plastic
containing shabu. He gained entrance and told Miclat that he was a police. sachets to the other. They then introduced themselves as police officer and
Miclat voluntarily handed the shabu and was arrested after. arrested the two confiscating the sachets containing shabu. RTC ruled that the
warrantless search was valid invoking the plain view doctrine.
SC ruled that at the time of the petitioners arraignment there was no objection
raised as to the irregularity of his arrest. He actively participated in the trial SC ruled that evidence is inadmissible as it was procured through an unlawful
therefore is deemed to have waived any defect in his arrest. search. The same should result in the acquittal. It is implausible to identify
the miniscule amounts of shabu from 10 meters. Moreover, no overt act could
Moreover, the accused was caught in flagrante delicto and the shabu found properly have attributed to Commerciante to arouse suspicion of the officers.
falls within the ―plain view‖ doctrine. The act standing around with a companion handing over something cannot be
considered as a criminal act.
DOCTRINE: Plain view doctrine applies when:
1.the law enforcement officer has a prior justification for an intrusion
Police officers saw Homar jaywalking. He was immediately accosted and
2.the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent was told to use the pedestrian crossing. When Homar picked up something
from the ground this prompted the officers to frisk him. They found a knife
and shabu in his possession.Homar argue that the sahbu is inadmissible is immediately apparent to the officer because the arrest was unlawful. He was not committing any crime and no
criminal charge was filed against him. The sachet of shabu had nothing to do
PESTILLOS v. GENEROSO with jaywalking.

An altercation ensued between the petitioners and Atty. Generoso. Atty SC ruled that no arrest preceded the search because they did not intend to
called the police and pointed to the petitioners as those who mauled him. The bring him under custody or restrain his liberty.The lack of intent was further
police ―invited‖ the petitioners in the Police station for investigation. proven by the absence of criminal charges against him (he was not charged of
Petitioners argue that they were not lawfully arrested as they were merely jaywalking). They merely accosted him and have no intent to arrest him.
―invited‖ to the police station. Search is not subsequent to a lawful arrest therefore the shabu is inadmissible
in evidence.
SC ruled that petitioners’ warrantless arrest was valid. In the case at hand the
offense has just been committed and the police have personal knowledge of


NOTE: the filing of a criminal charge is not required to prove a valid DOCTRINE: When an individual is taken into custody or otherwise
warrantless arrest because the prosecution still has to prove the legality of the deprived of his freedom by the authorities in any significant way and is
warrantless arrest. subjected to questioning,

SEC 11 He 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
SEC 12
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. After
such warnings have been given, the individual may knowingly waive these
Camat and Del Rosario robbed Sinoy and Penalver, and in the occasion rights and agree to answer questions or make a statement. But unless and
thereof, killed Sinoy but Penalver survived. Del Rosario allegedly confessed until such warnings and waiver are demonstrated by the prosecution at trial,
to the police his involvement in the crime. Camat and Del Rosario insist that no evidence obtained as a result of interrogation can be used against him.
the lower court cannot rely on the extrajudicial confession of Del Rosario as a
basis for their conviction because such confession was obtained during PEOPLE v. MALNGAN
custodial investigation in violation of their constitutional rights.
Malngan confessed to the Barangay Chairman that she set her employers
The SC held that the lower court cannot rely on the extrajudicial confession
house on fire. When Mercedita Mendoza asked she did the burning she
made as basis for the appellants’ conviction because there was no evidence
repeated what she confessed in the barangay hall. When interviewed by a
that it was made with the assistance of a counsel. However, the judgment of
reporter from ABS-CBN she was heard by SFO4 Tulasan as having admitted
conviction stands because the prosecution has satisfactorily proved the guilt
the crime. Tulasan likewise hear the same confession while watching tv
of both
program ―True Crimes‖ by Gus Abelgas
An extrajudicial confession is binding only upon the confessant and is When accused appellant was brought to the barangay hall she was already a
not admissible against his co-accused. suspect. She was therefore under custodial investigation and the rights
guaranteed by Art.3 should have already been observed. Confession given to
DOCTRINE: Even if the confession is gospel truth, if it was made without the Barangay Chairman as well as the lighter found in her bag are
the assistance of counsel, it is inadmissible in evidence regardless of the inadmissible.
absence of coercion or even if it had been voluntarily given.
The testimony to Mendoza recounting the admission is therefore admissible
MIRANDA v. ARIZONA (Miranda rights) in evidence.
Although the testimony of SFO4 Talusan is hearsay because he was not
Four cases are presented wherein in each of these cases, the defendant, while present when Gus Abelgas interviewed the appellant it may be admitted in
in police custody, was questioned by authorities in intimidating situations. evidence as an independently relevant statement to establish not the truth but
None of these defendants was given full and effective warning of their right the tenor of the statement or fact
to remain silent and right to counsel. Most were alleged to have waived such
rights even though they in fact did not. Under the doctrine of independently relevant statement, regardless of their
truth or falsity, the fact that such statement has been made is relevant.
Hearsay rule does not apply
SC reiterated that at the start of the custodial investigation or detention, the
defendants should have been informed of their rights. The SC also held that DOCTRINE: the constitutional safeguards during custodial investigation do
waiver of such fundamental rights cannot be presumed. not apply to those not elicited through questioning by police or their agents
but given in an ordinary manner where the accused verbally admits having


committed the offense questioned.Thus right to counsel was not violated.

PEOPLE v. LAUGA DOCTRINE: During the Police line-up, accused cannot invoke his right to
counsel because he was not under custodial interrogation. (unless there are
Appellant argues that his confession to Banting, a bantaybayan was questioning him that time.)
inadmissible in evidence because he was not assisted by a lawyer.
SC ruled that bantaybayan, are recognized by the local government unit to
perform functions relating to the preservation of peace and order at the
barangay level.Theduties and responsibilities delegated to a bantaybayan, to Lt. Santos then invited Tan in connection with the instant robbery and
conduct a custodial investigation has the color of a state-related function. homicide case. During their conversation, Tan allegedly gave an explicit
Thus, the evidence is inadmissible. account of what actually transpired.

Lt. Carlos testifying: when he invited Tan to their headquarters, he had no

warrant for his arrest. He informed the latter that he was a suspect, not only in
PEOPLE v. BOLANOS the instant case, but also in 2 other robbery cases.

When the police apprehended Bolanos, they found the firearm of the In the belief that they were merely conversing inside the police station, he
deceased on the chair where Bolanos was seated. They boarded Bolanos in admitted that he did not inform appellant of his constitutional rights to remain
the police vehicle to bring him to the police station. In the vehicle Bolanos silent and to the assistance of counsel; nor did he reduce the supposed
admitted that he killed the deceased when he was asked by the police. It was confession to writing.
clearly given without assistance of counsel as it was made while on board the
police vehicle. SC ruled that Tan wasn’t notified of his right to counsel nor afforded with
such.Tan’s constitutional rights were violated. Thus He should be acquitted
SC ruled that being already under custodial investigation while on board the
police patrol jeep on the way to the police station where formal investigation DOCTRINE: Under the Constitution and existing law and jurisprudence, a
may have been conducted, appellant should have been informed of his confession to be admissible must satisfy the following requirements:
constitutional rights. Inadmissible in evidence. must be voluntary;
2.Made with the assistance of competent and independent counsel;
3. it must be express;
PEOPLE v. LOVERIA must be in writing.
Loveria assails the manner in which he was identified by Driver Manzanero
at the headquarters of the PC, claiming violation of his constitutional right to It is appropriate to extend the counsel guarantee to critical stages of
counsel. prosecution even before trial. A police line-up is considered a ―critical‖ stage
of the proceedings. Any identification of an uncounseled accused made in a
Court held in Gamboa v. Cruz that in the police line-up conducted, it was police line-up is inadmissible. HOWEVER, the prosecution did not present
the complainant who was being investigated and who gave a statement to the evidence regarding appellant’s identification at the line-up. The witnesses
police while the accused was not questioned at all. Thus, the Court concluded identified the accused again in open court. Also, accused did not object to the
that the latter could not, during the line-up, invoke his right to counsel in-court identification as being tainted by illegal line-up.
because he was not under custodial interrogation. 

