1

 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 

SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

contraband goods on board. The Customs team found

out that the vessel did not have the required ship’s
BILL OF RIGHTS permit and shipping documents. The vessel and it’s
cargo were held and a warrant of Seizure and Detention
was issued after due investigation. In the course of the
forfeiture proceedings, the ship captain and the ship’s
Q. How is the Bill of Rights strengthened in the 1987 resident agent executed sworn statements before the
Constitution? (Bar Question) Custom legal officer admitting that contraband cargo
were found aboard the vessel. The shipping lines
A. There are several ways in which the Bill of Rights is object to the admission of the statements as evidence
strengthened in the 1987 Constitution. contending that during their executions, the captain
1. New rights are given explicit recognition such as, the and the shipping agent were not assisted by counsel,
prohibition against detention by reason of political beliefs in violation of due process. Decide. (Bar Question)
and aspirations. The waiver of Miranda rights is now
required to be made in writing with the assistance of A. The admission of the statements of the captain and the
counsel. The use of solitary, incommunicado and secret shipping agent as evidence did not violate due process
detention places is prohibited, while the existence of even if they were not assisted by counsel. In Feeder
substandard and inadequate penal facilities is made the International Line Ltd. V C.A, 197 SCRA 842, it was held
concern of legislation. that the assistance of counsel is not indispensable to due
There is also recognition of the right of expression, process in forfeiture proceedings since such proceedings
an express prohibition against the use of torture, a mandate are not criminal in nature.
to the State to provide compensation and rehabilitation for
victims of torture and their families. Q. LOI No. 869 which prohibited the use of motor
2. Some rights have been expanded. For instance, free vehicles with the H and EH license plates on weekends
access to courts now includes access to quasi-judicial and holidays was questioned on the ground that they
bodies and to adequate legal assistance. were denied the right to use their car on such days and
3. The requirements for interfering with some rights have violated the due process clause and equal protection
been made more strict. For instance, only judges can now clause as other motor vehicles were not banned on
issue search warrants or warrants of arrest. There must be such days. Decide.
a law authorizing the Executive Department to interfere with
the privacy of communication, the liberty of abode, and the A.Due process cannot be invoked, because LOI 869 is an
right to travel before these rights may be impaired or exercise of the police power of the State. It seeks to
curtailed. conserve the use of energy resources because of the
4. The Constitution now provides that the suspension of the spiraling prices of petroleum products. Equal protection
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not suspend the does not require adherence to the all-or-nothing policy.
right to bail, thus resolving a doctrinal dispute of long Whether or not other measures should have been adopted
standing. is left to the policy discretion of the political branches.
5. The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas (Bautista VS Juinio, 127 SCRA 329)
corpus and the proclamation of martial law have been
limited to 60 days and are now subject to the power of Q. A complaint was filed by intelligence agents of the
Congress to revoke. In addition, the Supreme Court is given Bureau of Immigration and Deportation (BID) against
the jurisdiction, upon the petition of any citizen to determine Stevie, a German national, for his deportation as an
the sufficiency of the factual basis of the suspension of the undesirable alien. The Immigration Commissioner
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus and the proclamation directed the Special Board of Inquiry to conduct an
of martial law. investigation. At the said investigation, a lawyer from
6. The Supreme Court is empowered to adopt rules for the the Legal Department of the BID presented as
protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. witnesses the three intelligence agents who filed the
7. Art. II, Sec. 11 commits the State to a policy which places complaint. On the basis of the findings, report and
value on the dignity of every human person and guarantees recommendation of the Board of Special Inquiry, the
full respect for human rights. BID Commissioners unanimously voted for Stevie’s
8. A Commission on Human Rights is created. deportation. Stevie’s lawyer questioned the
9. Under Art. XVI,Sec. 5(2) the State is mandated to deportation order:
promote respect for the people’s rights among the members
of the military in the performance of their duty. 1) On the ground that Stevie was denied due
process because the BID Commissioners
who rendered the decision were not the
DUE PROCESS ones who received the evidence, in
violation of the “He who decides must
Q. The members of a union barricaded the gates of the hear” rule. Is he correct?
court in order to press the court to render judgment in 2) On the ground that there was a violation
their favor. In case the court renders a judgment in their of due process because the complainants,
favor, do you think there was deprivation of the right to the prosecutor and the hearing officers
due process? Why? were all subordinates of the BID
Commissioners who rendered the
A.Yes, because the decision was the result of a mob where deportation decision. Is he correct? (Bar
there was no independent judgment. (Nestle Phils. VS Question)
NLRC). In a similar decision, the requirement of due
process would likewise be violated. This is especially so if A. 1) No, Stevie is not correct, As held in Adamson
the publicity is focused on the guilt of the accused. & Adamson, Inc VS Amores, 152 SCRA 237, as
(Martelino VS Alejandro, 32 SCRA 106) administrative due process does not require that the actual
taking of testimony or the presentation of evidence before
Q. The S/S Masoy of Panamanian registry, while the same officer who will decide the case.
moored at the South Harbor, was found to have
 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.
 2
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

In American Tobacco Co. V Director of Patents, franking privilege, the remedy, it seems is to withdraw it
67 SCRA 287, the Supreme Court has ruled that so long as altogether from all agencies of the government, including
the actual decision on the merits of the cases is made by those who do not need it. The problem is not solved by
the officer authorized by law to decide, the power to hold a retaining it for some and withdrawing it from others,
hearing on the basis of which his decision will be made can especially where there is no substantial distinction between
be delegated and is not offensive to due process. The court those favored, which may or may not need it at all, and the
noted that: “AS long as a party is not deprived of his right to judiciary, which needs it.
present his own case and submit evidence in support
thereof, and the decision is supported by the evidence in Q. “X” was sentenced to a penalty of 1 year and 5
record, there is no question that the requirements of due months of prision correccional and to pay a fine of
process and fair trial are fully met. In short, there is no P8,000.00, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
abrogation of responsibility on the part of the officer solvency. After serving his prison term, “X” asked the
concerned as the actual decision remains with and is made Director of Prisons whether he could already be
by said officer. It is however, required that to give the released. “X” was asked to pay the fine of P5,000.00
substance of a hearing, which is for the purpose of making and he said he could not afford it, being an indigent.
determinations upon evidence the officer who makes the The Director informed him he has to an additional
determinations must consider and appraise the evidence prison term at the rate of one day per eight pesos in
which justifies them”. accordance with Article 39 of the Revised Penal Code.
2) No, Stevie was not denied due process simply The lawyer of “X” filed a petition for habeas corpus
because the complainants, the prosecutor, and the hearing contending that the further incarceration of his client
officers were all sunbordinates of the Commissioner of the for unpaid fines violates the equal protection clause of
Bureau of Immigration and Deportation. In accordance with the Constitution. Decide.(Bar Question)
the ruling in Erlanger & Galinger, Inc VS Court of
Industrial Relations, 110 Phil 470,the findings of the Alternative Answers:
subordinates are not conclusive upon the Commissioners, 1) The petition should be granted, because
who have the discretion to accept or reject them. What is article 39 of the RPC is unconstitutional. In
important is that Stevie was not deprived of his right to Tate V Short, 401 US 395, the United States
present his own case and submit evidence in support Supreme Court held that imposition of
thereof, the decision is supported by substantial evidence, subsidiary imprisonment upon a convict who
and the Commissioners acted on their own independent is too poor to pay a fine violates equal
consideration of the law and facts of the case, and did not protection, because economic status cannot
simply accept the views of their subordinates in arriving at serve as a valid basis for distinguishing the
a decision. duration of the imprisonment between a
convict who is able to pay the fine and a
convict who is unable to pay it.
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE 2) On the other hand, in United States ex rel.
Privitera VS Kross, 239 F Supp 118, it was
Q. Sec. 89, RA 6975 creating the PNP provides for held that the imposition of subsidiary
compulsory retirement at the age of 56. It provides imprisonment for inability to pay a fine does
however, that the members of the INP who were not violate equal protection, because the
absorbed by the PNP shall retire at the age of 60 during punishment should be tailored to fit the
the 4-year transitory period. Some members of the PC individual, and equal protection does not
who were absorbed by the PNP and who reached 56 compel the eradication of every disadvantage
received notices of retirement. They challenged Sec. 89 caused by indigence. The decision was
as violative of the equal protection clause since it affirmed by the US Circuit Court of Appeals in
applies only to the PNP. Decide. 345 F2d 533, and the US Suprme Court
denied the petition for certiorari in 382 US
A.The contention is not correct because there is a 911. This ruling was adopted by the Illinois
substantial distinction between them and the members of SC in People V Williams.
the INP. Under the laws enforced before RA 6975,
members of the PC were already retirable at the age of 60.
The transitory period of 4 years is intended to give them SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
(INP members) a breathing space to enable them to plan
for their retirement, which would be earlier than what was Q. Some police operatives, acting under a lawfully
provided by the old law. (Napolcom VS De Guzman, 48 issued warrant for the purpose of searching for
SCAD 205, February 9, 1994) firearms in the House of X located at No. 10 Shaw
Boulevard, Pasig, Metro Manila, found, instead of
Q. RA 7354, otherwise known as the Philippine Postal firearms, ten kilograms of cocaine.
Corporation withdrew the franking privilege of the 1) May the said police operatives lawfully
Courts, while retaining the same insofar as the seize the cocaine? Explain your answer.
Executive and Legislative Branches were concerned. It 2) May X successfully challenge the legality
was questioned as violative of the equal protection of the search on the ground that the peace
clause. Is the contention correct? Why? officers did not inform him about his right
to remain silent and his right to counsel?
A. Yes. In Philippine Judges Association VS Prado, 46 Explain your answer.
SCAD 225, Nov. 11, 1993, it was said that the judiciary 3) Suppose the peace officers were able to
needs the franking privilege. And it cannot be understood find unlicensed firearms in the house in an
why, of all the departments of the government, it is the adjacent lot, that is, No. 12 Shaw
judiciary that has been denied the franking privilege while Boulevard, which is also owned by X. May
extending it to others less deserving. The argument that the they lawfully seize the said unlicensed
franking privilege of the judiciary must be withdrawn firearms? Explain your answer. (Bar
because of the considerable volume of mail from it is self- Question)
defeating. If the problem is the loss of revenues from the
 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.
 3
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

A. 1) Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize the the law at the moment leaves the decision on the urgent
cocaine, because it is an item whose possession is purpose of suspending the liberty of the citizen.
prohibited by law, it was in plainview and it was only The obligation to make an arrest by
inadvertently discovered in the course of a lawful search. reason of a crime does not presuppose as a necessary
The possession of cocaine is prohibited by Sec. 8 of the requisite for the fulfillment thereof, the indubitable existence
Dangerous Drugs Act. As held Magoncia V Palacio, 80 of a crime.
Phil 770, an article whose possession is prohibited by law The twenty sticks of marijuana are
may be seized without the need of any search warrant if it admissible in evidence and the trial court’s finding that the
was discovered during a lawful search. The additional appellant is guilty of possession is correct. (People VS
requirement laid down in Roan VS Gonzales, 145 SCRA Ramos June 4, 1990)
687 that the discovery of the article must have been made
inadvertently was also satisfied in this case. Q. In an application for a search warrant, it was
2) No, X cannot successfully challenge the legality of the admitted that the questions propounded in the
searcvh simply because the peace officers did not inform supposed to be searching questions were pre-typed,
him about his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. that the only participation of the applicant for search
Sec. 12(1), Art. III of the 1987 Constitution provides: warrant was to subscribe before the judge.
“Any person under investigation for the Rule on the validity of the search warrant.
commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed
of his right to remain silent and to have competent and A. The search warrant is void because the rule that the
independent counsel preferably of his own choice.” judge must conduct searching questions and answers
As held in People VS Dy, 158 SCRA 111, for this before the issuance of the warrants were not complied with.
provision to apply, a suspect must be under investigation. (Peudon VS CA, Nov. 16, 1990). In fact, in Roan VS
There was no investigation involved in this case. Gonzales, Nov. 25, 1986, it was said that the depositions
must be taken and attached to the record.
3) The unlicensed firearms stored at 12 Shaw Boulevard
may lawfully be seized their possession is illegal. As held in Q. Mayor Antonio Sanchez was arrested 46 days after
Magoncia V Palacio, 80 Phil 770, when an individual the commission of the alleged rape, etc. against Mary
possesses contraband (unlicensed firearms belong to this Eileen Sarmenta and the killing of Allan Gomez and
category), he is committing a crime and he can be arrested Sarmenta. He was arrested before warrants were
without a warrant and the contraband can be seized. issued. Rule on the validity of his arrest.

