Assembly and Petition
Villegas
Reyes v. Bagatsing
Facts:
Petitioner sought a permit from the city mayor (respondent) to hold
a peaceful march and rally from Luneta to the US Embassy.
However, respondent mayor denied the request and stated that a
permit will only be granted if it will be held on Rizal Coliseum or any
other enclosed area.
Ruling:
* sole justification for a limitation on the exercise of right to assembly Is
the danger, of a character both grave and imminent, of a serious evil to
public safety, morals, health or any other legitimate public interest
* In this case, there was no justification to deny the exercise of the
constitution right to free speech and peaceful assembly.
* It is settled law that as to public places, especially so as to parks and
streets, there is freedom of access, the mere assertion that subversives
may infiltrate the ranks of the demonstrators does not suffice. There was
no clean and present danger to prevent.
Bayan v. Ermita
* Subject of this case is B.P 880 which requires a permit before one can
stage a public assembly regardless of presence of a clear and present
danger. Hence, petitioners alleged that the law is violative of the freedom
of expression clause, art 4 of constitution.
* freedom of speech, of expression and of the press is a right that enjoys
dominance in the sphere of constitutional protection. Why? Because
these rights represent the very basis of functional democratic polity, w/o
w/c all other right would be meaningless and unprotected.
* however, the rights are not absolute and maybe regulated in the
exercise of stats police power. BP 880 is not an absolute ban on public
assembles but a mere restriction/regulation. Hence, not
unconstitutional.
Navarro v.
Facts:
Respondent mayor has expressly stated his willingness to grant
permits for peaceful assemblies at Plaza Miranda during Sat/Sun
holiday, when they would not caused unnecessarily great disruption to
the normal activities of the community and offered sunken garden as an
alternative. This, is what petitioners want to enjoin asserting their right
to assembly.
Ruling: The court held that, as the court earlier ruled in Primicias v.
Fugoso, respondent Mayor possesses reasonable discretion to determine
or specify the streets or public places to be used for the assembly in order
to secure convenient use thereof and to minimize risks of disorder and
maintain public safety and order.
*That civil right & liberties can exist and be preserved only in an order
society.
Malabanan v. Ramento
Facts: Students of Gregorio Araneta University were suspended for
holding a rally beyond the time & place located/stated in the permit
granted by the university. In lieu of their act, classes were disturbed and
work are stopped.
Ruling:
The invocation of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly carries
with it the implication that the right to free speech has likewise been
disregarded.
Both rights should not be limited and or denied except on a showing
of a clear and present danger of substantive evil that the state has the
right to prevent.
In this case, the assembly was to be held in a private premises. As
jurisprudence dictates, if an assembly be held in a private place, only one
consent of the owner or the one entitled to its legal possession is
required. This was right by petitioners. However, their conduct of going
beyond the terms of their request, which materially disrupted classwork
or involved disorder, is of course, not immunized by the constitutional
guarantee of freedom of speech.
Libel/ press freedom
New York v. Sullivan
* mistake is no excuse to absolve publishers because libel is harmful on
its face by the fact that it exposes the injured party to more than trivial
ridicule, w/r it is factor opinion is irrelevant.
*Libel cannot be used to curtail press freedom however it also can not
claim talismatic immunity from constitutional limitations
*criticism does not authorize defamation
* so long as it was done in good faith, the press should have the legal
right to have & express their opinions on legal questions. To deny them
that right would be to infringe upon freedom of the press.
Lopez v. CA
Facts: This case is about the article published by petitioner the Manila
Chronicle regarding one FidelCruz who was a sanitary inspector stucked
in Babuyan Island and made a hoax. However, petitioner publisher, in
publishing the article, used a wrong picture of Fidel Cruz, another
person. The latter alleged that such negligence made undue imputations
to his reputation.
Lopez however immediately corrected it, however, the courts still find
Lopez liable for damages & ruled in favor of private respondent.
Ruling;
Libel, defined in the RPC, is a “malicious defamation, expresses
either in writing, printing, or by signs or pictures. Tending impeach the
honesty, virtue or reputation of one who is alive.”
That publication of a person's photograph in connection with an article
libelous of a third person, is a libel on the person whose picture is
published. Hence, petitioner is indeed liable to private respondent.
Why a libel is both a civil and criminal offense?
-because in one hand, libeling a person results in depriving him of
his good reputation. And on the other hand, publication of defamatory
statements tends to strongly induce breach of the peace by the person
defamed a crime.
Policarpio v. Manila times
Facts: This is the case of Lumen Policarpio, executive secretary of the
local UNESCO. She was alleged to have malversed public funds and such
allegations where published in several newspapers, including respondent
publisher. She maintains that the false statements published in the
articles give people the impression that she is already guilty.
Ruling: it goes without saying that newspapers must enjoy a certain
degree of discretion in determining the manner in a w/c a given event
should be presented to the public. Moreover, newspapers may publish
news items relative to judicial proceeding w/c are not confidential in
nature, as the public is entitled to know the truth.
However, to enjoy this immunity, a publication containing a derogatory
info must be not only true, but, also, fair, and it must be done in good
faith and without any comments or remarks.
In the case at bar, defendants did not act in good faith in publishing the
article about plaintiff. It was presumed to be malicious. Moreover,
although they immediately clarified it, such rectification or clarification