The arrest of the appellants was without a warrant. HOWEVER, they are
As in the Gamboa case, Loveria was not investigated when Manzanero estopped from questioning the legality of such arrest because they have not
identified him in the police line-up. It was Manzanero who was being moved to quash the said information and therefore voluntarily submitted


themselves to the jurisdiction of the trial court by entering a plea of not guilty Atty. Peralta arrived on Lucero’s second day of detention and informed
and participating in trial. Lucero of his constitutional rights. Lucero gave no reaction, but Atty. Peralta
believed Lucero understood. Atty. Peralta left for his friend’s wake when
The court believed the version of the prosecution. Ernesto Roque, while interrogation started.
remaining outside the house served as a looked out.
RTC convicted Lucero of robbery with homicide. The SC reversed, stating
Wherefore, decision of lower court is Affirmed. DaniloRoque and Ernesto that there was no substantial compliance with Lucero’s right to counsel. Atty.
Roqueis guilty of the crime of robbery with homicide as co-conspirators of Peralta was not present during the investigation, and it is most likely that
the other accused to suffer reclusion perpetua. Lucero gave his confession under duress.

Things taken: 2 toygun, airgun riffle, CO2 refiller, TV, betamax tapes, DOCTRINE: When the Constitution requires the right to counsel, it did not
betamaxrewinder, Samsonite attache case, typewriter, chessboard, TOYOTA mean any kind of counsel but effective and vigilant counsel.
Crown Car Plate No. CAS-997, assorted jewelry..22 gun and money.
PEOPLE v. IBAÑEZ (duty of counsel to explain)

In the case at hand, even if petitioner gave uncounseled written statement

The SC ruled that Nabligas’ confession was not made with assistance of a
regarding the anomaly in his branch (bank) he managed, (1) the questioning
competent and independent counsel. The services of Atty. Go who acted in
was not initiated by a law enforcement authority but merely by an internal
Nabligas’ behalf, were provided by NBI, who was assigned despite Nabligas’
affairs manager of the bank (2) he was not restrained nor arrested and cannot
open declaration that he has a lawyer, Atty. Paglinawan.
be said to be under custodial investigation during the taking of the written
Moreover, Atty. Go did not disclose that she was a lawyer when she assisted
him, and presented herself to be a mere witness to the confession. Nothing in
Right to counsel is applies only to admissions made in criminal investigation
the records show that Atty. Go ascertained whether the confession of
but not to those made in administrative investigation. Admissible in evidence.
Nabligas was voluntary, and whether he understood the nature and the
consequence of his extrajudicial confession and its impact on his
constitutional rights.

PEOPLE v. SUNGA (city legal officer) THIS is not the kind of assistance required of lawyers in a custodial

The right to counsel was denied Sunga during his execution of admission
before the police on the ground that the counsel who assisted him, Atty. DOCTRINE: The court consistently held that for a confession to be
Rocamora, was the City Legal Officer of Puerto Princesa. 
In the case at bar, admissible, it must adhere to the ff: requirements: (b) Must be made with
Sunga was thrust into the preliminary investigation and while he did have a assistance of a competent and independent counsel (preferably
counsel, for the latter’s lack of vigilance and commitment to Sunga’s rights, confessant’s choice)
he was virtually denied his right to counsel.
DOCTRINE: The right to counsel involves more than just the presence of a
lawyer in the courtroom or the mere propounding of standard questions and
Attorney Pardo was mayor of Labo, Camarines Norte. He went to the police
objections; rather it means an efficient and decisive legal assistance and not a
station upon invitation of police to assist accused during their custodial
simple perfunctory representation.
investigation. Accused executed extra-judicial statements, confessing to the
commission of the crime.


SC ruled that Mayor Pardo cannot be considered as an independent

counsel for accused during their custodial investigation. One such exception is the rule that where several extrajudicial statements had
been made by several persons charged with an offense and there could have
Even assuming that the right to counsel was orally waived during custodial been no collusion with reference to said several confessions, the facts that the
investigation, still the defect was not cured. The Constitution expressly statements are in all material respects identical, is confirmatory of the
provides that the waiver must be in writing and in the presence of counsel confession of the co-defendants and admissible against others implicated.
This, accused-appellants did not do. CONFESSION OF TALIMAN IS
INADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. DOCTRINE: Interlocking confessions – can be admissible as circumstantial
evidence against the person implicated therein to show the probability of the
PEOPLE v. CALVO latter’s participation in the crime

Calvo contends that there was an irregularity when he made his extrajudicial PEOPLE v. CHAVEZ
confession because Atty. Feraren advised him that if he really committed the
offense, it would be better for him to execute an Extra Judicial Confession; Chavez, with his mother voluntarily surrendered at the police station. Police
otherwise if he will not execute an Extra Judicial Confession he might be informed them of the consequences of executing written statement without
placed in a situation where the court will think that he fabricates the facts in lawyer’s assistance but mother still gave statement. Chavez argued
his confession. admissibility of his mother’s statement because no lawyer informed her of the
consequences of her act of executing an affidavit
SC ruled that a confession is not rendered involuntary merely because
defendant was told that he should tell the truth or that it would be better for SC ruled that even those who voluntarily surrendered before a police officer
him to tell the truth. Telling the accused that it would be better for him to must be apprised of their Miranda rights. For one, the same pressures of a
speak or tell the truth does not furnish any Inducement, or a sufficient custodial setting exist in this scenario. His Miranda rights were violated.
inducement, to render objectionable a confession thereby obtained, unless
threats or promises are applied. ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST LYN MACEDA

Maceda has knowingly and voluntarily participated in the administrative

DOCTRINE:Confession to be admissible must satisfy all of four investigation conducted by Judge Falcotelo, by the OCA, and finally, by this
fundamental requirements: 1) the confession must be voluntary; 2) the Court. The administrative investigation began as early as November 2010,
confession must be made with the assistance of competent and independent but it was only in Maceda’s Manifestation dated February 2012 that she
counsel; 3) the confession must be express; and 4) the confession must be in insisted on engaging the services of a legal counsel.Maceda’s request can no
writing. longer be accommodated this far along into the proceedings. Being a court
employee and law student, Maceda is capable of understanding the charges
against her and adducing her defenses herself.
DOCTRINE: A party in an administrative inquiry may or may not be assisted
Cochise and Beebom leave the Castanos residence riding a green lancer car. by counsel. Exclusionary ruleapplies only to admissions made in a criminal
They were killed. Confessions and extrajudicial statements were acquired investigation but not to those made in an administrative investigation.
from each of the accused with counsel. The confessions of each person all While investigations conducted by an administrative body may at times be
implicated each other in the commission of the crime. akin to a criminal proceeding, a party in an administrative inquiry may or
may not be assisted by counsel,
SC held that as a rule, extrajudicial statements are admissible only against The right to counsel is not always imperative in administrative investigations
their respective declarants. Such declaration may only be used as relevant because such inquiries are conducted merely to determine whether there are
facts against the one who gave such declaration. The rule that extrajudicial facts that merit the imposition of disciplinary measures against erring public
statements are evidence only against those who make it also has exceptions. officers and employees.