Alternative Answer: A. The arrest is illegal because the police officers who
In accordance with the rulings in Uy Keytin V arrested him were not present when he allegedly
Villareal, 42 Phil 886 and People V Sy Juco, 64 Phil 667, participated in the rape and killing. They had no personal
the unlicensed firearms found in the house at 12 Shaw knowledge of the alleged criminal liability of Mayor
Boulevard may not be lawfully seized, since they were not Sanchez but merely relied on the sworn statements of two
included in the description of the articles to be seized by witnesses. Since he was arrested 46 days after the
virtue of the search warrant. The search warrant described commissions of the crimes in question, it could not be said
the articles to be seized as firearms in the house of X that he had just committed a crime at the time of the arrest.
located at 10 Shaw Boulevard. (Sanchez VS Demetriou Nov. 19, 1993)

Q. Cong. Francisco Aniag, Jr. was one of those who

Q. An informant apprised Sgts. Sudiacal and Ahamad were issued firearms by the House of Representatives.
of the presence of a drug pusher at the corner of 3rd St, Pursuant to the “Gun Ban” issued by COMELEC, the
and Rizal Avenue, Olongapo City. Responding to the Sergeant-at-arms of the House wrote him a letter
information, they, together with Capt. Castillo, gave the requesting the return of the guns. So he immediately
informant marked money to but marijuana. The instructed his driver to get the guns from his house at
informant now turned poseur-buyer, returned with two Valle Verde and return the same. He complied, but
sticks of marijuana. Capt. Castillo again gave said immediately, a checkpoint was established outside of
informant marked money to purchase marijuana. The the Batasan Complex some 20 meters away from the
informant poseur-buyer thereafter returned with entrance. When the driver approached the checkpoint,
another two sticks of marijuana. The police officers the car was searched and the police found the guns at
then proceeded to the corner of 3rd St. and Rizal Avenue the compartment, placed in a bag. He was
and effected the arrest of the appellant which was apprehended. He was charged before the Quezon City
questioned as unconstitutional. Rule on the Prosecutor’s Office, but it was dismissed. The Law
contention. Department of the COMELEC, however, recommended
the prosecution of the driver and Aniag for violation of
A.The arrest was legal because the arresting officers had the Omnibus Election Code. They questioned the
personal knowledge of the facts implicating the appellant manner by which the search was conducted, as it was
with the sale of the marijuana to the informant-poseur without any warrant. Decide.
buyer. The arrest therefore, was legal and the consequent
search which yielded 20 sticks of marijuana was lawful for A. The search was not valid. There was no evidence to
being incident to a valid arrest. show that the policemen were impelled to put up the
The fact that the prosecution failed to checkpoint because of a confidential report leading them to
prove the sale of marijuana beyond reasonable doubt does reasonably believe that certain motorists were engaged in
not undermine the legality of the appellant’s arrest. gunrunning, etc. There was no indication from the package
It is not necessary that the crime should or behavior of Aniag’s driver that could have triggered the
have been established as fact in order to regard the suspicion of the policemen, hence, the search was not valid
detention as legal. The legality of detention does not and the firearms obtained cannot be admitted for any
depend upon the actual commission of the crime, but upon purpose in any proceeding. (Aniag VS COMELEC Oct. 7,
the nature of the deed when such characterization may 1994)
reasonably be inferred by the officer or functionary to whom

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.
 4
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

Q. Pursuing reports that great quantities of prohibited these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious
drugs are being smuggled at nighttime through the objects, physical searches are conducted to determine
shores of Cavite, the Southern Luzon Command set up what the objects are. Travelers are often notified through
checkpoints at the end of the Cavite coastal road to airport public address systems, signs and notices in their
search passing motor vehicles. A 19 year old boy, who airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any
finished fifth grade, while driving, was stopped by the prohibited materials or substances are found, such would
authorities at the checkpoint. Without any objection be subject to seizure. These announcements place
from him, his car was inspected, and the search yielded passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional
marijuana leaves hidden in the trunk compartment of protections against warrantless searches and seizures do
the car. The prohibited drug was promptly and the boy not apply to routine airport procedures. (People VS Leila
was brought to the police station for questioning. Johnson, December 18, 2000)
1) Was the search without warrant legal?
2) Before interrogation, the policeman on
duty informed the boy in English that he Q. X was arrested for and charged with Robbery. X
does “have a right to remain silent and the posted bail in order to be released temporarily. During
right to counsel. However, there was no trial and before entering his plea, X raised objections
counsel available as it was midnight. He regarding the legality of his arrest for robbery. The
declared orally that he did not need any prosecution, however, claims that the posting of the
lawyer as he was innocent, since he was bail bond was tantamount to an effective waiver of the
only bringing the marijuana leaves to his latter’s right to question the legality of the arrest.
employer in Quezon City and was not a a. Did the posting of the bail bond by X
drug user. He was charged with illegal amount to a waiver of the right to question
possession of prohibited drugs. Is his the legality of his arrest?
waiver of the right to counsel valid? (Bar b. Was there a waiver of the right to question
Question) the legality of the arrest if the same was
made after entering a plea.
A. 1) No, the search was not valid, because there was no
probable cause for conducting the search. As held in A.
Almeda Sanchez VS US, 413 US 268, while a moving a. No. There was no waiver of the right to question the
vehicle can be searched without a warrant, there must still legality of his arrest. Under Rule 114, Sec. 26 of the
be probable cause. In the case in question, there was Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, an application
nothing to indicate that marijuana leaves were hidden in the for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from
trunk of the car. The mere fact that the boy did not object to challenging the validity of his arrest provided he raises
the inspection of the car does not constitute consent to the them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve
search. As ruled in People V Burgos, 144 SCRA 1, the the matter as early as practicable but not later than the
failure to object to a warrantless search does not constitute start of the trial of the case.
consent, especially in the light of the fact. b. Yes. X will be estopped from questioning the illegality
of his arrest when he voluntarily submitted to the
Alternative Answer: jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea of not guilty
1) Yes. The requirement of probable cause differs and by participating in the trial. Under the Revised
from case to case. In this one, since the police Rules on Criminal Procedure when the accused enters
agents are confronted with large scale smuggling his plea he waives the right to question the legality of
of prohibited drugs, existence of which is of public his arrest.
knowledge, they can set up checkpoints at
strategic places, in the same way that of in a
neighborhood a child is kidnapped, it is lawful to PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS
search cars and vehicles leaving the Q.Andrea and Monica had confrontation in the latter’s
neighborhood or village. This situation is also office. Andrea secretly taped the conversation. The
similar to warrantless searches of moving vehicles conversation between them bordered on humiliating
in custom area, which searches have been and vexing the personality and dignity of Monica for
upheld. (Papa V Mago, 22 SCRA 857). The rule which she filed a civil case for damages. During the
is based on practical necessity. hearing Andrea produced the recorded tape to prove
2) NO, the waiver of the right to counsel is not valid, that Monica indeed insulted her. Monica, in a
since it was not reduced in writing and made in the countersuit filed a criminal case against Andrea for
presence of counsel. Under Section 12(1), Art. III violation of RA 4200 which prohibits and penalizes wire
of the Constitution to be valid, the waiver must be tapping and other violations of private communication.
made in writing and in the presence of counsel. Andrea moved to dismiss the criminal case on the
ground that the allegations do not constitute an offense
and that the taping of conversation between the parties
Q. Do the ordinary right against unreasonable searches is not covered by RA 4200. The trial court granted said
and seizures apply to searches conducted at the motion which decision was reversed by the Court of
airport pursuant to routine airport security Appeals. Andrea elevated the case to the Supreme
procedures? Court on Certiorari. Is Andrea liable for violation of RA
4200? Decide.
A.No. Persons may lose the protection of the search and
seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to A.Yes. Section 1 of RA 4200 clearly and unequivocally
the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective prohibits any person, not authorized by all the parties to any
expectation of privacy, which expectation society is private conversation, to secretly tape record any
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is communication by means of a tape recorder. Congressional
implicit in airport security procedures. Passengers records support the view that the intention of the lawmakers
attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal in enacting RA 4200 is to make illegal any unauthorized
detectors; their carry on baggage as well as checked tape recording of private conversation or communication
luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should
 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.
 5
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

taken by either of the parties themselves or third persons. based restrictions distort public debate, have improper
(Ramirez VS CA 248 SCRA 590) motivation, and are usually imposed because of fear of how
people will react to a particular speech. No such reasons
Q. The police had suspicions that Juan Samson, underlie content-neural regulations, like regulation of time,
member of the subversive New Proletarian Army, was place and manner of holding public assemblies under BP
using the mail for propaganda purposes in gaining new Blg. 880, the Public Assembly Act of 1985.
adherents to its cause. The Chief of Police of Bantolan,
Lano Del Sur ordered the Postmaster of the town to
intercept and open all mail addressed to and coming Q. A. The Comelec promulgated a resolution requiring
from Juan Samson in the interest of the national all newspaper to give “free print space” within their
security. Was the order of the Chief of police valid? (Bar area of publication known as “Comelec Space” to
Question) enable the candidates to make their qualifications and
other information relatives to the candidates. Is such a
Suggested Answer: resolution valid? Explain.
No, the order of the Chief of Police is not valid B. Would your answer be the same if the
because there is no law which authorizes him to order the resolution required broadcast media to give
Postmaster to open the letters addressed to and coming “free airtime” for the same purpose? Explain.
from Juan Samson. An official in the Executive Department
cannot interfere with the privacy of correspondence and A.
communication in the absence of a law authorizing him to A. The resolution is invalid because the COMELEC
do so or a lawful order of the court. cannot procure print space without paying just
compensation therefore. (Philippine Press Institute
VS Comelec, 244 SCRA 272)
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION B. No. The resolution this time is constitutional, even as
it provides that airtime may be procured by the
Q. The Iglesia Ni Cristo (INC) was required by the COMELEC free of charge, the same being an exercise
MTRCB to submit to it for review the video tapes for its of the plenary police power of the State to promote
programs. The MTRCB disapproved the tapes on the general welfare. In truth, radio and television
ground that they attacked the Catholic religion. The INC broadcasting companies, which are given franchises,
contended that requiring it to submit videotapes for do not own the airwaves and frequencies through
review by the Board violated freedom of speech and which they transmit their broadcast signals and
freedom of religion. Whom would you sustain, the images. They are merely given the temporary privilege
MTRCB or the INC. of using them. Since a franchise is a mere privilege,
the exercise of the privilege may reasonably be
A. The MTRCB. The video tapes can be submitted for burdened with the performance by the grantee of some
review. The right to act on one’s belief can be subject to form of public service. Such regulation of the use and
regulation. The public broadcast involve the realm of action. ownership of telecommunications systems is in the
Television reaches even children. However, the showing of exercise of the plenary police power of the state for the
the video tapes cannot be prohibited. There is no clear and general welfare.
present danger of a substantial evil which the state has a It is a fallacy that broadcast media are entitled to
right to prevent. (Iglesia Ni Cristo VS CA, 259 SCRA 529) the same treatment under the free speech guarantee of the
Constitution as the print media. There are important
Q. Distinguish “content-based restrictions” on free differences in the characteristics of the two media which
speech from “content-neutral restrictions”, and give justify their differential treatment for free speech purposes.
example of each. Because of the unique and pervasive influence of the
broadcast media, the freedom of television and radio
A.Content-based restrictions are imposed because of the broadcasting is somewhat lesser in scope than the freedom
content of the speech and are, therefore, subject to the accorded to newspaper and print media. (TELEBAP VS
clear-and-present danger test. For example, a rule such as Comelec, April 21, 1998)
that involved in Sanidad VS Comelec (181 SCRA 529),
prohibiting columnists, commentators and announcers from Q. The Comelec issued an order prohibiting the
campaigning either for or against an issue in a scrutiny. conduct of exit poll survey by mass media by
These restrictions are censorial and therefore they bear a confidentiality asking randomly selected voters whom
heavy presumption of constitutional invalidity. In addition, they have voted for immediately after they have cast
they will be tested for possible overbreadth and vagueness. their ballot, as the same violates the principle of ballot
Content-neutral restrictions on the other hand, like Sec. secrecy. ABS-CBN Broadcasting Corp. questioned the
11(b) of RA No. 6646, which prohibits the sale or donation validity of the Comelec Order on constitutional
of print space and air time to political candidates during the grounds. Decide.
campaign period are not concerned with the content of the
speech. These regulations need only a substantial A. The reason behind the principle of ballot secrecy is to
government interest to support them. A deferential standard avoid vote buying through voter identification. This result
for review will suffice to test their validity. The clear-and- cannot, however, be achieved merely through voter’s
present danger rule is inappropriate as a test for verbal and confidential disclosure to a pollsters of whom
determining the constitutional validity of laws, like Sec. 11 they have voted for. In exit polls, the contents of the official
(b) of RA No. 6646, which are not concerned with the ballot are not actually exposed. Furthermore, the revelation
content of the political ads but only with their incidents. To of whom an elector has voted for is not compulsory but
apply the clear-and-present danger test to such regulatory voluntary. Voters may choose not to reveal their identities.
measure would be like using a sledgehammer to drive a nail An absolute prohibition would be unreasonably
when regular hammer is all that is needed. The Supreme restrictive, because it effectively prevents the use of exit poll
Court applied the O’Brien Test in the case of SWS VS data not only for election day projections, but also for long
Comelec, May 5, 2001. term research. The Comelec concern with the possible non-
The test for this difference in the level of communicative effect of exit polls-disorder and confusion in
justification for the restriction of speech is that content- the voting centers does not justify a total ban on them. The
 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.
 6
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

holding of exit polls and the dissemination of their results Attorney General, 405 US 1000. The law in question was
through mass media constitute an essential part of freedom enacted on the basis of the legislative finding that there is a
of speech and of the press. (ABS-CBN Broadcasting need to protect public health, because smoking causes lung
Corp. VS Comelec, 323 SCRA 811) diseases. Cowboy Levy’s has not overthrown this finding.