does not wipe out the responsibility arsing from the publication,
although it can be mitigated.
OBSCENITY
Miller v. California
Facts: The case is about Miller who was convicted for mailing
advertisements for “adult” books to unwilling recipients
Issue: Whether state statutes may regulate obscene materials without
limits?
Ruling: No. The court ruled that in determining w/r speech is obscence,
the basic guidelines for the trier of facts must be:
1.) whether the “average person, applying contemporary community .”
would find the material appeals to the prurient interest of sex;
2.) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specifically defined by one applicable state law; and
3.) whether the work lacks serious literacy, artistic, political or scientific
value.
Soriano v. MTRCB
* a requirement that indecent language be avoided has its primary effect
on the form, rather than the content, of serious communication. There
are few, if any, thoughts that cannot be expressed by the use of less
offensive language.
* the SC ruled that Soriano's statement can be treated as obscene, at least
with respect to the average child and this his utterances cannot be
considered protected speech.
Liberty and abode
Marcos v. Manglapus
Issues:
1. w/n the president has the power to ban the Marcoses fr. To the PH?
2. w/n the president committed grave abuse of discretion when she
determined that the Marcoses' return poses a threat to national interest.
Ruling:
* Yes. Since whatever power Inherent in the gout that is neither
legislative nor judicial has to be executive.
* The power involved is the Presidents, residual power to protect the gen.
Welfare of the people. It is not only the power of the president but also
his duty to do anything not forbidden by the consti
* This case calls for the exercise if the presidents, powers as protector of
the peace
* The state is not precluded from taking pre-emptive action against
threats to its existence, & perceived to become serious. Protection of the
people is the essence of the duty of the govt.
Information & access to official records.
Sec. 7
Legaspi v. CSC
* Petitioner requested w/ the respondent CSC info on the eligibilities of
certain persons but it was denied. Hence, petitioner invokes his right to
information on matters of public concern
* Court ruled that Art 3, Sec 7 is self executing, hence it mat be asserted
at any time
* “ Public “ is defined as a comprehensive term it embraces every person.
* Govt agencies are w/o discretion in refusing disclosure of, or access to,
information of public concern. Moreover, as ruled in Subido case, the
court held that the authority to regulate the manner of examining public
records does not carry w/ of he power to prohibit.
Information / access to Official Records
Valmonte v. Belmonte
* Right to Information is an essential premise of a meaningful right to
speech and expression
* GSIS matters are subj. Of public concern since its funds comes from
public, hence, it assumes public character.
Sarmiento v. Morato
* The case regarding the voting slips of MTRCB board members
* Court held that since the MTRCB's existence is public I its character
and an office created to serve public interest; the decision of its members
are of public character and can be subj of access by the public.
* Hence right Art 3, sec 7 is applicable.
Art 3, Sec 10
Contract clause
Rutter v. Esteban
* case regarding moratorium law delaying for 8 yrs the payment of debts
to creditors by debtors who were victim of the war
* Court held that RA 342 violates the contract clause of the constitution
as it impairs the obligation in the contracts contract even before the law's
enactment
* That said act is oppressive and unreasonable that while the purpose of
the law is plausible & be commended, the relief accorded works injustice
to creditors
* although as a general rule, moratorium laws are constitutional, when it
is oppressive and unjust, it can be declared void.
Ortigas v. CA
* Case about zoning ordinance w/c provides that the land w/c was sold
by pet be used for residential purpose only. But when private res hased it,
he erected a commercial bldg, in lieu of the zoning ordinance re-classify
pet's land into a commercial land.
* The said ordinance is held to be constitutional as it is w/in the exercise
of state's police power. That a law enacted in the exercise of police power
to regulate certain activities could be give retroactive effect and may
impair rested rights as contracts.
Section 12.
Custodial Investigation
Miranda v. Arizona
* the constitution serves to protect persons in all setting in w/c their
freedom of action is curtailed in any significant way from being
compelled to incriminate themselves.
* Custodial investigation – questioning initiated by law enforcement
officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived
of his freedom
* a defendant must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the
right to remain silent, that anything against him can be used in a court of
law, the he has the right to presence of an attorney xxx
* why do we need this Miranda rights? Why does this exist only in
custodial investigations?
- to prevent coercion during investigations (people v. ayson)
- to prohibit “in communicado interrogation of individuals in a police
dominated atmospehre, resulting in self-incriminating statement w/o
full warnings of constitutional right.”
* Right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation when the * Reason why it is should be posted when a person is in custody of law?
investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit info/ admission for
the accused - it discourages and prevents resort to the former pernicious practice
whereby an accused could just send another in his stead to post his bail
* In a police line-up – it is not yet part of the custodial inquest, hence, w/o recognizing court's jurisdiction of his personal appearance.
petitioner, was not yet entitled to counsel
* Only those persons who have either been arrested, detained, or
* no need for counsel if no testimonial compulsion otherwise deprived of freedom will have the exercise such right.
paraffin testing – no
reenactment of a crime- yes In custody of the law
handwriting- yes 1.) when a person is arrested by virtue of a warrant of arrest; or
DNA- no 2.) when he has voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the
drug testing- depends court.