GAMBOA v. JUDGE CRUZ SC held that custodial investigation began when the accused voluntarily went
to the police station to confess and the police started asking questions. At
Gamboa was arrested for vagrancy and was detained in the Manila Precinct. such point the right to counsel automatically attached to the accused. At that
During the police-line up, Gamboa was identified by the complainant as a stage, the police should have already desisted from continuing with the
companion in the crime of Robbery. After which, he was beingcharged interrogation. Their act of requesting the presence of the priest and mayor and
relatives of the accused to witness the confession did not cure the absence of
a lawyer during the investigation.Inadmissible in evidence.
for such crime. In open court, instead of presenting evidence for the defense,
he filed a Motion to Acquit or Demurrer to Evidence alleging that his
constitutional rights to counsel were violated. Before the above-mentioned persons can appear 2 conditions must be met:
(1) counsel of the accused must be absent (2) a valid waiver must be
The SC held that the right to counsel is only available during the start of the executed.
investigation. It was observed that the police line-up was not a part of the
custodial inquest, and thus, not yet entitled to such right. PEOPLE v. LINSANGAN

DOCTRINE: The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, Linsangan alleges that when he signed the bills he was not assisted by
i.e. when the investigation officer starts to ask questions to elicit information counsel therefore the bills are inadmissible as evidence. The Supreme Court
and/or confessions or admissions from the respondent/accused clarified that his conviction was not based on the P10 bills alone but on the
actual act of selling marijuana.
DOCTRINE: Although he was not assisted by counsel when he initialed the
Here, Escordial was identified by Michelle in a show-up P10-bills that the police found tucked in his waist, his right against self-
incrimination was not violated for his possession of the marked bills did not
andby others in a police line-up after his arrest. Having been made when constitute a crime; the subject of the prosecution was his act of selling
accused-appellant did not have the assistance of counsel, these out-of-court marijuana cigarettes.
identifications are inadmissible in evidence against him. (However since the
defense failed to bring the matter up it was deemed waived). PEOPLE v. ANG CHUNG KIT

The Court however acquitted Escordial because his guilty was not proven The court held that the accused signature on the receipt of lists and items
beyond reasonable doubt. confiscated from him is inadmissible in evidence as there is no showing that
he was then assisted by counsel (since merely unexplained possession of
DOCTRINE: The court has thus ruled that any identification of an drugs are punishable by law)
uncounseled accused made in a police line-up, or in a show-up for that
matter, after the start of the custodial investigation is inadmissible as With regard to the Booking sheet and Arrest Report, when a person arrested
evidence against him. signed it he does not admit the commission of an offense nor confess to any
incriminating circumstance. It is a police report and may be useful in charges
PEOPLE v. ORDOÑO of arbitrary detention against the police themselves. It cannot be a basis of a
judgment or conviction.
Accused went to the police station to confess that he committed the crime.
Police immediately conducted investigation and put the confession in writing.
Investigators however could not get the services of a lawyer to assist the
accused because there were no practicing lawyers in their remote area. GUTING v. PEOPLE


Guting, all wet from the rain and with a bladed weapon in his hand, suddenly petitioners did not waive objection to admissibility of the said documents by
approached the police officers and told them that he had stabbed his their failure to object when these were marked, identified, and then
father.Guting appealed his conviction. He argues that his oral confession to introduced during the trial.
Torre &Macusi, without the assistance of counsel, is inadmissible in SEC 13
SC held that Guting was not under custodial investigation when he admitted,
without assistance of counsel, to the police that he stabbed his father to death.
His verbal confession was so spontaneously and voluntarily given and was YAP v. CA (excessive if equal to civil liability)
not elicited through questioning by the police authorities.He was arrested and
subjected to custodial investigation by the police officers only after his Yap was found guilty of ofEstafa. He filed for a motion to fix bail, to which
confession. the OSG set at P5,500,000 – equivalent to the civil liability of Yap. He
contends that the amount fixed for bail is excessive, thus a violation of his
Constitutional procedures on custodial investigation do not apply to a constitutional right against excessive bail.
spontaneous statement, not elicited through questioning by the authorities,
but given in an ordinary manner whereby appellant orally admitted having SC held that indeed the amount fixed for bail is excessive and would render
committed the crime the right to bail nugatory. However, the SC stated that courts have the
discretion to set the amount of bail at a certain amount for justified reasons.
Accused-appellant's declaration is admissible for being part of the res gestae. In this case, Yap is a flight risk as admitted by him; hence, the amount of
P200,000 is reasonable enough to ensure the appearance of Yap during trial.

DOCTRINE: A declaration is deemed part of the res gestae and admissible in DOCTRINE: The purpose for bail is to guarantee the appearance of the
evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule when these three requisites accused at the trial, or whenever so required by the court. The amount should
concur: be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when required but no
1) the principal act, the res gestae, is a startling occurrence; higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this purpose
2) the statements were made before the declarant had time to contrive or
3) the statements concern the occurrence in question and its immediately GOV’T HONKONG v. OLALIA (right to bail in extradition cases)
attending circumstances.

MACASIRAY v. PEOPLE Muñoz is facing
criminal charges with the Government of Hong Kong.
When a petition for extradition was filed before the RTC, Munoz
applied for
Petitioners object the admissibility of their confessions on the ground that it bail. RTC granted bail. HK filed a motion to dismiss the grant.
was given without assistance of counsel. RTC said it was inadmissible, CA
reversed. SC explained that some jurisprudence dictate that bail applies solely to
criminal proceedings and since extradition proceedings are administrative
SC ruled that Objection to evidence must be made after the evidence is and does not render conviction or acquittal, such is not applicable. However,
formally offered. In the case of documentary evidence, offer is made after all due to international treaties and agreements the SC is bound to give
the witnesses of the party making the offer have testified, specifying the importance to the rights of the individual as extradition may entail a
purpose for which the evidence is being offered. It is only at this time, and deprivation of liberty.
not at any other, that objection to the documentary evidence may be made
Bail was allowed in deportation proceedings which are of the same situation
In this case, petitioners objected to the admissibility of the documents when with extradition proceedings. both are administrative proceedings where the
they were formally offered. Contrary to the ruling of the appellate court, innocence or guilt of the person detained is not in issue.Likewise, Muñoz was
already deprived of his liberty for two years. He is entitled to bail. The SC set


a standard of ―clear and convincing evidence‖ for the courts to follow in charged with capital offenses when the evidence of guilt is strong. Such
granting bail for extradition cases. right flows from the presumption of innocence in favor of every accused who
should not be subjected to the loss of freedom as he would be entitled to
DOCTRINE: While extradition is not a criminal proceeding, it entails acquittal, unless his guilt be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Where,
deprivation of liberty and the means employed to attain the purpose of however, the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered nugatory by
extradition is also ―the machinery of criminal law‖. A potential extraditee requiring a sum that is excessive. If there were no prohibition against
may be subjected to arrest, to a prolonged restraint of liberty, and forced to excessive bail, the right to bail becomes meaningless.
transfer to the demanding state following the proceedings. "Temporary
detention" may be a necessary step in the process of extradition, but the DOCTRINE: If the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered meaningless
length of time of the detention should be reasonable. by requiring such an excessive sum.