Q. Congress passes a law prohibiting television

stations from airing any commercial advertisements RIGHT TO FORM ASSOCIATIONS
which promotes tobacco or in any way glamorizes the
consumption of tobacco products.
This legislation was passed in response to
findings by the Department of Heath about the alarming
rise in lung disease in the country. The World Health
Organization has also reported that US tobacco
companies have shifted marketing efforts to the Third
World due to dwindling sales in the health-conscious
American market.
Cowboy Levy’s, a jeans company, recently
released an advertisements featuring model Richard
Burgos wearing Levy’s jackets and jeans and holding a
pack of Marlboro cigarettes.
The Asian Broadcasting Network (ABN), a
privately owned television station, refuses to air the
advertisements in compliance with the law.
a) Assume that such refusal abridges the
freedom of speech. Does the constitutional prohibition
against the abridgement of freedom of speech apply to
act done by ABN, a private corporation? Explain.
b) May Cowboy Levy’s, a private corporation
invoke the freedom of speech guarantee in its favor?
Explain.
c) Regardless of your answer above decide the
constitutionality of the law in question. (Bar Question)

A. a) The constitutional prohibition against the freedom of

speech does not apply to ABN, a private corporation. As
stated in Hudgens VS National Labor Relations Board,
424 US 507,the constitutional guarantee of freedom of
speech is a guarantee only against abridgment by the
government.It does not therefore apply against private
parties.

Alternative Answer:
Since ABN has a franchise, it may be considered
an agent of the government by complying with the law and
refusing to air the advertisement, it alined itself with the
government. Thus it rendered itself liable for a lawsuit which
is based on abridgement of the freedom of speech. Under
Art. 32 of the Civil Code, even private parties may be liable
for damages for impairment of the freedom of speech.

b) Cowboy Levy’s may invoke the constitutional guarantee

of freedom of speech in its favor. In First National Bank of
Boston VS Bellotti, 435 US 765, it was ruled that this
guarantee extends to corporations. In Virginia State Board
of Pharmacy VS Virginia Citizens Consumer Council,
Inc. 425 US 748, it was held that this right extends to
commercial advertisements. In Ayer Productions Pty. Ltd.
VS Capulong, 160 SCRA 861, the Supreme Court held that
even if the production of a film is a commercial activity that
is expected to yield profits, it is covered by the guarantee of
freedom of speech.

c) The law is constitutional. It is valid exercise of police

power, because smoking is harmful to health. In Posadas
de Puerto Rico Associates Vs Tourism Company Of
Puerto Rico, 478 US 328, it was ruled that a law prohibiting
certain types of advertisements is valid if it was adopted in
the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of the people.
In Capital Broadcasting Company VS Mitchell, 333 F
Supp 582, a law making it unlawful to advertise cigarettes
on any medium of electronic communication was upheld.
The United States Supreme Court summarily sustained this
ruling in Capital Broadcasting Company VS Acting
 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO, ERRIZA
BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE MARANON, and
DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS  2003.
 7
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

there is as yet no law allowing them to strike. In case of a

Q. The Labor Code prohibits managerial employees labor dispute between the employees and the
from joining, assisting or forming any labor government, Sec. 15 of Executive Order No. 180 dated
organization. Does this contravene the constitutional June 1, 1987 provides that the Public Sector Labor
right to form associations? Justify your answer. Management Council, not the DOLE shall hear the
dispute.
A.No. The right guaranteed in Art. III, Sec. 8 is subject to
the condition that its exercise should be for purposes “not
contrary to law.” There is a rational basis for prohibiting FREEDOM OF RELIGION
managerial employees from forming or joining labor
organization. Because if these managerial employees Q. X, a court stenographer, a member of the Seventh
would belong to or be affiliated with a Union, the latter Day Adventists, requested for exemption from work
might not be assured of their loyalty to the Union in view on Saturday because she has to accommodate her
of evident conflict of interest. The union can also become religious needs. If you were the judge, would you
company-dominated with the presence of managerial grant it? Why?
employee in the Union membership. (UPSU VS
Laguesma, March 25, 1998) A. Yes, because that is part of the exercise of the
freedom of religion, subject to the condition that she
Q. Under the Barangay Election Act (BP222) political should make up. (Adm. Matter No. 88-2-5546-RTC,
parties were prohibited from participating in the Exemption from Duty on Rotation on Saturday, June 2,
barangay elections. It was challenged on the ground 1988)
of violation of the right to form associations not
contrary to law. Was the contention proper? Why? 1. A religious organization has a weekly
television program. The program presents
A. No, because the right to form associations is not and propogates its religious, doctrines, and
absolute or illimitable, as it is subject to the most compares their practices with those of other
pervasive and dominant police power. It can be regulated religions.
to serve appropriate and important public interest. The As the Movie and Television Review and
law was designed to insulate the barangay from the Classification Board (MTRCB) found as
divisive effects of partisan political campaign and the offensive several episodes of the program
danger of disenabling the barangay officials from which attacked other religions, the MTRCB
efficiently performing their duties as agents of a neutral required the organization to submit its tapes
community. (Oceania VS Comelec, 127 SCRA 404) for review prior to airing.
The religious organizations brought the case
Q. In their vain efforts to obtain benefits they were to court on the ground that the action of the
demanding, the teachers staged a series of MTRCB suppresses its freedom of speech
demonstrations before the DECS and Congress. and interferes with its right to free exercise
Administrative charges were filed. Several of them of religion. Decide. (Bar Question)
were dismissed due to their failure to obey the return-
to-work order from the DECS. Can the teachers stage Suggested Answer:
mass walk-outs or strike? Why? The religious organization cannot invoke
freedom of speech and freedom of religion as grounds for
A. No. In MPSTA, et al. VS Laguio, GR No. 95445; refusing to submit the tapes to the Movie and Television
Alliance of Concerned Teachers VS Carino GR No. Review and Classification Board for Review prior to
95590, the Supreme Court said that employees in the airing. When the religious organization started presenting
public service, unlike those in the private sector do not its program over television, it went into the realm of
have the right to strike, although guaranteed the right to action. The right to act on one’s religious belief is not
self-organization, to petition the Congress for better absolute and is subject to police power for the protection
employment terms and conditions and to negotiate with of the general welfare. Hence the tapes may be required
appropriate government agencies for the improvement of to be reviewed prior to airing.
such working conditions as are to be fixed by law.
In Samahang Manggagawa ng Rizal In Iglesia ni Cristo V Court of Appeals, 259
Park, VS NLRC GR No. 94372, it was said that although SCRA 529, the Supreme Court Held:
the NPDC employees are allowed under the 1987 “We thus reject petitioner’s postulate that its
Constitution to organize and join unions of their choice, religious program is per se beyond review by the

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 8
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

respondent board. Its public broadcast on TV of its governmental interference with the right of individuals to
religious program brings it out of the bosom of internal worship as they please. It is not a mandate to the state to
belief. Television is a medium, that reaches even the take positive, affirmative action to enable the individual to
eyes and ears of children. The court reiterates the rule enjoy his freedom. It would have been different had the
that the exercise of religious freedom can be regulated by Director of Prisons prohibited meatless diets in the penal
the State when it will bring about the clear and present institution.
danger of some substantive evil which the State is duty
bound to prevent, i.e.. serious detriment to the mere
overriding interest of public healyh, public morals or LIBERTY OF ABODE
public welfare.”
Q. PCGG sequestered two government firms on the
However, the MTRCB cannot ban the tapes on basis of the claim that the Marcoses owned 60% of
the ground that they attacked other religions. In Iglesia the shares of stocks. It also issued an order
ni Cristo VS C.A, the SC held: prohibiting the petitioners from leaving the country
“Even a sideglance at Section 3 of PD No. 1986 as they were preventing or obstructing the operation
will reveal that it is not among the grounds to justify an of the company. Was the order proper? Why?
order prohibiting the broadcast of petitioner’s television
program.” A. The petitioner’s right to travel has been impaired.
Moreover, the broadcast do not give rise to a Since PCGG has already taken over the companies, their
clear and present danger of a substantive evil. In this operation can no longer be obstructed. If petitioners were
case, it held that “prior restraint on speech, including the obstructing the operations of the companies, it would be
religious speech, cannot be justified by hypothetical fears better that they be out of the country. The right to travel
but only by the showing of a substantive and imminent is guaranteed to all residents irrespective of nationality.
evil which has taken the reality already on the ground.” (Kant Kwong VS PCGG, Dec. 7, 1987)

Q. “X” is serving his prison sentence in Muntinglupa. Q. Juan Casanova contracted Hansen’s disease
He belongs to a religious sect that prohibits the (leprosy) with open lesions. A law requires that
eating of meat. He asked the Director of Prisons that lepers be isolated upon petition of the City Health
he be served with meatless diet. The Director refused Officer. The wife of Juan Casanova wrote a letter to
and “X” sued the director for damages for violating the City Health Officer to have her formerly
his religious freedom. Decide. (Bar Question) philandering husband confined in some isolated
leprosarium. Juan Casanova challenged the
A. Yes, the Director of Prison is liable under Art. 32 of the constitutionality of the law as violating his liberty of
Civil Code for violating the religious freedom of X. abode. Will the suit prosper? (Bar Question)
according to the decision of the US Supreme Court in the
case of O’Lone V Estate of Shabazz, convicted Suggested Answer:
prisoners retain their right to free exercise of religion. At No, the suit will not prosper.
the same time, lawful incarceration brings about Section 6, Article III of the Constitution provides:
necessary limitations of many privileges and rights “The liberty of abode and of changing the same
justified by the considerations underlying the penal within the limits prescribed by law shall not be impaired
system. In considering the appropriate balance between except upon lawful order of the court.”
these two factors, reasonableness should be the test. The liberty of abode is subject to the police
Accommodation to religious freedom can be made if it will power of the State. Requiring the segregation of lepers is
not involve sacrificing the interest of security and it will a valid exercise of police power. In Lorenzo V Director
have no impact on the allocation of the resources of the of Health 50 Phil 595, the SC held:
penitentiary. In this case, providing X with a meatless diet “Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that
will not create a security problem or unduly increase the leprosy is commonly believed to be an infectious disease
cost of food being served to the prisoners. In fact, in the tending to cause one afflicted with it to be shunned and
case of O’lone, it was noted that the Moslem prisoners excluded from society, and that compulsory segregation
were being given a different meal whenever pork would of lepers as a means of preventing the spread of the
be served. disease is supported by high scientific authority.”

Alternative Answer:
The suit should be dismissed. The free exercise Q. The military commander in charge of the operation
clause of the Constitution is essentially a restraint on against rebel groups directed the inhabitants of the

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 9
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

island which would be the target of attack by when there is an invasion of rebellion and public safety
government forces to evacuate the area and offered require it.
the residents temporary military hamlet. B)According to Sec. 18, Art. VII of the
Can the military commander force the Constitution, the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
residents to transfer their places of abode without a habeas corpus shall apply only to persons judicially
court order? Explain. (Bar Question) charged with rebellion or offenses inherent in or directly
connected with invasion. Any person arrested or detained
A. No, the military commander cannot compel the should be judicially charged within three days. Otherwise,
residents to transfer their places of abode without a court he should be released. Moreover, under Section 13, Art.
order. Under Sec. 6, Art. III of the Constitution, a lawful III of the Constitution, the right to bail shall not be
order of the court is required before the liberty of abode impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas
and of changing the same can be impaired. corpus is suspended.