* all persons in custody shall, before conviction by the regional office by

Estrella v. SB an offense not punishable by death/capital offense may be admitted to
bail as a matter of right.
- in this case, altho petitioner's waiver of his right to remain silent & to be
assisted a counsel was not made in presence of counsel, the defect was * right to bail spring from the presumption of innocence afforded to
when petitioner's lawyer arrived at the closing stage of the interrogation every person
and the before pet signed it.
* after conviction
- proof of guilt terminates presumption of innocence
People v. Pinlac ( right to be informed) - bail becomes a matter of discretion

- the constitutional rights of the accused was violated in the failure of the * Read Hongkong v. Ulalia, wherein the court ruled that accused in
authorities in making the accused inderstand the nature of the charges extradition proceedings are entitled to bail grounded on the universal
against him without appraising him his right to have a counsel during CI. right to liberty

Right to bail Kinds of bails

Paduanga v. CA
- as a matter of right
* Definition of Bail - as a matter of discretion
Sec 1 rule 114 – bail is the security given for the reliance of a person
in custody f law, by him or a bondsman, conditioned upon his appearing
before any court
Exception for not granting bail Trial in absentia
1.) when the accused is a recidivist / habitual deligent Art 13, Sec 14 (2)
2.) accused evaded sentence
3.) accused committed offense while on parole - after, trial may proceed not withstanding the absence of the accused
4.) probability of flight provided that he has been duly notified & his failure to appear is
5.) undue risk unjustifiable.

Excessive bail

Yap v. CA

- The purpose of bail is to guarantee the appearance of the accused at the

trial. The amount should be high enough to assure the accused 's
presence.

- where however the right to bail exists, it should not be rendered

nugatory by requiring a sum that is excessive.

- Guidelines for fixing bail – Sec 9, Rule 114

*Presumption of Innocence
* Right to be heard

Right to be informed

* Right to speedy impartial public trial

- unreasonable delays in conducting of trial is prohibited

- factors to consider if there is violation of right to speedy trial:

length of delay, reason for the delay, effort of the defendant to assert
his right and prejudice caused to defendant

- violation of this right us a reason for dismissal

Art. 3 sec 5 Religion
Non- establishment of Religion
Aglipay v. Ruiz
Issue: whether or not there is a violation of the constitution by the
Respondent in issuing and selling postage stamps commemorative of the
33rd International Eucharistic Congress?
Ruling: No. Act 4052 contemplates no religious purpose. What it gives
the respondent is the discretionary power to determine when the
issuance of special postage stamps would be advantageous to the
government.
The stamps were not issued & sold for the benefit of the Roman
Catholic Church nor were money derived from the sale be given to that
church.
Taruc v. Dela Cruz
* citing Fonacier v. CA, the court ruled, “ The doctrine that in disputes
involving religions institutions or organizations, there is one area which
the Court should not touch: doctrinal and disciplinary differences.
* Like in this case, since the issue rooted from the alleged unworthy
membership of petitioner, the same ecclesiastical matters which are
outside the province of the civil courts.
Garces v. Estenzo
Facts: This case is about the priest who tried to owned the wooden image
of a saint bought by the local government. A third party group alleged
that the buying of the said image indirectly favors or establish any
religion or appropriating public fund for the benefit of a certain
religion/section.
Ruling: No. the contention is devoid of mert. The wooden image
purchased was in connection w/a fiesta celebration and not for the
purpose of favoring any religion. The case is just a petty quarrel over the
custody of the saint's image. Not every governmental activity w/c
involves the expenditure of public funds and which has some religious
tint is violative of the constitutional provisions regarding separation of
church & state etc.
School district v. Schempp
* The non-establishment clause was not intended merely to prohibit
Congress from aiding or preferring one religion at the expense of others
but also to ensure that it does not promote all religions, or religion
generally.
* The First Amendment's purpose was not to strike merely at the official
establishment of a single sect, creed or religion, but to create a complete
and permanent separation of the spheres of religious activity by
comprehensively forbidding every form of public aid or support for
religion.
Lemon v. Kurtzman
If these guidelines are violated, a statute is deemed violative of the
establishment clause:
1. Statute must have a secular legislative purpose
2. Its effect must not advance nor prohibit any religious practice
3. It must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” in
government affairs.
What is the lemon test?
- a classification system that is use to see whether or not state laws
regarding funding or creating religious institutions w/ public money
violate the US constitution.
Free exercise of Religion