ENRILE v. SANDIGANBAYAN The guidelines in the fixing of bail are as follows:

Enrile repeatedly forwarded his motions for bail but was perpetually denied 1.The ability of the accused to give bail; 

by the Sandiganbayan. Among others, he has indicated that the evidence was
not strong with regard his guilt, and that he is not a flight risk due to his 2.Nature of the offense; 

medical condition and his age.
3.Penalty for the offense charged; 

SC held that he must be granted the right to bail because of his health
condition. SC mentioned that the Sandiganbayan, in its denial of the motion
to bail, ignored the core purpose of bail, which is to secure the appearance of 4.Character and reputation of the accused; 

the accused. By denying bail, Sandiganbayan ignores the health issues faced
by Enrile which could be the purpose of a worse condition that might even 5.Health of the accused; 

prevent him to be present in the trial.
6. Character and strength of evidence; 

DOCTRINE: The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the
accused at the trial, whenever so required by the trial court. The amount of
7.Probability of the accused appearing in trial; 

bail should be high enough to assure the presence of the accused when so
required, but it should be no higher than is reasonably calculated to fulfill this
purpose. Bail acts as a reconciling mechanism to accommodate both the 8.Forfeiture of other bonds; 

accused’s interest in his provisional liberty before or during the trial, and the
society’s interest in assuring the accused’s presence at trial 9.Whether the accused was a fugitive from justice when arrested; 

EXCESSIVE BAIL 10.If the accused is under bond for appearance at trial in other cases 

DE LA CAMARA v. ENAGE (10 guidelines) SEC 14

Mayor De La Camara was arrested for his alleged participation in the killing PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE
of laborers of the Tirador Logging Co.He filed a petition for bail. Respondent
Judge granted this and fixed the amount of bail at the excessive amount of US v. LULING

The SC held that Before conviction, every person is bailable except if


Accused being a wharf watchman in the customs unlawfully solicit and During the trial the court asked the accused:― do you have an attorney or are
receive from Elord the sum of P100. He alleges that the provision Act No. you going to plead guilty‖. The accused answered that he has no lawyer and
335 in so far as it requires accused to prove his innocence is unconstitutional. he will plead guilty.
―And evidence of such soliciting…shall be regarded as prima facie evidence
that such soliciting…was contrary to law and shall put upon the accuse the SC ruled that in criminal cases there can be no fair hearing unless the accused
burden of proving that such act was innocent and not with unlawful be given the opportunity to be heard by counsel. It is not enough for the
intention” Court to apprise an accused of his right to have an attorney, it is not enough
to ask him whether he desires the aid of an attorney, but it is essential that
SC held that in case of statutory crimes, no constitutional provision is the court should assign one de officio if he so desires and he is poor or
violated by a statute providing that proof by the state of some material fact/ grant him a reasonable time to procure an attorney of his own.
facts shall constitute prima facie evidence of guiltand that the burden is
shifted to the defendant for the purpose of showing that such acts are
innocent and not committed with criminal intent DOCTRINE: when a defendant appears without attorney, the court has four
important duties to comply with:
DOCTRINE: The state has the right to declare what acts are criminal, what 1. inform the defendant his right to have attorney before being
proof shall constitute prima facie evidence of guilt, and then put upon the arraigned;
defendant the burden of showing that such acts are innocent and not done 2. the court must ask him if he desires the aid of an attorney;
with criminal intent 3. If he desires and is unable to employ attorney, the court must
assign attorney de officio to defend him; and
DUMLAO v. COMELEC 4. If the accused desires to procure an attorney of his own the
court must grant him a reasonable time therefor.
Dumlao, retired Governor of Nueva Vizcaya questions the first paragraph of RIGHT TO BE INFORMED
Sec 4 BP 52 which prohibits the running of retired elective official from
running the same office. Igot and Alfredo question another paragraph which PEOPLE v. REGALA
states that those charged (even not yet convicted) of crimes such as sedition,
rebellion etc. are also disqualified from running office. The appellant cannot be convicted of the complex crime of homicide with
assault upon an agent of a person in authority because the information filed
The SC ruled that for the first paragraph, there is a rational basis for against appellant did not allege the essential elementsof assault that the
classification hence making it valid. For the latter one, it is invalid because it accused then knew that, before or at the time of the assault, the victim was an
doesn’t differentiate between those convicted and just charged. agent of a person in authority.

DOCTRINE: An accusation, according to the fundamental law, is not Moreover, the fact that the crime of assault was established by the evidence
synonymous with guilt. The challenged proviso contravenes the of the prosecution without any objection on the part of the accused cannot
constitutional presumption of innocence, as a candidate is disqualified from likewise cure the defect in the information so as to validly convict the
running for public office on the ground alone that charges have been filed accused thereof; because to do so would be convicting the accused of a crime
against him before a civil or military tribunal. It condemns before one is fully not properly alleged in the body of the information in violation of his
heard. constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation
against him.


In this case, apellantRemeiasBegino was found to be guilty of the crime of offense was committed except when it is a material ingredient of the offense,
rape the information states that the accused ―being the stepfather of AAA, and that the offense may be alleged to have been committed on a date as near
raped her when she was 8 years old‖. as possible to the actual date of its commission.
SC ruled that what the prosecution proved was that the appellant was the
common law spouse of BB but it was not alleged in the Information. CONDE v. RIVERA
Qualifying circumstances must be properly pleaded in the indictment. If the
same are not pleaded but proved, they shall be considered only as aggravating
circumstances. Aurelia Conde, like all other accused persons, has a right to a speedy trial in
order that if innocent she may go free, and she has been deprived of that
right. Because trials are arbitrarily postponed without her consent, it is unjust
It would be a denial of the right of the accused to be informed of the
charges against him and consequently, a denial of due process, if he is to her and a detriment to the public.
charged with simple rape and be convicted of its qualified form, although the By the use of reasonable diligence, the prosecution could have prepared the
circumstance qualifying the offense was not alleged in the indictment on case for a trial free from oppressive delays.
which he was arraigned.

DOCTRINE: In a criminal prosecution, it is a fundamental rule that every DOCTRINE: where a prosecuting officer, without good cause, secures
element of the crime charged must be alleged in the complaint or postponements of the trial of a defendant against his protest beyond a
information. The main purpose of this requirement is to enable the accused to reasonable period of time, for more than a year, the accused is entitled to
properly prepare his defense. He is presumed to have no independent relief by a proceeding in mandamus to compel a dismissal of the information,
knowledge of the facts that constitute the offense or if he be restrained of his liberty, by habeas corpus to obtain his freedom.



In rape cases, failure to specify the exact dates or times when the rapes SC ruled that respondent judge should inhibit himself since it has become
occurred does not ipso facto make the information defective on its face. apparent that his further continuance in Case 4871 would be in the best
interest of justice, which he is bound to serve."
The date or time of the commission of rape is not a material ingredient of the Respondent Judge could not be totally immune to what apparently was
said crime because the gravamen of rape is carnal knowledge of a woman asserted before him in such extrajudicial statement. Moreover, it is unlikely
through force and intimidation. that he was not in the slightest bit offended by the affiant's turnabout with his
later declaration that there was intimidation by a government agent exerted
The precise time when the rape took place has no substantial bearing on its on him.
DOCTRINE: Every litigant is entitled to nothing less than the cold neutrality
As such, the date or time need not be stated with absolute accuracy. It is of an impartial judge. A judge may, in the exercise of sound discretion,
sufficient that the complaint or information states that the crime has been disqualify himself from sitting in a case, for just or valid reasons.
committed at any time as near as possible to the date of its actual
DOCTRINE: With respect to the date of the commission of the offense,
Section 11, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure specifically
provides that it is not necessary to state in the information the precise date the IN RE OLIVER