Suggested Answer:
Yes, the military commander can compel the Q. Is the suspension of the privilege of the writ of
residents to transfer their places of abode without a court habeas corpus a political or justiciable controversy?
order. If there is no reasonable time to get a court order Why?
and the change of abode is merely temporary, because
of the exigency, this exercise of police power may be A. It is a justiciable controversy. The Constitution
justified. authorizes the courts to review on the basis of an
appropriate action, the factual basis for the suspension of
Q. Mr. Esteban Krony, a Filipino citizen, is arrested the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.
for the crime of smuggling. He posts bail for his
release. Subsequently, he jumps bail and is about to Q. A while serving imprisonment for estafa, upon
leave the country when the Department of Foreign recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Parole,
Affairs cancels his passport. He sues the DFA, was granted pardon by the President on condition
claiming violation of his freedom to travel citing the that he should not against violate any penal law of
new provision in the Bill of Rights of the 1987 the land. Later, the board of Pardons and Parole
Constitution, to wit: “Neither shall the right to travel recommended to the President the cancellation of
be impaired except in the interest of national the Pardon granted him because A had been charged
security, public safety or public health, as may be with estafa on 20 counts and was convicted of the
provided by law. offense charged although he took an appeal
Decide the Case. (Bar Question) therefrom which was still pending. As recommended,
the President canceled the pardon he had granted to
A. The case should be dismissed. Any person under an A. A was thus arrested and imprisoned to serve the
order of arrest is under restraint and therefore he can not balance of his sentence in the first case. A claimed in
claim the right to travel. If he is admitted to bail his his petition for habeas corpus filed in court that his
freedom of movement is confined within the country. detention was illegal because he had not yet been
Therefore, if he subsequently jumps bail, he cannot convicted by final judgment and was not given a
demand passport which in effect will facilitate his escape chance to be heard before he was recommitted to
from the country, he is in fact liable to be arrested prison.
anytime. Indeed, the right to travel under the Constitution Is A’s argument valid? (Bar Question)
presupposes that the individual is under no restraint such
as that which would follow from the fact that one has a A. The argument of A is not valid. As held in Torres V
pending criminal case and has been placed under arrest. Gonzales, 152 SCRA 272, a judicial pronouncement that
a convict who was granted a pardon subject to the
HABEAS CORPUS condition that he should not again violate any penal law
is not necessary before he can be declared to have
Q.A) When may the privilege of the writ of habeas violated the condition of his pardon. Moreover, a hearing
corpus be suspended? is not necessary before A can be recommitted to prison.
B) If validly declared, what would be the full By accepting the conditional pardon, A agreed that the
consequences of such suspension? (Bar Question) determination by the President that he violated the
A.A)Under Section 18, Art. VII of the Constitution, the condition of his pardon shall be conclusive upon him and
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended an order for his arrest should at once issue.

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 10
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

Q. Joy, an RTC stenographer, retired at the age of 65.

She left unfinished the transcription of her notes in a A. No, because the law did not impair or effect a change
criminal case which was on appeal. The Court of in the rights of the parties with respect to each other. A
Appeals ordered Joy to transcribe her notes. She tax measure which affects the relationship between one
refused to comply with the order reasoning that she of the parties to the contracts as taxpayers and the
was no longer in the government service. The CA government does not impair the obligation of contracts.
declared Joy in contempt of court and she was In Tolentino VS Sec. Of Finance, it was said that it is
incarcerated. Joy filed a petition for habeas corpus enough to say that the parties to a contract cannot,
arguing that her incarceration is tantamount to illegal through the exercise of prophetic discernment, fetter the
detention and to require her to work sans exercise of the taxing power of the State. For not only are
compensation would be involuntary servitude. existing laws read into contracts in order to fix the
Decide. (Bar Question) obligations as between parties, but the reservation of
essential attributes of sovereign power is also read into
A. Joy can be incarcerated for contempt of court for contracts as a basic postulate of the legal order.
refusing to transcribe her stenographic notes. As held in
Aclaracion Vs Gatmaitan 64 SCRA 132, her Q. A government circular prohibits the paymasters
incarceration does not constitute illegal detention. It is from giving the salaries of teachers to other persons
lawful, because it is the consequence of her than the payees. It was questioned on the ground of
disobedience of the court order. Neither can she claim violation of the non-impairment clause. Is the
that to require her to work without compensation is contention proper? Why?
tantamount to involuntary servitude. Since courts have
the inherent power to issue such orders as are necessary A. No, because the creditors can still collect through other
for the administration of justice, the Court of Appeals may means. Salary which is not yet delivered to a teacher is
order her to transcribe her stenographic notes even if she still government money and cannot be assigned without
is no longer in the government service. the consent of the State.

Q. X is indebted to the PNB. He is a holder of backpay

RIGHT TO INFORMATION certificate by virtue of RA No. 897. He offered to pay
it to the PNB which refused to accept, claiming
Q. May the Executive Secretary, upon petition of a impairment of contract as he agreed to pay in cash.
citizen, be ordered to give access to the names of Is the contention proper? Why?
executive officials holding multiple positions in
government, copies of their appoinments, and a list A. No, PNB cannot refuse, RA No. 897 makes it an
of the recipient of luxury vehicles seized by the obligation for all government entities to accept the
Bureau of Customs and turned over to Malacanang? backpay certificate for the payment of obligations. There
is no impairment of obligations of contracts.
A. Yes. The limitation on the right to information on However, for non-governmental
matters of public concern are embodied in the Code of agencies, they cannot be compelled to accept, otherwise,
Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and there would be impairment of obligations of contracts.
Employees (RA 6713). It provides that in the performance (Florentino Vs PNB, April 28, 1956)
of their duties, all public officials and employees are
obliged to respond to letters sent by the public within 15 Q. Respondent filed an action to prohibit petitioner
working days from receipt thereof and to ensure the from foreclosing a mortgage upon his property. Upon
accessibility of all public documents for inspection by the his motion, the court authorized him to post a bond
public within reasonable working hours, subject to the and in fact, ordered the cancellation of the mortgage.
reasonable claims of confidentiality. (Gonzalez VS Is the order proper? Why?
Narvasa, August 14, 2000)
A. No, because it violates the constitutional prohibition
against impairment of contracts. The substitution of the
NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE mortgage with a surety bond would effect a change of the
terms and conditions of mortgage. (Ganzon VS Inserto
Q. Does the imposition of the VAT upon sales and 123 SCRA 713)
leases of real estate entered into before the
effectivity of the E-VAT Law violate the rule against
non-impairment of contracts? Why?

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 11
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

RIGHTS WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION

Q. An accused filed a motion for bail before he was
Q. X, Y, Z were charged with murder. The evidence actually placed under arrest. He failed to appear at
was their extra-judicial confession to the mayor when the hearing as he was confined at a hospital. Can he
they visited him. They even showed the car of the be granted bail? Why?
victim which they sliced off from his head. Is the
evidence admissible? Why? A. Yes, because at that point, he can be considered as
being constructive and legally under custody. And
A. Yes, the extra-judicial confession is admissible because of this peculiar circumstances, he is deemed to
because they were not under investigation. They were have voluntarily submitted his person to the custody of
merely bragging which was indicative of voluntariness. the law and necessarily, to the jurisdiction of the trial court
Since the confession was verbally made, the only way to which thereafter granted bail as prayed for. It must be
prove it is by the testimony of the person who heard it. stressed that the counsel made it known to the court
during the hearing for bail that the accused could not
Q. When the accused was picked up as he was personally appear as he was then confined at a named
coming out of the communal bathroom and wearing hospital for acute custochrondritis and could not then
a t-shirt covered with bloodstains which he tried to obtain medical clearance to leave the hospital. (Doctrine
cover with his hands, he suddenly broke down and of Constructive Custody)
knelt before Sgt. Marante and confessed that he
killed Jennie Banguis. Is the testimony of Sgt. Q. The accused was required to post P1.9 million
Marante that the accused confessed the killing, cash bond. The court refused to accept the bail bond.
admissible in evidence? Why? What is the effect of the actions of the judge? Why?

A. Yes, it is a competent evidence to link him to the killing. A. The actions of the judge constitute violation of the
The declaration of an accused expressly acknowledging accused’s right to bail, because the amount is excessive.
his guilt of the offense charged may be given in evidence
against him. (Sec. 29, Rule 130 Rules of Court). There is Q. Why cannot the RTC grant bail while the case is
compliance with the constitutional procedures on pending preliminary investigation by the MTC?
custodial investigation elicited through questioning, but
given in an ordinary manner whereby the accused orally A. The MTC is still conducting preliminary investigation,
admitted having slain the victim. (Aballe VS People, 183 hence, the RTC has not yet acquired jurisdiction. It
SCRA 196) cannot therefore, entertain the petition for bail, as there is
no information filed in the RTC yet.
Q. At what stage of the police line-up does the
suspect need the assistance of a counsel? Why? Q. X posted bail, but he jumped bail. What is its
effect? Why?
A. The moment there is a move or urge to investigate to
elicit admission or confession, or even plain information, A. An accused who jumped bail waived his right to be
which may appear innocent or innocuous at the time from present. He cannot offer a justifiable reason for his non-
the suspect, he should be assisted by counsel unless appearance during the trial. Hence, after trial in absentia,
there is a written waiver aided by counsel. the court can render judgment in the case and
promulgation may be made by simply recording the
Q. A was suspected of having killed B. Is A entitled judgment in the criminal docket with a copy served on the
to his rights under RA No. 7438 and the constitution counsel, provided that notice requiring him to be present
if he is “invited” to shed light on the offense? Why? at the promulgation is served on the bondsman, or
warden and counsel.
A. Yes, Under Sec. 2, last paragraph of RA No. 7438, as
used in the law “custodial investigation” shall include the
practice of issuing an “invitation” to a person who is RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED
investigated in connection with an offense he is
suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the Q. In his erxtrajudicial confession executed before
liability of the “inviting” officer for any violation of the law. the police authorities, Jose Walangtakot admitted
killing his girlfriend in a fit of jealousy. This
admission was made after the following answer and
RIGHT TO BAIL question to wit:

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 12
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

T- Ikaw ay may karapatan pa rin kumuha ng People VS Hatton, 201 SCRA 1 the accused is not
serbisyo ng isang abogado para makatulong mo sa entitled to be assisted by counsel during a police line-up,
imbestigasyong ito at kung wala kang makuha, ikaw because it is not part of custodial investigation.
ay aming bibigyan ng libreng abogado, ano ngayon
and iyong masasabi? Alternative Answer:
S- Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal (point to Yes, in United States Vs Wade, 338 US 218
Assistant Fiscal Aniceto Malaputo) kaya hindi ko na (1967) and Gilbert V California, 338 US 263 (1967), it
kinakailangan and abugado. was held that on the basis of the Sixth, rather than the
During the trial, Jose Walangtakot Fifth Amendment (equivalent to Art. III, Sec. 14(2) rather
repudiated his confession contending that it was than Sec. 12 (1), the police line-up is such a critical stage
made without the assistance of counsel and that it carries “potential substantial prejudice” for which
therefore inadmissible in evidence. Decide. (Bar reason the accused is entitled to the assistance of
Question) Counsel.
0
A. The confession of Jose Walangtakot is inadmissible in 2) No, Danny cannot ask that his confession to
evidence. The warning given to him is insufficient. In a newspaper reporter should be excluded in evidence. As
accordance with the ruling in People V Duero, 104 held in People VS Bernardo, 220 SCRA 31, such as
SCRA 379, he should have been warned also that he has admission was not made during a custodial interrogation
the right to remain silent and that any statement he but a voluntary statement made to the media.
makes may be used as evidence agaist him. Besides,
under Art. III, Sec. 12(1) of the Constitution, the counsel
assisting a person being investigated must be RIGHT TO COUNSEL
independent. Assistant Fiscal Malaputo could not assist
Jose Walangtakot. As held in People V Viduya, 189 Q. A and B were charged with violation of RA No.
SCRA 403, his function is to prosecute criminal cases. To 3019. The court rendered judgement convicting A. on
allow him to act as defense counsel during custodial petition to the Supreme Court, A claims that she has
investigations would render nugatory the constitutional been deprives of her constitutional right to counsel
rights of the accused during custodial investigation. because at the time of his proceedings, her counsel
What the Constitution requires is a counsel who will was suspended from the practice of law. After the
effectively undertake the defense of his client without any suspension of her lawyer, however, other lawyers
conflict of interest. The answer of Jose indicates that he represented her at the time her first counsel withdrew
did not fully understand his rights. Hence, it cannot be his appearance, all evidence had already been
said that he knowingly and intelligently waived those presented. A did not present evidence for her
rights. defense. Was A denied of her right to counsel under
the Constitution?