American Bible v. City of Manila

* Religion – a profession of faith to an active power that binds and

elevates man to his Creator.
* The Constitutional guaranty of the free exercise and enjoyment of
religious profession carries w/ it the right ti disseminate religious
information.
* Any restraint pf such right can only be justified on the grounds that
there is a clear and present danger w/ the state has the right to prevent.

Cantwell v. Conneticut
* Freedom to believe → absolute
Freedom to act → is subject to regulations to protect society
Self incrimination
U.S v. Tan Teng
* In this case, the defendant contented that the result of the physical
exam made by the DOS of the substance taken from his body wan not
admissible; that to admit such evidence was to compel him to testify
against himself.
* Judge Lobingier said: The accused was not compelled to make any
admissions, and the mere fact that an object found on his person was
examined: seems no more to infringe the rule invoked, than would the
introduction in evidence of stole property taken from the person of a
thief.
* HoH v US : The prohibition of compelling a man in a criminal court to
be a witness against himself, is a prohibition of the use of physical or
moral compulsion, to extort communication from him, not an exclusion
of his body as evidence, when it maybe material
* Provision on self incrimination is simply a prohibition against legal
process to extract fr. The defendant's own lips, against his will, an
admission of guilt
Villaflor v. Summers
* w/n the compelling of a woman to permit her body to be examined by
the physicians to determine if she's pregnant violates the self
incrimination clause?
* no accused person should be afraid of the use of any method w/c will
tend to establish the truth.
* To use torture to make the defendant admit her guilt might only result
in including her to tell a falsehood. But no evidence of physical facts can
for any reason be held to be detrimental to the accused except in so far as
the truth is to be avoided in order to acquit a guilty person.
* The constitution guaranty against self incrimination is limited to
prohibition against compulsory testimonial self incrimination. Hence, an
ocular inspection of the body is permissible.
Beltran v. Samson
* W/n the writing from the fiscal's dictation by the petitioner for the
purpose of comparing the latter's handwriting constitutes evidence
against himself.
* Writing is something more than moving the body, or the hands because
it requires the application of intelligence & attention and in the case at
bar, writing means that the petitioner is to furnish means to determine if
he is a falsifier. It is similar to that of producing documents in one's
possession.
* by compelling him to furnish a specimen of his handwriting, the
witness is required to furnish evidence against himself.
Bermudez v. Castillo
- privilege of self incrimination is not limited precisely to testimony, but
extends to all giving or furnishing of evidence
- well established doctrine: constitutional inhibition is directed not
merely to giving of oral testimony, but embraces as well the furnishing of
evidence by other means
Non – imprisonment for debt jeopardy.

Luzano v. Martinez Melo v. People

* The gravamen of the offense punished by BP 22 is the making and
issuing of worthless check that is dishonored upon its presentation for
payment, It is not the non-payment of an obligation w/c the law
punishes. The law is not intended r designed to coerce a debtor to pay his
debt.
* enactment of BP 22 is a valid exercise of police power and is not
repugnant to the constitutional inhibition against imprisonment for debt.
Double jeopardy
People v. Balicasan
* Rule of double jeopardy → when a person is charged w/ an offense and
the case is terminated either by acquittal or conviction or in any other
manner w/o the consent of the accused, the latter cannot again be
charged w/ the same or identical offense.
* Inhibition is against a second jeopardy for same offense, that “if an act
is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under
either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.
* “ Same offense “ - means not only the 2nd offense is exactly the same,
but also the two offenses are identical. There is identity between 2
offenses when the evidence to support a conviction for one offense would
be sufficient to warrant a conviction for the other.

* a plea of guilt is an unconditional admission of guilt w/ respect to the

offense charged.

* In acquitting the defendant who plead guilty w/o requisite trial, the
trial court deprived the prosecution of its right to be heard.

* Sec. 2 Rule 22 of the ROC provides that: “The people cannot appeal if
the defendant would be placed thereby in double jeopardy.”

In this case, is the accused placed in double jeopardy?

No. That although accused plead guilty, however, subsequently he

testified to prove mitigating circumstances. This testimony had the effect
of vacating his plea of guilty and the court should have required him to
plead new but this was not done. Hence, there having been no standing
plea when the court rendered acquittal, there can be no double jeopardy
w/ respect to the appeal.

* The acquittal, being a nullity for want of due process, is no acquittal at

all, and this, can not constitute a proper basis for a claim of former