Petitioner appeared as a witness before a Michigan circuit judge who was DOCTRINE: waiver of appearance and trial in absentia does not mean that
then conducting, in accordance with Michigan law, a "one-man grand jury" the prosecution is thereby deprived of its right to require the presence of
investigation. the accused for purposes of identification by its witnesses which is vital
for the conviction of the accused. Such waiver of a right of the accused does
SC uphold petitioner's contention that the summary manner in which he had not mean a release of the accused from his obligation under the bond to
been sentenced to jail in the secrecy of the grand jury chamber had deprived appear in court whenever so required. The accused may waive his right
him of his liberty without affording him the kind of notice, opportunity to but not his duty or obligation to the court.
defend himself, and trial which the due process clause of the Fourteenth
DOCTRINE: A criminal trial conducted in secret would violate the
procedural requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. SEC16
An accused is, at the very least, entitled to have his friends, relatives and
counsel present, no matter with what offense he may be charged. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

Binay contended that the six-year delay from the time the charges were filed
TAMPAR v. USMAN in the OMB to the time the informations were filed in the Sandiganbayan
constituted a violation of his right to due process.
This case involves a dispute over the correct application the oath "yamin"
SC ruled that there was no undue delay in the disposition of the subject
SC ruled that ―yamin‖ effectively deprives a litigant of his constitutional cases. The proceedings conducted before the Office of the Tanodbayan, and
right to due process. It denies a party his right to confront the witnesses later with the Office of the Ombudsman, adequately explains the length of the
against him and to cross-examine them. It should have no place even in the delay.The prosecution is not bound by the findings of the (COA); it must rely
Special Rules of Procedure of the Shari'a courts of the country. on its own independent judgment in the determination of probable cause. It
had to conduct its own review of the COA findings.The cases were
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA sufficiently complex, thus justifying the length of time for their resolution.

The constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases is not limited to the

CARREDO v. PEOPLE accused in criminal proceedings but extends to all parties in all cases,
including civil and administrative cases, and in all proceedings, including
The defense counsel claims that petitioner’s presence can no longer be judicial and quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any party
required as he already filed a written waiver of appearance. to a case may demand expeditious action on all officials who are tasked with
the administration of justice.

SC ruled that in the present case petitioner only admits that he can be DOCTRINE: the right to a speedy disposition is violated only when the
identified by the prosecution witnesses in his absence. He did not proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays; or
unqualifiedly admit on open court that he is the very person named as when unjustified postponements of the trial are asked for, or when without
defendant in the case on trial. His admission is vague and far from justifiable motive a long period of time is allowed to elapse without the party
unqualified. having his case tried.


SEC 17 counsel avers that he was compelled to be a witness against himself.

RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION SC ruled that to force a prohibited drug from the person of an accused is
along the same line as requiring him to exhibit himself before the court; or
US v. NAVARRO (rationale) putting in evidence papers and other articles taken from the room of an
accused in his absence.
Article 483 of RPC states that “one who illegally detains another and
fails to give info on his whereabouts or does not prove that he set him at DOCTRINE:The main purpose of this constitutional provision is to prohibit
liberty shall be punished.” testimonial compulsion by oral examination in order to extort unwilling
confessions from prisoners implicating them in the commission of a crime.
SC ruled that this provision has the effect of forcing a defendant to become
a witness in his own behalf or to take a much severer punishment. VILLAFLOR v. SUMMERS (pregnancy test)

DOCTRINE:No one is bound to criminate himself. Established on the the court ordered Villaflorto submit her body to the examination of one or
grounds of public policy and humanity — of policy, because if the party were two competent doctors to determine if she was pregnant or not.
required to testify, it would place the witness under the strongest temptation
to commit the crime of perjury, and of humanity, because it would prevent SC ruled that an ocular inspection of the body of the accused is
the extorting of confessions by duress. permissible. It is a reasonable presumption that in an examination by
reputable and disinterested physicians due care will be taken not to use
violence and not to embarrass the patient any more than is absolutely
US v. TAN TENG (substance emitted to prove STD)
BELTRAN v. SAMSON (writing)
Defendant was arrested and taken to the police station and stripped of his
clothing and examined. The policeman took a portion of the substance Petitioner complains that the respondent judge ordered him to appear before
emitting from the body of the defendant and turned it over to the Bureau of the fiscal and take the latter’s dictation in his own handwriting.
Science. Result showed that the defendant was suffering from gonorrhea.
Defendant contended that the result was not admissible in evidence. SC ruled that for the purposes of the constitutional privilege, there is a
similarity between one who is compelled to produce a document, and one
SC ruled that the prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to be a who is compelled to furnish a specimen of his handwriting, for in both cases,
witness against himself, is a prohibition of the use of physical or moral the witness is required to furnish evidence against himself.
compulsion, to extort communications from him, not an exclusion of his body
as evidence, when it may be material. Measuring or photographing the party is not within the privilege. Nor it is the
removal or replacement of his garments or shoes. Nor is the requirement that
DOCTRINE: An inspection of the bodily features by the court or by the party move his body to enable the foregoing things to be done.
witnesses, cannot violate the privilege granted under the Philippine Bill,
because it does not call upon the accused as a witness — it does not call upon in the case before us, writing is something more than moving the body, or the
the defendant for his testimonial responsibility. Evidence obtained in this way hands, or the fingers; writing is not a purely mechanical act, because it
from the accused, is not testimony but his body itself. requires the application of intelligence and attention
writing means that the petitioner herein is to furnish a means to determine
US v. ONG SIU HONG (discharge) whether or not he is the falsifier. Here the witness is compelled to write
and create, by means of the act of writing, evidence which does not exist,
Accused was forced to discharge the morphine from his mouth. His



Maristela charged Manuel Cabal with ―corrupt practices‖. the committee SEC 19
asked Cabal to take the witness stand and be a witness for Maristela. Cabal
refused and invoked his right against self-incrimination. CRUEL, DEGRADING OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT, EXCESSIVE
SC ruled that although said Committee was created to investigate the FINES
administrative charge of unexplained wealth, there seems to be no question
that Col. Maristela does not seek the removal of petitioner from his position.
PEOPLE v. ESTOISTA (recommended executive clemency)
The purpose of the charge against petitioner is to apply the provisions (Anti-
Graft Law), which authorizes the forfeiture to the State of property of a Defendant accidentally shot their laborer. Government alleged that he should
public officer. Such for forfeiture is in the nature of a penalty. Proceedings be prosecuted under RA 4 which imposes penalty of 5-10 years. Defendant
for forfeiture of property are deemed criminal or penal, and, hence, the claims that this is cruel.
exemption of defendants in criminal case from the obligation to be witnesses
against themselves are applicable. SC held that confinement from 5 to 10 years for possessing of carrying
firearm is not cruel or unusual, having due regard to the prevalent conditions
DOCTRINE: The rule protecting a person from being compelled to furnish which the law proposes to suppress or curb. The rampant lawlessness,
evidence which would incriminate him exists not only when he is liable directly traceable to promiscuous carrying and use of powerful weapons,
criminally to prosecution and punishment, but also when his answer would justify imprisonment which in normal circumstances might appear excessive.
tend to expose him to a forfeiture.
PEOPLE v. ECHEGARAY (death penalty)
This prohibition against compelling a person to take the stand as a witness
against himself applied only to criminal, quasi-criminal, and penal
proceedings, including a proceeding civil in form for forfeiture of property by Death penalty is neither cruel, unjust or excessive.
reason of the commission of an offense, but not a proceeding in which the
penalty recoverable is civil or remedial in nature. SC ruled that punishments are cruel when they involve torture or lingering
death. It implies something inhuman and barbarous, something more than the
PASCUAL JR. v. BOARD OF MEDICAL EXAMINERS (revocation of mere extinguishment of life.
DOCTRINE: The constitutional exercise of the limited power to impose the
Petitioner alleged that in t ruling to compel him to take the witness stand, death penalty entails that:
respondent failed to respect his constitutional right against self-incrimination,
since the administrative proceeding against him, could result in forfeiture or 1.Congress define or describe what is meant by heinous
loss of a privilege, being quasi-criminal in character.
2. Congress specify and penalize by death, only crimes that qualify as
SC ruled that In an administrative hearing against a medical practitioner for
alleged malpractice, respondent cannot, consistently with the self- heinous in accordance with the definition set in the death penalty bill
incrimination clause, compel the person proceeded against to take the witness
stand without his consent. 3. That congress in enacting this bill be motivated by ―compelling reasons
involving heinous crimes.‖
DOCTRINE: When a forfeiture proceeding while administrative in character
possesses a criminal or penal aspect, an accused cannot be compelled to take CORPUZ v. PEOPLE
the witness stand.
Here accused was sentenced to suffer the indeterminate penalty of 4 years