Q. An information for parricide was filed against A. No, A’s claim that she was not adequately represented
Danny. After the NBI found an eyewitness to the by counsel at the trial due to the suspension from the
commission of the crime, Danny was placed in a practice of law of her counsel is untenable. Despite the
police line-up where he was identified as the one who suspension of her first counsel, she was still represented
shot the victim. After the line-up, Danny made a by other lawyers. All evidence had been presented with
confession to a newspaper reporter who interviewed A being represented by counsel. It is just that A opted not
him. to present any evidence for her defense relying on what
1) Can Danny claim that his identification she perceived to be glaringly weak prosecution evidence.
by the eyewitness be excluded on the There is no denial of the right to counsel in this case.
ground that the line-up was made (Dans VS People, January 29, 1998)
without benefit of his counsel?
2) Can Danny claim that his confession be Q. 1) A, as a suspect in a murder case was not
excluded on the ground that he was not represented by counsel during the “question and
afforded his “Miranda” rights? (Bar answer” stage. However, before he was asked to sign
Question) his statements to the police investigator, the latter
provided A with a counsel, who happened to be at the
A. 1) No, the identification of Danny, a private police station. After conferring with A, the counsel
person, by an eyewitness during the line-up cannot be told the police investigator that A was ready to sign
excluded in evidence. In accordance with the ruling in the statements.

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 13
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

Can the statements of A be presented in contempt in the absence of a clear and present danger to
court as his confession? Explain. the fair administration of justice.
2) On the first day of the trial of a rape-murder case
where the victim was a popular star, over a hundred
of her fans rallied at the entrance of the courthouse, SPEEDY, IMPARTIAL AND PUBLIC TRIAL
each carrying a placard demanding the conviction of
the accused and the imposition of the death penalty Q. A and B were charged with libel. On October 18,
on him. The rally was peaceful and did not disturb the 1988, they filed a motion to quash. The prosecution
proceedings of the case. was given 15 days to file an oppositions, but failed to
a) Can the trial court order the dispersal of do so despite extensions. On August 30, 1991, the
the rallyist under pain of being punished for trial court dismissed the case on the ground of delay
contempt of court, if they fail to do so? Explain. in the prosecution of the case which violated the right
b) If instead of a rally, the fans of the victim to speedy trial. Is the action of the court proper?
wrote letters to the newspaper editors demanding the Why?
conviction of the accused, can the trial court punish
them for contempt? Explain. (Bar Question) A. Yes. The failure of the prosecution to file its opposition
for more than two years violated the right of the accused
A. 1) No, the statements of A cannot be presented in to speedy trial. (Bangas VS RTC of Pasig, October 1,
court as his confession. He was not assisted by counsel 1993)
during the actual questioning. There is no showing that
the lawyer who belatedly conferred with him fully
explained to him the nature and consequences of his RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION
confession. In People Vs Compil, 244 SCRA 135, the
Supreme Court held that the accused must be assisted Q. One of the accused jumped bail after testifying,
by counsel during the actual questioning and the belated hence, he was tried in absentia for a capital offense.
assistance of counsel before he signed the confession The other accused claimed that he was deprived of
does not cure the defect. his right to be present (the one who jumped bail). Is
the contention correct? Why?
Alternative Answer:
Yes, the statements of A can be presented in A. No, it is devoid of merit. The right referred to is
court as his confession. As held in People Vs Rous, 242 personal to the accused who jumped bail. In fact, he has
SCRA 732, even if the accused was not assisted by already testified, hence, trial proceeded without violating
counsel during the questioning, his confession is his right to be present.
admissible if he was able to consult a lawyer before he
signed. Q. A was presented as a witness. Substantially, the
witnesses had already been cross-examined. The
2) a) Yes, the trial court can order the dispersal of the rally cross-examination was not completed, say, because
under pain of being cited for contempt. The purpose of A died. Should the testimony be deleted from the
the rally is to attempt to influence the administration of record? Why?
justice. As stated in People Vs Flores, 239 SCRA 83,
any conduct by any party which tends to directly or A. No, for as long as it has already covered the material
indirectly impede, obstruct or degrade the administration points touched upon in the direct examination, the
of justice is subject to the contempt powers of the court. testimony should be allowed to remain. If the failure to
b) No, the trial court cannot punish for contempt the cross-examine is without his fault, the testimony can be
fans of the victim who wrote letters to the newspaper stricken off the record. If it is attributable to him, it is
editors asking for the conviction of the accused. Since the waived.
letters were not addressed to the judge and to the
publication of the letters occurred outside the court, the
fans cannot be punished in the absence of a clear and COMPULSORY PROCESS
present danger rule to the administration of justice. In
Cabansag VS Fernandez, 102 Phil 152, it was held that Q. Due to the failure of the witness to appear despite
a party who wrote to the Presidential complaints and notice, the judge ordered the waiver of the
Action Committee to complain about the delay in the testimony. Was the act of the Judge proper? Why?
disposition of his case could not be punished for

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 14
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

A. No, because he should have taken effective measure 14 (1) and (2) of the Constitution. Moreover, a criminal
like the arrest of the witness in order to compel his suspect is presumed innocent under Art. III, Sec. 14 (2)
appearance. of the Constitution and is, therefore, not legally guilty of a
crime unless proven beyond reasonable doubt in a
TRIAL IN ABSENTIA criminal proceedings.

Q. Suppose the accused could not be located and the

information was published in a newspaper of a Q. Is the disqualification provided in Sec. 40 (e)
general circulation and thereafter arraigned in Fugitive from justice in criminal or non-political
absentia, did the court act correctly? Why? cases here or abroad violative of the right to be
presumed innocent?
A. No, arraignment in absentia is not proper because it
needs the personal appearance of the accused. A. The disqualification in question does not, in reality,
Arraignment is the indispensable means of bringing the involve the issue of presumption of innocence. Elsewise
accused in court. Failure to arraign is violative of the due stated, one is not disqualified because he is presumed
process of law clause and the right to be informed of the guilty by the filing of an information or criminal complaint
nature of the accusation against him. against him. He is disqualified because he is “fugitive
from justice”, i.e., he was not brought within the
Q. What are the effects of the waiver of the right to jurisdiction of the court because he had successfully
appear by the accused? evaded arrest, or if he was brought within the jurisdiction
of the court and was tried and convicted, he has
A. The effects are: successfully evaded service of sentence because he had
1. there is a waiver of the right to present evidence jumped bail or escaped. The disqualification then is
2. the prosecution can present evidence if accused fails based on his flight from justice. In the face of the settled
to appear doctrine that flight is an indication of guilt, it may even be
3. the court can decide without accused’s evidence truly said that it is not the challenged disqualifying
provision which overcomes the presumption of innocence
but rather the disqualified person himself who has proven
PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE his guilt. (Marquez Jr. VS Comelec, 243 SCRA 538)

Q. A was represented by a lawyer who abandoned RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

him when he went to the U.S.A. without informing
him. He failed to present evidence as he was Q:The privilege of self-incrimination must be timely
abandoned. Can the case be reopened? Why? invoked, otherwise it is deemed waived.
(a) In a civil case, the plaintiff called the defendant a
A. Yes, because he was deprived of the right to counsel. hostile witness and announced that the defendant
The negligence of the lawyer deprived him of the right to would be asked incriminating questions in the direct
present evidence. examination. When should the defendant invoke the
privilege against self-incrimination?
Q. X was charged for having raped a woman once. (b) In a criminal case, the prosecution called the
Can he be convicted of two rapes if the woman accused to the witness stand as the first witness
testified to that effect? Why? in view of certain facts admitted by the accused
at the pre-trial. When should the accused invoke
A. No, because that would be a deprivation of his right the privilege against self-incrimination?
to be informed of the nature of the accusation against (c) In an administrative case for malpractice and the
him. cancellation of license to practice medicine filed
against C, the complainant called C to the
Q. Is the parading by the President of suspects in the witness stand. When should C invoke the
commission of crimes apprehended by law privilege against self-incrimination?
enforcement agencies constitutional?
A:
A. No. parading subjects the suspects to trial by publicity (a) As held in Bagadiong v. De Guzman, 94 SCRA
which could influence the administration of justice to the 906, the defendant should take the witness
prejudice of the said suspects, in violation of their rights stand and object when a question calling for an
to due process and to an impartial trial under Art. III, Sec. incriminating question is propounded. Unlike in

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 15
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

proceedings which are criminal in character in automatically subjected to a 90 days suspension of

which the accused can refuse to testify, the his driver’s license.
defendant must wait until a question calling for
Cite 2 possible constitutional objections to
an incriminating answer is actually asked.
(Suarez v. Tongco, 2 SCRA 71) this law. Resolve the objections and explain
whether any such infirmities can be cured. (Bar
(b) As held in Chavez v. Court of Appeals, 24
SCRA 663, in a criminal case the accused may Question)
altogether refuse to answer any question,
A. Possible objections to the law are that requiring a
because the purpose of calling him as a witness
driver to take a breathalyzer test will violate his
for the prosecution has no other purpose but to
rights against self-incrimination, that providing for
incriminate him.
the suspension of his driver’s license without any
(c) As in a criminal case, C can refuse to take the
hearing violates due process, and that the
witness stand and refuse to answer any
proposed law will violate the rights against
question. In Pascual v. Board of Medical
Examiners, 28 SCRA 344, it was held that an unreasonable searches and seizures, because it
allows police authorities to require a driver to take
administrative case for malpractice and
the breathalyzer test even if there is no probable
cancellation of the license to practice medicine
cause.
is penal in character, because of an unfavorable
decision would result in the revocation of the
Requiring a driver to take a breathalyzer test
license of the respondent to practice medicine.
does not violate his right against self-incrimination,
Consequently, he can refuse to take the witness
because he is not being compelled to give
stand.
testimonial evidence. He is merely being asked to
Q: An outgoing letter written by a prisoner was submit to a physical test. This is not covered by the
opened and inspected by the warden . It contains constitutional guaranty against self-incrimination.
admissions or self-incriminating statements. Is the Thus, in South Dakota VS Neville 459 US 553, it was
letter admissible in evidence? held for this reason that requiring a driver to take a
blood-alcohol test is valid.
A: Yes. It is admissible. It is within the power of the
As held in Mackey VS Montryn, 443 US 1,
warden to restrict the flow of communication in and out
of the prison in order to enforce security and order in because of compelling government interest and safety
prison. It is a valid exercise of police power. along the street, the license of a driver who refuses to
take the breathalyzer may be suspended immediately
pending a post- suspension hearing, but there must
Q: A driver was caught violating traffic regulations and be a provision for a post-suspension hearing. Thus,
appears to be drunk. Can he be compelled by the police to save the proposed law from unconstitutionality
to take a breathalyzer test? on the ground of denial of due process it should
provide for an immediate hearing upon suspension
of the driver’s license.
A: Yes. The prohibition against self-incrimination is a The proposed law violates the right against
prohibition against physical or moral compulsion to unreasonable search and seizures. It will authorized
extort communications from him, and not an exclusion police authorities to stop any driver and ask him to
of body as evidence. The breathalyzer test does not take the breathalyzer test even in the absent of the
compel the driver to produce testimonial evidence. probable cause.
Q. Congress is considering a law against drunken
driving. Under the legislation, police authorities may IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION
ask any driver to take a “breathalyzer test”, wherein
the driver exhales several times into a device which Q: Discuss the types of Immunity Statutes.
can determines whether he was driving under the
influence of alcohol. The result of the test can be A: Immunity statutes may be generally classified into
used in any legal proceedings against him . two: one, which grants use of fruit immunity; and the
Furthermore, declaring that the issuance of the other, which grants what is known as transactional
driver’s license gives rise only to a privilege to drive immunity.The distinction between the two is as
a motor vehicles on public roads, the law provides follows:Use immunity prohibits use of witness’
that a driver who refuses to take the test shall be compelled testimony and its fruits in any manner in