and 2 months of prisioncorreccional, as minimum, to 8 years of prision A complaint for serious physical injuries was filed against Ylagan. Private
mayor, as maximum, plus 1 year for each additional ₱10,000.00, or a total of prosecutor, moved for the dismissal of the case. This was granted. Attorney
7 years. for defendant did not say anything about it. 11 days later, the provincial fiscal
filed another information in the same court, charging the same defendant with
SC ruled that: There seems to be a perceived injustice brought about by the the same offense. Defendant pleaded double jeopardy.
range of penalties that the courts continue to impose on crimes against
property committed today, based on the amount of damage measured by the SC ruled there is double jeopardy. The rule on double jeopardy protects the
value of money 80 years ago in 1932. However, this Court cannot modify accused not against the peril of second punishment, BUT AGAINST being
the said range of penalties because that would constitute judicial tried again for the same offense.
If there was no such rule, the court said that the fortune, safety, and peace of
mind of the accused would be entirely at the mercy of the complainant who
DOCTRINE: The Court should apply the law in a manner that would give might repeat the accusation anytime.
effect to their letter and spirit, especially when the law is clear as to its intent
and purpose. Even if the imposable penalty amounts to cruel punishment, the DOCTRINE: A defendant in a criminal procedure is in legal jeopardy when
Court cannot declare the provision of the law from which the proper penalty placed on trial under the ff. circumstances:
emanates unconstitutional. It is for the Congress to amend the law and ○ In a court of competent jurisdiction
adapt it to our modern time. ○ Upon a valid complaint or information
○ After he has been arraigned
○ After he has pleaded to the complaint or information

SEC 20
Bulaong and others were charged before the CFI Laguna with the crime of
In sum, we find the enactment of BP 22 a valid exercise of the police power rebellion.Another information was filed before the CFI Manila charging
and is not repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for Bulaong of the crime of subversion. The case for subversion is still pending
debt. in the CFI Manila; while the case for rebellion has already been decided by
the CFI Laguna adversely against the accused.
The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the act of making and
issuing a worthless check or a check that is dishonored upon its presentation SC ruled that the defense of double jeopardy is available to the accused only
for payment. It is not the non-payment of an obligation which the law where he was either convicted or acquitted or the case against him was
punishes. dismissed or otherwise terminated without his consent. Such is not the
situation in this case. For accused has not been convicted or acquitted in the
case filed in the Court of First Instance against him for subversion. Neither
was the said case dismissed or terminated without his consent, for as stated, it
SEC 21
is still pending in said court

ATTACHMENT OF JEOPARDY DOCTRINE: It is the conviction, acquittal of the accused or dismissal or

termination of the case that bars further prosecution for the same offense


RULE ON SUPERVENING FACTS The killing of a person with the use of an unlicensed firearm may give rise to
separate prosecutions for violation of P.D. No. 1866 and violation of either
MELO v. PEOPLE (Murder) or (Homicide) in the RPC
The accused cannot plead one as a bar to the other; stated otherwise, the rule
against double jeopardy cannot be invoked because the first is punished
Melo was charged in the CFI of Rizal, on December 27, with frustrated
by a special law while the second, homicide or murder, is punished by
homicide. Accused pleaded not guilty to the offense charged, and at 10:15 in
the Revised Penal Code.
the evening of the same day Obillo died from his wounds. An amended
information was filed charging the accused with consummated homicide. The
accused was alleging double jeopardy. DOCTRINE: where two different laws (or articles of the same code) defines
two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of
the other, although both offenses arise from the same facts, if each crime
SC held that: This rule of identity does not apply, when the second offense involves some important act which is not an essential element of the other.
was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the simple reason
that there is no possibility for the accused, during the first prosecution, to be
convicted for an offense that was then inexistent. Thus, where the accused ORDINANCE AND STATUTE
was charged with physical injuries and after conviction the injured person
dies, the charge for homicide against the same accused does not put him PEOPLE v. RELOVA
twice in jeopardy.
Assistant City Fiscal filed before the City Court of Batangasan information
PEOPLE v. BULING against Opulencia for violation of Ordinance No. 1. The accused filed a
motion to dismiss the information on the ground of prescription. Granted. 14
Buling was charged with the crime of less serious physical injuries for having days later, Acting City Fiscal of Batangas City filed before the CFI of
inflicted wounds on Balaba, which according to the complaint would Batangas, another informationagainst Opulencia, this time for theft of
"require, medical attendance for a period from 10 to 15 days‖. Accused electric power under Article 308 of RPC. Opulencia pleads double jeopardy.
pleaded guilty. On the same day he began to serve his sentence and has fully
served the same. SC ruled that: Where the offenses charged are penalized either by different
However, Balaba's injuries did not heal within the period estimated so the sections of the same statute or by different statutes, the important inquiry
Fiscal filed an information charging accused of serious physical injuries. relates to the identity of offenses charge: the constitutional protection against
double jeopardy is available only where an Identity is shown to exist between
SC ruled: If the X-ray examination discloses the existence of a fracture on the earlier and the subsequent offenses charged.
Jan. 17, 1957, that fracture must have existed when the first examination was
made on Dec. 10, 1956. There is, therefore, no new or supervening fact that In contrast, where one offense is charged under a municipal ordinance while
could be said to have developed since the filing of the original action. the other is penalized by a statute, the critical inquiry is to the identity of the
For which reason we are constrained to apply the general rule of double acts which the accused is said to have committed. the constitutional
jeopardy. protection against double jeopardy is available so long as the acts which
constitute or have given rise to the first offense under a municipal ordinance
DOCTRINE: Where there is no new supervening fact which changes the are the same acts which constitute or have given rise to the offense charged
character of the offense into one which was nonexistent at the time the first under a statute.
case was filed, there can be no double jeopardy.