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 16
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

connection with the criminal prosecution of the witness. vs. Valdez, 1 Phil.146). That the penalty is out of
On the other hand, transactional immunity grants proportion to the crime does not warrant the
immunity to the witness from prosecution for an offense declaration of unconstitutionality of the law on the
to which his compelled testimony relates. (Galman v. ground that it is cruel or unusual. The fact that the
Pamaran, 138 SCRA 274 [1985]) An example of punishment authorized by the statute is severe does
transactional immunity is Art. XIII, Section 18(8) which not make it cruel or unusual. In People vs. Dela Cruz,
refers to immunity that may be granted by the 92 Phil. 900, it was said that it is the form of
Commission on Human Rights to any person whose punishment as fixed in antiquity and not the severity
testimony or whose possession of documents or other of the same that makes it cruel and unusual penalty.
evidence is necessary or convenient to determine the Likewise, in People vs. Padua, 133 SCRA 1, it was
truth in any investigation conducted by it or under its said that punishment is cruel when it involves torture
authority, which makes the witness immune from or lingering death. (See also People vs. Camano,
criminal prosecution for an offense to which his 115 SCRA 688. )
compelled testimony relates.
Q: X was charged with malversation for
misappropriating P21,940.70 and sentenced to
suffer an imprisonment of eleven years and one day
to sixteen years and one day. He argued that the
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE penalty is oppressive since the same was based on
the amount misappropriated and the value of the
Q: Asian Transmission Corp. is an export oriented money has greatly depreciated since 1932. Is the
company employing 350 workers. The workers contention correct? Why?
declared a strike. After the case was certified to the
NLRC, the latter issued a return-to-work order under
pain of separation. The workers contended that the A: No. Assuming arguendo that inflation has in effect
order was violative of the “no involuntary servitude” made more severe the penalty for malversing
clause of the Constitution. Rule on the contention of the P21,940.70, the remedy cannot come from the court but
workers and explain. from Congress. The court can intervene and strike
down a penalty as cruel, degrading, or inhuman only
when it has become so flagrantly oppressive and so
A: The order of the NLRC is not violative of the “no wholly disaproportionate to the nature of the offense as
involuntary servitude” clause because it is anchored on to shock the moral senses.( People vs. Dionisico, 22
its authority to assume jurisdiction over cases which SCRA 1299; People vs. Estoista, 93 Phil. 647; U.S. vs.
affect national interest like export oriented industries. Borromeo, 23 Phil. 297). Considering that malversation
The return-to-work order not so much confers a right as of public funds by a public officer is a betrayal of the
it imposes a duty; while as a right it may be waived, it public trust, the penalty imposed is not so
must be discharged as a duty even against the worker’s disproportionate to the crime committed as to shock the
will. Returning to work is not a matter of option or moral sense. (People vs. Agbanlog, 41 SCAD 704, G.R.
involuntariness but of obligation. The worker must No. 105907, May 24, 1993; Agbanlog vs. People, 41
return to his job together with his co-workers so the SCAD 704)
operations of the company can be resumed and it can
continue serving the public and promoting its interests.
That is the real reason such return can be compelled. It DOUBLE JEOPARDY
is not violative of the right against involuntary servitude.
(Sarmiento vs. Tuico, 162 SCRA 676 (1988) citing Q. A Pajero driven by Joe sideswiped a motorcycle
Kaisahan ng mga Manggagawa ng Kahoy vs. Gotamco driven by Nelson resulting in damage to a
Sawmills, 80 Phil. 521). motorcycle and injuries to Nelson. Joe sped on
without giving assistance to Nelson. The Fiscal filed
two informations against Joe, to wit: (1) reckless
Q: State the concept of cruel or unusual punishment. imprudence resulting in damage to property with
physical injuries under Art. 365 of RPC, and (2)
A: A punishment is not cruel or unusual or abandonment of one’s victim under paragraph 2,
disproportionate to the nature of the offense unless Art. 275 before the MTC.
it is a barbarous one unknown to law or wholly Joe was arraigned, tried and convicted for
disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to abandonment of one’s victim in the MTC. He
shock the moral sense of the community. (Legarda appealed to the RTC. It was only a year later that he

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 17
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

was arraigned in the reck;less imprudence charge

before the RTC. He pleaded not guilty.
Subsequently, the RTC affirmed the decision
of the MTC relative to the abandonment of one’s
Q. The Sangguniang Panlungsod of Manila
victim charge. Joe filed a petition for review before
approved an ordinance (No. 1000) prohibiting the
the Court of Appeals, invoking his rights against
operation in the streets within the city limits of taxicab
double jeopardy, contending that the prosecution
units over 8 years old from year of manufacture. The
under Art. 275 of the RPC is a bar to the prosecution
imposable penalty for violation thereof is a fine of
for negligence under Art. 365 of the same code.
P4,000 or imprisonment for one year upon the erring
Decide. (Bar Question)
operator. Thereafter and while the city ordinance was
already in effect, Congress enacted a law (RA# 500)
A. Joe cannot claim that his conviction for the
prohibiting the operation in the streets of cities
abandoning his victim in violation of Art. 275 of the RPC
throughout the country of taxicab units beyond 10 years
is a bar to his prosecution for negligence under Art. 365
old. The imposable penalty for violation thereof is the
of the RPC. As held in Lamera VS CA, 198 SCRA 186,
same as in Ordinace #1000. A, an owner/operator of a
there is no double jeopardy because these two offenses
taxicab unit operating in the City of Manila, was charged
are not identical. Reckless imprudence is a crime falling
with violation of the city ordinance. Upon arraignment,
under the chapter on criminal negligence, while
he pleaded not guilty, where upon, trial was set five
abandonment of one’s victim is a crime falling under
days thereafter. For failure of the witnesses to appear
crime against security. The former estimated by means
at the trial, the City court dismissed the case against A.
of culpa, while the latter is committed by means of dolo.
The City Prosecutor of Manila forthwith filed another
Failure to help one’s victim is not an offense by itself nor
information in the same court charging A with violation
an element of reckless imprudence. It merely increases
of R.A. #500 for operating the taxicab unit subject of the
the penalty by one degree.
information in the first case. The accused moved to
dismiss the second case against him invoking double
Q: When will dismissal give rise to double jeopardy?
jeopardy.

A: (1) Where the dismissal is based on a “demurrer to A: If I were the judge, I would grant the motion. The
evidence” filed by the accused after the prosecution has dismissal of the first case for failure of the witnesses
rested; or based on insufficiency of evidence. (People to appear terminated the first jeopardy. As held in
v. City Court of Silay) Caes vs. IAC 179 S 54, the dismissal of a case for
(2) Where the dismissal is made, also on motion of failure of the witnesses for the prosecution to appear
the accused, because of the denial of his right to speedy constitutes an acquittal. The acquittal of A for
trial which is in effect a failure to prosecute. ( Esmena violation of Ordinance #1000 bars his prosecution for
v. Pogoy) violation of RA #500. Under Sec. 21, Art. III of the
Constitution, if an act is punished by a law and an
Q: When can the People or the prosecution appeal? ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either bars
another prosecution for the same act.
A: Q: Accused was charged with qualified
1. When the accused has waived or is estopped from seduction before the Municipal Court. He
invoking his right against double jeopardy. pleaded not guilty when arraigned. The
2. When the prosecution is denied due process of law. prosecution presented evidence, then the
3. When the dismissal or acquittal is made with grave defense presented its evidence. When the
abuse of discretion. defense was about to rest its case, the
prosecution moved that accused be made to
Q: When is the accused deemed to have waived or answer to a charge of rape since the evidence
is estopped from invoking double jeopardy? submitted indicated that rape was committed.
The case was dismissed. Six(6) counts of rape
A: were filed. He pleaded not guilty, but the cases
1. The dismissal is induced by the accused or his were dismissed provisionally for the delays
counsel; and made by the prosecution. It was reconsidered,
2. such dismissal must not be on the merits and must hence, a petition for certiorari was filed. The
not necessarily amount to an acquittal. (People v. basic issue was whether the accused can, under
Salico) the circumstances, invoke double jeopardy?

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 18
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

A: No, because the dismissal of the information Q: A case of grave threats was filed against Dr. and Mrs.
before the MTC was to pave the way for the filing of Paulin. Charges for grave threats and oral defamation
the proper offense of rape. The MTC had no were filed against Barangay Captain Mabuyo, before
jurisdiction to try the offense of rape at it is within the the Municipal Court of Talisay, Cebu. The cases were
province of the RTC to take cognizance of. jointly tried and on June 13, 1990, the Court dismissed
Moreover, the dismissal of the qualified seduction the case filed by Mabuyo on motion of the accused
case was provisional and with the consent of the Paulin. The dismissal was due to procedural ground
accused. (Gonzales vs. CA, 51 SCAD 510, G.R. No. that the proper charge was not filed which should have
108811, May 31, 1994). been disturbance of public performance under Art. 153,
RPC. A motion for reconsideration was filed which was
Q: Suppose a case is remanded for further granted. Accused invoked the principle of double
proceedings, can the accused plead double jeopardy, contending that the granting of the motion for
jeopardy?Why? reconsideration put him in double jeopardy. Is the
contention correct? Why?
A: No, because the decision was declared void. He was
never put to jeopardy of conviction in the case. A: No, because the dismissal of the case was with
(Combate vs. San Jose, Jr.,April 15, 1988) the express consent of the accused. 9People vs.
Gines, 197 SCRA 481 [1991]). Where the dismissal
Q: If a case is dismissed before the prosecution was ordered upon motion or with the express
could finish presenting its evidence or it is pre- consent of the accused, he is deemed to have
emptively dismissed, and the appellate court waived his protection against double jeopardy.
remands the case for further hearing or trial, can the (Paulin, et al. vs. Hon. Celso Gimenez, et al., G.R.
accused invoke double jeopardy? Why? No. 103323, Jan. 21, 1993).

A: No, because the remand of the case for further The dismissal in this case was made at a time
hearing or trial is merely a continuation of the first when the prosecution still had to present several
jeopardy and does not expose the accused to a second witnesses, where the order of dismissal was issued
jeopardy. When the court pre-emptively dismissed the at a time when the case was not ready for trial and
case, it violated the fundamental right of the accused to adjudication, the order is null and void. (People vs.
due process. With such violation, its orders are Pamitan, 30 SCRA 98 [1969]).
therefore null and void and cannot constitute a proper
basis for a claim of double jeopardy. (Paulin, et al. vs. In People vs. Bocar, 138 SCRA 166(1985), it
Gimenez, et al., G.R. No. 103323, Jan. 21, 1993;citing was said that the prosecution was denied due
People vs. Bocar; People vs. Albano, supra; Saldana process as it never had the chance to offer its
vs. CA, 190 SCRA 396 [1990]). evidence formally in accordance with the Rules of
Court in view of the trial court’s order of dismissal.
Q: A was charged with an offense. Upon his motion, The trial court was thereby ousted from its
the case was dismissed. Can he invoke double jurisdiction when it violated the right of the
jeopardy in case he is charged with the same prosecution to due process by aborting its right to
case?Why? complete the presentation of its evidence and,
therefore, the first jeopardy had not been terminated.
A: No.As a rule, he cannot invoke double jeopardy (Paulin, et al. vs. Hon. Celso M. Gimenez, et al., G.R.
because when he moved for the dismissal, he waived No. 103323, Jan. 21, 1993; citing People vs. Albano,
the right to interpose it. He prevented the State from 163 SCRA 511 [1988]).
presenting evidence and the court from pronouncing his
guilt or innocence. 9People vs. Tagle, 105 Phil. 126; Q: Cannot the accused in the above-entitled case
People vs. Gines, et al., G.R. No. 83463, May 27, 1991). contend that since the case was governed by the
Rules on Summary Procedure and all the
Q: Suppose in the question above, the accuse affidavits have already been submitted, the
invoked the right to speedy trial, can he invoke dismissal amounted to acquittal after
double jeopardy in case he is charged again?Why? consideration of the merits of the prosecution’s
evidence?Explain.
A: Yes, by way of exception to the rule. (People vs.
Robles, 105 SCRA 1016).

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 19
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

A:No. Submission of affidavits to the court does not A: No, the dismissal on the ground of lack of
warrant the inference that the prosecution had jurisdiction is not equialent to acquittal. (People vs.
already finished presenting its evidence because the Galano, 75 SCRA 193; People vs. Eduarte, G.R. No.
affiants are still required to testify and affirm the 88232, Feb. 26, 1990). He was never put to jeopardy.
contents thereof, otherwise, these affidavits cannot
serve as competent evidence for the prosecution. In
fact, under Sec. 14 of the Rules on Summary Q: A case for libel was dismissed for the failure of the
Procedure, the witness who sybmitted affidavits may complainant to prosecute, due to his failure to appear.
be subjected to cross-examination. Should the It was shown however that he was in Manila
affiants fail to testify, their affidavits shall not be recuperating from the second eye operation after his left
considered as competent evidence for the party eye was removed. The motion for reconsideration
presenting the affidavit. (Paulin, et al. vs. Gimenez, asking that the case be reinstated was denied on the
et al., G.R. No. 103323, Jan. 21, 1993). ground of double jeopardy. Is the denial proper?

Q: If the case has been unduly prolonged and if the

accused moves to dismiss on the ground of violation of A: No. The allegation of double jeopardy is
his right to speedy trial, there would be double jeopardy. unmeritorious, because the case was dismissed
Is the rule absolute?Why? upon motion with the consent of the accused. For
double jeopardy to attach, the general rule is that
A: No, because there are exceptions to the said rule, as: the dismissal of the case must be without the
express consent of the accused.
(1) when the delay was caused by the accused. It
would be a mockery of justice to allow him to
benefit out his wrongdoing or tactical In People vs. Quizada, it was said that there
maneuvers. (People vs. Jardin, 124 SCRA 167). are only two occasions when double jeopardy will
(2) When he agreed to a provisional dismissal even attach even if the motion to dismiss the case is
if he invoked speedy trial. (People vs. Gines, made by the accused himself. The first is where the
May 27, 1991). ground is insufficiency of evidence of the
prosecution; and the second is when the
proceedings have been unreasonably prolonged in
Q: Four (4) criminal cases were filed against the violation of the right to speedy trial. In the instant
accused. During the trial on January 24, 1966, or after case, the case was merely 8 ½ months old. This
eleven (11) years, accused was ready. There was no period is not such an extended , prolonged or
appearance for the prosecution, hence, on motion of the lengthy duration as to cause capricious and
accused, the cases were dismissed provisionally. On negatious delay. (People vs. Gines, et al., G.R. No.
motion for reconsideration, the cases were reinstated. 83463, May 27, 1991).
Accused moved to reconsider on the ground of double
jeopardy. It was denied, hence, a petition for certiorari
before the SC was filed. Rule on the petition.
Q: X was charged with the crime of homicide. Upon
arraignment, he pleaded guilty. He was allowed
however, to present evidence to show mitigating
A: The petition will prosper. There is double circumstances. When he testified, he interposed self-
jeopardy even if the dismissal was provisional in defense because there was strangling. He also invoked
character and even upon motion of the accused if voluntary surrender. He was acquitted, hence, the
he invokes the right to speedy trial. Dismissal after prosecution appealed. The accused invoked that the
eleven years is equivalent to acquittal. There was appeal would place him in double jeopardy. Is the
unreasonable delay. (People vs. Baldjay, 113 SCRA contention valid? Why?
284).

A: No, because the acquittal was void. A plea of

Q: Can the accused invoke double jeopardy in case the guilt is an unconditional admission of guilt. It
information is dismissed on the ground of lack of forecloses the right to defend himself. The court
jurisdiction?Explain. has no other alternative except to impose the
penalty fixed by law. The testimony to prove
mitigating circumstances could not be taken to

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 20
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. There are however, exceptions to the rule
Due to the assertion of self-defense, the trial court such as when –
should have taken his plea anew and proceede to
trial. In deciding on the merits, the court erred in the (1) the dismissal is made upon motion or with the
procedure and deprived the prosecution of its day express consent of the defendant;
in court. His testimony on self-defense vacted his (2) the dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon
former plea of guilty and yet, a valid plea is a consideration of the evidence or the merits of
condition for double jeopardy to exist. (People vs. the case; and
Balisacan, G.R. No. L-26376, august 31, 1966). (3) the question to be passed upon by the
appellate court is purely legal so that should
the dismissal be found incorrect, the case
would have to be remanded to the court of
Q: The accused requested the judge to wait for his origin for further proceedings, to determine the
lawyer when asked to present evidence. The judge guilt or innocence of the dfendant. (Paulin, et al.
considered it an assault on the dignity of the court, vs. Gimenez, et al., G.R. No. 103323, Jan. 21,
hence, he dismissed the case. Was the dismissal valid? 1993; citing People vs. Villalon, 192 SCRA
Why? 521(1990).

A: No, because it violated the right of the accused

to due process. Double jeopardy would not attach
Q: After the prosecution rested its case, the accused
since the dismissal was without due process. If
filed a demurrer to evidence. Would double jeopardy be
there was assault on the dignity of the court, then,
a valid defense if he is charged for the same
contempt could have been proper. (Serino vs. Zosa,
offense?Why?
40 SCRA 433).

A: Yes, because the dismissal of a case on

Q: After the acquittal of the accused in the killing of demurrere ro evidence or insufficiency of evidence
Ninoy Aquino, the SC created an ad hoc committee is a dismissal on the merits, amounting to acquittal.
(Vasquez Committee) which recommended the retrial of Double jeopardy would attach. (People vs. Silay, 74
the case because the former trial was scripted, stage- SCRA 247(1976); People vs. Francisco, 128 SCRA
managed, a moro-moro, hence, the State was denied 110).
due process. Double jeopardy was invoked by the
accused. Was the invocation of double jeopardy
proper?Why?
Q: Suppose the accused filed a motion to quash and the
court granted it, can he invoke double jeopardy if he is
charged with the same offense?Why?
A: No, the re-opening of the case did not amount to
double jeopardy because the Sandiganbayan A: No, because it was with his express consent and
proceeding was sham and a mock trial. The State instance. There was a waiver of his right against
was denied due process and double jeopardy double jeopardy for he prevented the court from
cannot be invoked in criminal cases where there rendering a judgment of acquittal or conviction. The
was denial of due process. (Galman vs. SB, 144 dismissal was not based on the merits. (Ceniza vs.
SCRA 43). People, 159 SCRA 16; Milo vs. Salanga, 152 SCRA
113).

Q: In a criminal case where A was charged, the same

was dismissed. Can the State appeal? Are there Q: After having pleaded not guilty to a case of grave
exceptions? coercion, the accused was ready to be tried. The
prosecution asked for postponements thrice. The
accused moved to dismiss and it was granted. Twenty-
A: No, because the appeal would palce the accused one days later, the prosecutor moved for revival, It was
in double jeopardy. granted. Accused invoked double jeopardy. Was the
revival a situation where accused was placed in double
jeopardy?Why?

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 21
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

homicide or murder, is punished by the Revised

Penal Code. It is a cardinal rule that the protection
A: Yes, because there was violation of his right to against double jeopardy may be invoked only if the
speedy trial .Although the dismissal was second prosecution is for the same offense or
provisional in character, it amounted to acquittal. identical offenses. (People vs. Ticzon, 198 SCRA
(Esmena vs. Pogoy, 102 SCRA 861). 368; People vs. Deunida, 49 SCAD 859, G.R. Nos.
105199-200, March 28, 1994; People vs. Fernandez,
57 SCAD 481, G.R. No. 113474, Dec. 13, 1994).
Q: Accused was charged with estafa under Art. 315 of
the Revised Penal Code. Would his being charged
under BP 22 amount to double jeopardy?Why? Q: Eliseo Soriano issued a postdated check which was
dishonored when presented for payment. He was
charged with two(2) separate offenses for violation of
A: No, because the two are distinct offenses. Deceit B.P. 22 and estafa. The charge under B.P. 22 was
and damage are essential elements in a charge dismissed for being fatally defective. He was, however
under Art. 315, RPC;not in BP 22; mere issuance of convicted of estafa. On appeal, he was acquitted. The
the check gives rise to prosecution under BP 22; State appealed by way of a petition for certiorari and
not in Art. 315, RPC; the drawer may be convicted mandamus. The alleged defect in the information under
of violation of BP 22 even if there is a pre-existing B.P. 22 was the failure to state that the accused, as
contractual relationship; not in the Penal Code. drawer of the check at the time of issue, knew of the
Prosecution for the same act is not prohibited. What insufficiency of funds in the bank for payment upon its
is prohibited is prosecution for the same offense. presentation. Is the court correct? Why?
(Nierras vs. Dacuycuy, G.R. Nos. 59568-76, Jan. 11,
1990; People vs. Miraflores, 115 SCRA 570; People
vs. Militante, 117 SCRA 910) This is true also in A: No. The interpretation is erroneous, the maker’s
illegal recruitment where here the accused can knowledge of insufficiency of his funds is legally
likewise be charged with estafa. A single act may presumed from the dishonor of his check for
violate two statutes. If each statute requires proof insufficiency of funds.
on additional element which the other does not, an
acquittal or conviction under either statute does not
bar prosecution under the other. Damage is
essential in estafa, but not in illegal recruitment. Although its decision is erroneous, that
(People vs. Manungas, 49 SCAD 376, G.R. Nos. decision may not be annulled or set aside because
91552-55, March 10, 1994; People vs. Turda, 53 it amounted to a judgment of acquittal. The State
SCAD 91, G.R. Nos. 97044-46, July 6, 1994. may not appeal that decision for it would place the
accused twice in double jeopardy for punishment
for the same offense in violation of his
constitutional right against double jeopardy.
Q: Accused Tiozon was charged and convicted for (People vs. Hon. Laggui, et al., G.R. Nos. 76262-63,
violation of P.D. No. 1866 for illegal possession of March 16, 1989).
firearms, for having in his possession and control one
.38 cal. Revolver which was used to shoot one
Leonardo Bolima. Later, he was charged with the crime
of murder for the killing of Leonardo Bolima. In his Q: What is meant by the “same offense” for purposes of
defense, he interposed his constitutional right against double jeopardy?
double jeopardy. Is the defense valid? Why?
A: Same offense means:
A: No, because the killing of a person with the use (1) the very same offense; or
of an unlicensed firearm may give rise to separate (2) attempt or frustration of an offense; or
prosecution for (a) violation of Section 1 of P.D. No. (3) that which necessarily includes or is included
1866 and (b) violation of either Art. 248 or Art 249 of in the offense charged in the former complaint
the Revised Penal Code. The accused cannot plead or information.
one as a bar to the other. The rule against double Q: What is the test in determining whether the former
jeopardy cannot be invoked because the first is complaint or information charges the same offense?
punished by a special law, while the second,

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 22
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

When arraigned, he pleaded not guilty to both

cases on May 31, 1972, and November 15, 1972. Later,
A: The test is whether the evidence to prove the
he moved for leave to withdraw his plea of not guilty in
same or the two are the same. Or, if the elements
Criminal Case No. 2, without substituting or entering
or ingredients in the former constitute the latter or
another plea. On December 27, 1972, he moved to
vice versa.
quash the information in Case No. 2 on the ground of
double jeopardy due to the pendency of Case No. 1
containing the same allegations.
Q: X was charged with frustrated homicide. He pleaded
not guilty. Victim died later, hence, he was charged On Jan. 20, 1973, the judge dismissed Case No.
again with homicide. He pleaded in a motion to quash, 2 over the objections of the Fiscal.
double jeopardy. Is the contention correct?Why?
On Feb. 7, 1973, the accused changed his plea
of “not guilty” to “guilty” in case No. 1 and was fined
A: No, because the second offense was not yet
P600.00.
existing at the time of the first prosecution. There
was no possibility for him to be convicted for a non-
existing crime as it merely supervened after his On Feb. 10, 1973, the Fiscal moved for a
indictment for the offense of frustrated homicide. reconsideration of the dismissal of Case No. 2 which
(People vs. Melo). motion was denied. Republic elevated the case to the
Supreme Court on certiorari. Issue: Will the accused be
placed in double jeopardy if Case No. 2 is reinstated?
Q: A was charged with slight physical injuries. He
A: No, he will not be placed in double jeopardy
pleaded not guilty. Can he invoke double jeopardy if he
because the elements of the two offenses are
is charged with serious physical injuries?Why?
different.
A: No, because the deformity did not exist and
could not have existed at the same time of the first R.A. No. 3060 punishes any person who
information. (People vs. Adil, 76 SCRA 462). exhibits any motion picture which has not previously
passed by the Board of Censors for Motion Pictures.
It is malum prohibitum where criminal intent need not
Q: Mr. Y was charged with less serious physical injuries. be proved.
He was convicted, but later on, he was charged with
serious physical injuries. Can he invoke double
Art. 210 (3) of the RPC punishes a person
jeopardy? Why?
who exhibits indecent or immoral plays, acts, shows,
not just motion pictures. Art. 201 (3) is malum in se,
A: Yes, because there was no new supervening where criminal intent is an indespensible ingredient.
event. The deformity was already existing at the
time of his conviction for less serious physical
injuries. With proper medical examination, the Because of the differences in elements and
deformity could have been detected. (People vs. nature, there is no identity of the offenses involved
Yorac, 42 SCRA 230). for which legal jeopardy in one may be invoked in the
other. The evidence required to prove one offense is
not the same evidence required to prove the other.
Q: Two informations were filed against Mr. G for (1)
Violation of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3060, punishing a
Emphasizing the absence of double
person who exhibits any motion picture in a theater,
jeopardy, the SC said: “It is a cardinal rule that the
public place without such picture being duly passed by
protection against double jeopardy may be invoked
the Board of Motion Pictures (Criminal Case No.
only for the same offenses. Any single act may offend
147347 – Case No. 1 for easy reference); (2) Violation
against two (or more) entirely distinct and unrelated
of Art. 201 (3) of the Revised Penal Code punishing
provisions of law, and if one provision requires proof
those who in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any
of an additional fact or element which the other does
other place open to public view, shall exhibit indecent or
not, an acquittal or conviction or a dismissal of the
immoral plays, acts, or shows. (Criminal Case No.
information under one does not bar prosecution
143748 – Case No. 2 for easy reference.)
under the other. x x x Phrased elsewhere, where two
different laws define two crimes, prior jeopardy as to

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 23
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

one of them is no obstacle to a prosecution of the Q: In Wright vs. CA, et al., 235 SCRA 341, it was
other, although both offenses arise from the same contended by the person sought to be extradited that
facts, each crime involves some important act which the phrase “wanted for prosecution” means that a
is not an essential element of the other.” (People vs. person should have a criminal case pending before a
City Court of Manila, 154 SCRA 175 [1987]). competent court of the requesting State. Is the
contention correct?Why?