SEC 22


PEOPLE v. FERRER (subversion act) penal laws. RA 8249 is not a penal law. It is a substantive law on jurisdiction
which is not penal in character. Not being a penal law, retroactive application
Congress passed the Anti-Subversion Act which Outlaws the Communist ofthe statute cannot be challenged as unconstitutional.
Party of the Philippines. It punishes any person who ―knowingly and
willfully and by overt acts affiliates himself with, becomes a member‖ of the ARTICLE IV CITIZENSHIP
Party or other similar ―subversive organizations. SC ruled that it’s not a bill
of attainder. SEC 1
The Anti-Subversion act does not specify the Communist Party of the
Philippines. The term ―Communist Party‖ is used solely for definitional CHILDREN OF FILIPINO fathers or mothers
purposes (under section 4).
TECSON v COMELEC (FPJ case, illegitimate son of a Filipino father)
If the Anti-Subversion act really were a bill of attainder, then it would be
unnecessary to charge Communists in court. The fact remains that their guilt The citizenship of Lorenzo Pou if acquired would extend to his son Allan
still has to be judicially established. The statute specifically requires that the Poe, father of FPJ. The 1935 Constitution, the constitution during which FPJ
membership must be knowing or active. Mere membership is not punishable, was born, confers citizenship to all persons whose fathers are Filipino
there must be proof of direct participation in the organization’s unlawful citizens regardless of whether such children are legitimate or illegitimate
Paragraph (3)
DOCTRINE: Only when a statute applies either to named individuals or to
easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict
punishment without a judicial trial does it become a bill of attainder. CO v. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL

VIRATA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (PCGG charter) Jose Ong filed an application for naturalization and took his oath of
allegiance in the PH. At the tie he took his oath Ong Jr. was a minor of 9
SC ruled that the PCGG Charter is not a bill of attainder or an ex post facto years old. His brother Emilio was recognized as a natural born Filipino
law. A bill of attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without citizen.
judicial trial. Nothing in the executive Orders can be reasonably construed as
a declaration of guilt. Also no punishment is inflicted by the EO. For both SC ruled that: there is no dispute that respondent’s mother is a natural born
civil and criminal cases covered by the PCGG, nothing has been altered in Filipina at the time of her marriage. To expect the respondent to elect
terms of quantum of proof required for an adverse judgment against accused. citizenship is unnecessary. He was already a citizen. Not only was her mother
a natural born citizen but his father had been naturalized. Moreover, the
LACSON v. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY (jurisdiction of SB) respondent traces his natural born citizenship from hismother not father. The
citizenship of the father is relevant only to determine whether or notthe
respondent ―chose‖ to be a Filipino whe he came of age.
Accused claims that RA 8249 appears to have expanded the jurisdiction of
SB, and is an ex post facto statute intended to apply specifically to the
accused in the KuratongBaleleng case pending before SB. They further Under the 1973 Constitution, those born of Filipino fathers and those born of
argued that they could no longer avail of the two-tiered appeal to the SB, thus Filipino mothers with an alien father were placed on the equal footing. They
violating their right to due process. SC ruled it’s not an ex post facto law. were both considered as natural born citizens.
Moreover, the mode of procedure provided for in the statutory right of appeal
is not included in the prohibition against ex post facto laws. REPUBLIC v. SAGUN

DOCTRINE: An ex post facto law, generally prohibits restrospectivity of Petitioner was born of a Chinese father and a Filipino mother. She did not


elect Filipino citizen upon reaching the age of the majority. At the age of 33 character of his witnesses who must be credible persons. Credible implies
she executed an oath of allegiance to PH. She applied for passport but was that such a person must have a good standing in the community, honest and
denied bec. no annotation on her birth cert that she elected PH citizenship. upright and his word may be taken on its face value.
She then sought a judicial declaration of her election of PH citizenship. RTC
declared her a Filipino citizen. 3 ways by which an alien may become a citizen through naturalization:

SC ruled that it was erroneous for RTC to make a specific declaration of 1. Administrative naturalization pursuant to RA 9139
respondent’s election of Filipino citizenship as such pronouncement was not 2. Judicial naturalization pursuant to CA 473
within the court’s competence. 3. Legislative naturalization in the form of law enacted by Congress
bestowing PH citizenship to an alien
Under the 1935 consti, the citizenship of a legitimate child born of a Filipino
mother and an alien father followed the citizenship of the father unless upon LOSS OF CITIZENSHIP
reaching the age of the majority, the child elected PH citizenship. 1973 and
1987 provision on election of citizenship cannot have a curative effect on any
irregularity in the acquisition of citizenship of those covered by the 1935 MAQUILING v COMELEC
consti. If citizenship of a person was challenged in the old charter, it remains
subject to challenge under the new charter. Respondent was a natural born citizen who was naturalized as an American.
He applied for repatriation and took his oath of allegiance. His travel record
Petitioner failed to comply with procedural requirements for a valid and indicated that he has still been using his US passport.
effective election of PH citizenship.
SC ruled that the use of passport after renouncing one’s citizenship does not
DOCTRINE: Under our laws there can be no action or proceeding for divest Filipino Citizenship regained by repatriation but revokes the oath of
judicial declaration of election of the citizenship of an individual Renunciation required to run for office. By representing himself as an
American citizen, he voluntarily reverted to his status as a dual citizen.

Paragraph (4)
DOCTRINE: renunciation requires an absolute and perpetual renunciation of
foreign citizenship. US passport usage effectively negates an ―Affidavit of
SO v. REPUBLIC renunciation‖.

So a Chinese citizen filed a petition for Naturalization. He presented two SEC 2

SC ruled that petitioner failed to prove that the witnesses he presented were
competent to vouch for his good moral character and themselves possessed of
good moral character. The court was not convinced that they personally know Cruz is a natural born citizen of PH. He enlisted on US Marine Corps and
the petitioner well. took his oath of allegiance in the US. He reacquired his citizenship through
repatriation. Bengson contends that Cruz can no longer be considered as a
natural born citizen.
Moreover, since the petitioner applied for naturalization by judicial act, CA
473 will apply to him not RA 9139 even if it was already available at that
SC ruled that Cruz repatriation allows him to recover or return to his original
status before he lost his PH citizenship.
DOCTRINE: In naturalization proceedings it is the burden of the applicant
to prove not only his own good moral character but also the good moral DAVID v. AGBAY


David became a Canadian through naturalization. He filed an MLA over a AASJS-CALILUNG v. DATUMANONG
land in dispute. In the application he indicated that he is a Filipino citizen. He
then re acquired his Filipino Citizenship under RA 9225.Petitioner insist that Petitioner contends that RA 9225 is unconstitutional as it violates the
the courts should not distinguish between re-acquisition and retention in RA constitutional provision which states that ―dual allegiance is inimical to the
9225. national interest and shall be dealt with by law‖

SC ruled that the law makes a distinction between those natural born SC ruled that it would be premature for the judicial department to rule n
Filipinos who became foreign citizen before and after the effectivity of RA issues pertaining to dual allegiance. Congress was given a mandate to draft a
9225. Those who were naturalized in a foreign country shall be deemed to re- law that would set specific parameters of what really constitutes dual
acquire PH citizenship which was lost pursuant to CA 63. RA 9225 amends allegiance.
CA 63 by doing away with the old law which takes away PH citizenship from
natural born Filipinos who became naturalized in a foreign country and
On its face, the law does not recognize dual allegiance. By swearing to the
allowing dual citizenship (thus retained it).
authority of the Republic, the person implicitly renounces his foreign
While he reacquired his PH citizenship 6 months later, the falsification was
already a consummated act, the said law having no retroactive effect insofar
as his dual citizenship status is concerned DOCTRINE: RA 9225 stayed cleared out of the problem of dual allegiance
and shifted the burden of confronting the issue of whether or not there is dual
allegiance to the concerned foreign country

Under international law foundlings are citizens. Generally accepted principles

of international law form part of the laws of the land. Hence there is a
generally accepted principle of international law to presume foundlings as ARTICLE V SUFFRAGE
having been born and a national of the country in which it is found.
To reacquire her Filipino citizenship and become eligible for public office the
law requires that she: Petitioner is assailing the constitutionality of Overseas Absentee Voting Act
for violating the residency requirement in art 5 of consti. It allows for the
1. Take an oath of allegiance to the PH registration of voters who are immigrants or permanent residents in other
2. Make a personal and sworn renunciation of her American countries by mere execution of an affidavit expressing their intention to
citizenship before any public officer authorized to administer an return to PH.
oath. In this case there is no showing that respondent complied with
the requirements. SC ruled that the law was enacted pursuant to the constitutional mandate to
Congress to provide a system for voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
Residence for election is used synonymously with domicile. The qualified
Moreover, her oath of office as Provincial Administrator cannot be
considered as an oath of allegiance in compliance with RA 9225. Filipino abroad who executed the affidavit is deemed to have retained his
domicile in PH. He is presumed to have not lost his domicile by physical
absence from the country. His having become an immigrant or permanent
SEC 5 resident of his host country does not necessarily imply an abandonment of his


intention to return to his domicile of origin. SC ruled that employees should be given equal pay for work of equal value.
It’s a principle that rest on fundamental notions of justice. There is no
NICOLAS-LEWIS v. COMELEC evidence here that foreign hires perform 25% more efficiently or effectively
than local hires. Both groups have similar function and responsibilities under
similar working condition. The point of hire classification is an invalid
COMELEC letter states that petitioners have no right to vote as absentee classification
voter owing to their lack of 1 year residence requirement prescribed by the
DOCTRINE: Persons who work with substantially equal qualifications,
skill,effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar
SC ruled that there is no provision in the dual citizenship law (RA 9225) salaries. (equal pay for equal work)
requiring duals to actually establish residence and physically stay in the PH
first before they can exercise to vote. RA 9225 acknowledge that ―duals‖ are
granted the same right of suffrage as that granted an absentee voter. Duals are SEC 3
allowed to vote under the system of absentee voting.
Petitioners are assailing that the biometrics validation requires additional
substantial qualification and is no different from the requirement of literacy SC ruled that NLRC acted correctly in ordering the two petitioners to jointly
and property thus unconstitutional. and severally pay the wage and allowance increases to the security guards.

SC ruled that the requirement is not a qualification to the exercise to the right The joint and several liability of the contractor and principal is mandated by
of suffrage but a mere aspect of the registration procedure. Although one is a the Labor Code to assure compliance with the provisions therein including
―qualified elector‖ he must still comply with the registration procedure in the statutory minimum wage.
order to vote.
The joint and several liability facilitates if not guarantees the payment of the
DOCTRINE: Qualification which is the possession of qualities, properties worker’s performance, thus giving workers ample protection as mandated by
legally necessary to make one eligible for office or to perform a public duty, the Constitution.
should be distinguished from registration which is the means by which a
person’s qualifications to vote is determined.




INTERNATIONAL SCHOOL ALLIANCE OF EDUCATORS v. FARM asks for the invalidation of Sec 31 of RA 6657 in that it affords the
QUISUMBING (salary difference bet. Foreign and local hires) corporation the capacity to merely resort to stock distribution in lieu of actual
redistribution of agricultural land.
In this case foreign hires are paid a salary rate 25% more than local-hires.
SC ruled that the words ―directly or collectively‖ found in Sec. 4 Art 13 of


the constitution actually allows for the interpretation that ―collectively‖ automatic and regular release of approved appropriations.
means allowing indirect ownership of the land—in this case through stock-
through collective ownership by means of a workers’ cooperative. This law is DOCTRINE: The 1987 Constitution expressly grants fiscal autonomy only
not executory hence RA 6657 a legislation needs to implement it. to the Judiciary, the constitutional commissions and the Office of the
SEC 18
Sec 10
CARINO v. CHR (no adjudicatory power, no contempt)
SC ruled that the CHR cannot try and decide cases as courts of justice or even
Macasiano seeks to declare the Urban Development and Housing Act as quasi-judicial bodies. It may only investigate and made fact findings as
unconstitutional. He alleges that it serves as a drawback to his tasks and regards claimed human rights violation involving civil and political rights.
duties regarding demolition of illegal structures. But fact finding is not adjudication.

SC ruled there is no actual case or controversy. (HAHAHA pahiya!) SIMON v. CHR (no injunctive power)(see civil and political rights in the
PEOPLE v. LEACHON (just and humane manner)
CHR issued an order directing the petitioner to stop demolishing the stores,
According to the judge, conviction based on the Anti-Squatting law would be but petitioners carried out the demolition despite the said order. CHR directed
unconstitutional because accused must be evicted in a humane manner, in the petitioners to desist from further demolition with the warning that
accordance with law—resettlement areas have to be established and the violation of the said order would lead to a citation for contempt and arrest.
accused consulted on such relocation first.
SC ruled that the demolition of the stall does not fall within ―human right
SC ruled that what is meant by ―humane manner‖ and ―in accordance with violations involving civil and political rights.
law‖ is that accused be afforded due process. The Anti-Squatting law is
constitutional as it affords the alleged ―squatters‖ the opportunity to present On contempt powers, CHR is constitutionally authorized to ―adopt its
their case before a competent court. operational guidelines and rules of procedure, and cite for contempt for
violations thereof. The power to cite for contempt applies only to violations
SEC 17 (4) of its adopted operational guidelines and rules of procedure essential to
carry out is investigatorial powers.
The “order to desist” is not investigatorial in character but adjudicative in
nature. CHR does not possess adjudicative power!
CHR EMPLOYEES v. CHR (fiscal autonomy)

SC held that the ConCom had intended to grant the CHR the privilege of
having its approved annual appropriations automatically and regularly
released but nothing more. Fiscal autonomy means independence or freedom ARTICLE XIV EDUCATION SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, ARTS
regarding financial matters from outside control. It does not mean mere CULTURE AND SPORTS




DECS v. SAN DIEGO (failed NMAT thrice, power to regulate Loyola School of theology is a seminary for priesthood. They have no duty
admission) on their part to admit her (or students) since the school has the discretion to
turn down even qualified applicants due to limitation of space, facilities,
SC ruled that the three flunk rule is intended to insulate the medical schools professors and optimum classroom size and component considerations. What
and medical profession from the intrusion of those not qualified to be a a student possesses is a privilege rather than a right.
doctor. It is within the ambit of police power. The state has the right to ensure
that medical profession is not infiltrated with incompetents to whom the DOCTRINE: Institutions of higher learning enjoys academic freedom. It
patients may entrust their lives and health. decides for itself it aims and objectives and best to attain them free from
outside coercion or interference and to determine for itself:
DOCTRINE: The right to quality education is not absolute. The constitution
also provides that ―every citizen has the right to choose a profession or course 1.who may teach
of study subject to fair, reasonable and equitable admission and academic
requirements‖. 2.what may be taught

SEC 3 it shall be taught

DUTY OF INSTITUTIONS 4. and who may be admitted to study

MIRIAM COLLEGE v. CA (obscene school paper) UNIVERSITY OF SAN CARLOS v. CA (freedom to give honors)

Students published an obscene school paper. They were insisting that DECS Petitioner is asking the court to compel her university to confer upon her
has jurisdiction over them and not the discipline board of the school and that honors (cum laude) despite her failed subjects in architecture.
the Campus Journalism Act (RA 7079) which prohibits the expulsion or
suspension of a student solely on the basis of articles he haswritten
SC ruled that it is part of academic freedom for schools of learning to have
,shouldapply to them.
the discretion to formulate rules and guidelines in granting of honors for
purposes of graduation. Moreover, it is within the competence of universities
SC ruled that Art 14 of consti guarantees all institutions of higher learning and colleges to determine who are entitled to the grant of honors among the
academic freedom. Provisions of law should be construed in harmony with graduating students. It's discretion on academic matter may not be disturbed
those of the constitution. Thus the Campus journalism act should mean that by the courts unless there is grave abuse of discretion in its exercise. Private
the school cannot suspend or expel a student solely on the basis of the articles respondent should know the policies of the university and bound to comply
he has written except when such materially distrupt class work or involve therewith.
substantial disorder or invasion of right of others. Moreover, the power of to
suspend or expel is an inherent part of the academic freedom of institutions of
higher learning guaranteed by the Constitution.