A: No, otherwise it would stretch the meaning of the

Q: X was charged for violation of an ordinance which phrase beyond the intention of the States, because
prohibits installation of electrical devices or contraptions the treaty provisions merely require a warrant for
without permit. He filed a Motion to Quash on the ground the arrest or a copy of the warrant. Furthermore, the
of prescription which was granted. Fourteen (14) days “Charge and Warrant of Arrest Sheets” attest to the
later, the fiscal filed a theft case against him. He filed a fact that he is not only wanted for prosecution, but
motion to quash invoking double jeopardy. Will the has in fact, absconded to evade arrest and criminal
motion prosper?Why? prosecution. To limit the interpretation to persons
charged with an information or complaint renders
A: Yes, there is double jeopardy because the the Treaty ineffective over individuals who
dismissal on the ground of prescription amounted to absconded for the purpose of evading arrest and
acquittal. One was a means of committing the other. prosecution.
( People vs. Relova)
Q: X was charged with illegal recruitment before the
effectivity of P.D. 2018 penalizing illegal recruitment on
a large scale. Can this Decree be used to penalize X?
Why?
BILL OF ATTAINDER
A: No, because it would become retroactive which
Q: state the constitutional provision prohibiting the
would violate the constitutional prohibition against
passage of a bill of attainder and ex post facto law.
the enactment of ex post facto law. (People vs.
Taguba, 47 SCAD 172, G.R. Nos. 95207-17, Jan. 10,
A: No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be 1994).
enacted. (Art. III, Sec. 22, 1987 Constitution)

Q: The Philippines and Australia entered into an

Extradition Treaty providing that extradition may be
CITIZENSHIP
granted irrespective of when the offense was committed
provided that such offense is an offense penalized
under the laws of the requesting State. Pursuant to such Q: When does an administrative proceeding on
treaty, Paul Joseph Wright was sought to be extradited citizenship acquire res judicata effect?
for having committed certain offenses in Australia, but
he contended that since he committed the offenses A: Administrative proceeding on citizenship
before the treaty became effective, retroactivity would acquire res judicata effect if the following
be violative of the constitutional prohibition against ex requisites concur:
post facto law. Is his contention valid? Why?
(1)Citizenship is resolved as a material issue in the
A: No, because the prohibition against the passage controversy;
of ex post facto law applies only to criminal (2)After a full blown hearing;
legislation which affects the substantial rights of (3) Active participation of the Solicitor General or
the accused. The treaty is neither a piece of criminal his representative;
legislation nor a criminal procedural statute. It (4) The finding of his citizenship is affirmed by the
merely provides for the extradition of persons Supreme Court (Burca V Republic , June 16, 1973)
wanted for prosecution of an offense or a crime
which offense or crime was already committed or Q. Rosebud was born of Filipino parents. Upon reaching
consummated at the time the treaty was ratified. the age of majority she became a naturalized citizen in
(Wright vs. CA, et al ., 54 SCAD 406, G.R. No. another country. Later, she required Philippine
113213, aug. 15, 1994). Citizenship. Could Rosebud regain her status as a

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 24
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

natural born Filipino citizen? Would your answer be the If the ground is personal to the person
same whether she reacquires his Filipino citizenship by naturalized, such as in this case, the wife and children
repatriation or by act of Congress? Explain. shall retain their Filipino citizenship.

A. Rosebud can regain her status as a natural born Q. Y was elected Senator in the May 1987 national
citizen by repatriating. Since repatriation involves election. He was born out of wedlock in 1949 of an
restoration of a person to citizenship previously American father and a naturalized Filipina mother. Y
lost by expatriation and Rosebud was previously a never elected Philippine citizenship upon reaching the
natural born citizen, in case she repatriates she will age of majority.
be restored to her status as a natural born citizen.
(Bengzon III V HRET, May 7, 2001). If she reacquired (1) Before what body should T, the losing candidate
her citizenship by an act of Congress, she will not question the election of Y? State the reasons for
be a natural born citizen since she reacquired her your answer.
citizenship by legislative naturalization.
(2) Is Y a Filipino citizen? Explain your answer. (Bar
Q. What are the instances when a citizen of the Question)
Philippines may possess dual citizenship considering
the citizenship clause (Article IV) of the Constitution? A. (1) T, the losing candidate, should question the
election of Y before the Senate Electoral Tribunal,
A. (1) Those born of Filipino fathers/mothers in because the issue involved is the qualification of Y
foreign countries which follow the principle of jus to be a Senator. Section 17, Article VI of the 1987
soli. Constitution provides that, “The Senate and the
House of Representatives shall each have an
(2) Those born in the Philippines of Filipino Electoral Tribunal which shall be the sole judge of
mothers and alien fathers if by the laws of their all contests relating to the election returns and
fathers country such children are citizens of that qualifications of their respective members.”
country.
(2) Yes, Y is a Filipino citizen. More than that he is a
(3) Those who marry aliens if by the laws of the natural born citizen of the Philippines qualified to become
latter’s country the former are considered citizens, a Senator. Since Y is an illegitimate child of a Filipino
unless by their act or omission they are deemed to mother, he follows the citizenship of his mother. He need
have renounced Philippine Citizenship. (Mercado Vs not elect Philippine citizenship upon reaching the age of
Manzano, 307 SCRA 630) majority as held In re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45. In Osias V
Antonio, Electoral case No. 11, August 6, 1971, the
Q. B, an Indian national, was naturalized as a Filipino Senate Electoral Tribunal held that the illegitimate
citizen in accordance with CA 473, as amended. As an child of an alien father and a Filipino mother is a
effect of B’s naturalization, his wife and minor children Filipino citizen and is qualified to be a Senator.
were derivatively naturalized. Three years after his
naturalization, B returned to his native India and Q. (1) Lily Teh arrived in Manila on one of her regular
established residence there. B’s wife and children were tours to the Philippines from Taipeh. She met Peter Go,
left in the Philippines. Under the law, B’s establishing a a naturalized Filipino citizen. After a whirlwind courtship,
residence in any foreign country within 5 years is a Lily and Peter were married at the San Agustin Church.
ground for denaturalization. Would B’s wife and minor A week after the wedding, Lily The petitioned in
children also lose their Filipino Citizenship? administrative proceedings before immigration
authorities to declare her a Filipino citizen stating that
A. No. it is only when the ground for she had none of the disqualifications provided in the
denaturalization affects the intrinsic validity of the Revised Naturalization Law. The jilted Filipino girlfriend
proceedings does it divest the wife and children of of Peter Go opposed the petition claiming that Lily Teh
their derivative naturalization. Under the law, these was still a minor who had not even celebrated her
are when (1) the naturalization certificate was 21st birthday, who never resided in the Philippines
obtained fraudulently or illegally, and (2) except during her one-week visit as tourist from
naturalization was obtained through invalid Taipeh during the Chinese New Year, who spoke
declaration of intention. only Chinese, and who had radical ideas like
advocating unification of Taiwan with mainland

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 25
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

China. Lily Teh , however, swore that she was A. Depends in the circumstances.
renouncing her Chinese allegiance and while she
knew no Filipino customs and traditions as yet, she If X was an illegitimate child, he is not qualified
evinced a sincere desire to learn and embrace them. to run for the House of Representatives. According to
Would Lily The succeed in becoming a Filipino the case In Re Mallare, 59 SCRA 45, an illegitimate
Citizens through her marriage to Peter Go? Explain. child follows the citizenship of the mother. Since
the mother of X is a Mexican, he will be a Mexican
citizen, if he is an illegitimate child even if his father
(2) A child was born to a Japanese father and a is a Filipino.
Filipina mother. Would he be eligible to run for the
position of member of the House of Representative If X is a legitimate child, he is a Filipino citizen.
upon reaching the age of 25 years old? (Bar Under Sec. 2(2), Art. IV of the Constitution, those whose
Question) fathers are citizens of the Philippines are Filipino
Citizens. Since X was born in the US, which follows jus
soli, X also is an American citizen. In accordance with
A. (1) Yes, Lily The ipso facto became a Philippine Aznar VS COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703, the mere fact a
Citizen upon her marriage to Peter Go, who is a person with dual citizenship registered as an alien
Philippine Citizen provided, she possesses none of with the Commission on Immigration and
the disqualifications laid down in Sec. 4 of the Deportation does not necessarily mean that he is
Revised Naturalization Law. According to the ruling renouncing his Philippine Citizenship. Likewise, the
in Moy Ya Lim Yao VS Commissioner of Immigration, mere fact that X used an American passport did not
41 SCRA 292, an alien woman who marries a Filipino result in the lose of his Philippine citizenship. As held in
husband ipso facto becomes a Filipino Citizen Kawakita VS US, since a person with dual
without having to posses any of the qualifications citizenship has the rights of citizenship in both
prescribed in Sec. 2 of the Revised Naturalization countries, the use of a passport issued by one
Law provided she possesses none of the country is not inconsistent with his citizenship in
disqualifications set forth in Sec. 4 of the same law. the other country.
All of the grounds invoked by the former girlfriend
of Peter Go for opposing the petition of Lily, except
for the last one, are qualifications, which Lily need Q. Julian Hortal was born of Filipino parents. Upon
not possess. The fact that Lily is advocating the reaching the age of majority, he became a naturalized
unification of Taiwan with mainland China is not a citizen in the other country. Later, he reacquired
ground for disqualification under Sec. 4 of the Philippine Citizenship. Could Hortal regain his status as
Revised Naturalization Law. natural born Filipino Citizen? Would your answer be the
same whether he reacquires his Filipino Citizenship by
(2) The child can run for the House of
repatriation or by act of Congress? Explain. (1999 Bar
Representatives provided upon reaching the age of
Question)
majority he elected Philippine Citizenship. Under
sec. 6, Art. VI of the 1987 Constitution, to qualify to
be a member of the House of Representative one
must be a natural born Philippine Citizen. A. First Alternative Answer:
According to Sec. 1(3), Art. IV of the Constitution, Julian Hortal can regain his status as a
children born before January 17, 1973 of Filipino natural born citizen by repatriating. Since
mothers, who elect Philippine Citizenship upon repatriation involves restoration of a person to
reaching the age of majority are Philippine Citizens. citizenship previously lost by expatriation and
Julian Hortal was previously a natural born citizen,
in case he repatriates he will be restored to his
Q. X, was born in the US of a Filipino father and a status as a natural born citizen. If he acquired his
Mexican mother, he returned to the Philippines when he citizenship by an act of Congress, Julian Hortal will
was 26 years old carrying an American passport and he not be a natural born citizen, since he acquired his
was registered as an alien with the Bureau of citizenship by legislative naturalization.
Immigration. Was X qualified to run for membership in
the House of representatives in the 1995 elections?
Explain. (1996 Bar Question) Second Alternative Answer:
Julian Hortal cannot regain his status as a
natural born citizen by repatriating. He had to

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.
 26
 POLITICAL LAW REVIEWER 
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY BAR OPERATIONS

perform an acts to acquire his citizenship, i.e.,

repatriation. Under Sec. 2, Art. IV of the
Constitution, natural born citizens are those
citizens from birth without having to perform an act
to acquire or perfect their citizenship. If he
reacquired his citizenship by an act of Congress,
Julian Hortal will not be a natural born citizen since
he reacquired his citizenship by legislative
naturalization.

Q. What are the effects of marriages of:

1. A citizen to an alien
2. an alien to a citizen on their spouses and children?
Discuss. (1999 Bar Question)

A. 1. According to Sec. 4, Art. IV of the Constitution,

Filipino Citizens who marry aliens retain their
citizenship unless by their act or omissions they are
deemed to have renounced it under the law.
2. According to Moya Lim VS Commissioner of
Immigration, under Sec. 15 of the Revised
Naturalization Law, a foreign woman who marries a
Filipino Citizen becomes a Filipino Citizen provided
she possesses none of the disqualification for
naturalization. A foreign man who marries a Filipino
Citizens does not acquire Philippine Citizenship.
However, under Sec. 3 of the Revised Naturalization
Act, in such a case the residents requirement for
naturalization shall be reduced from ten to five
years. Under Sec. 1(2), Art. IV of the Constitution,
the children of an alien and a Filipino citizens are
citizens of the Philippines.

 Prepared by the POLITICAL LAW SECTION  Chief MARILOU LINDA Assistant Chief CATHY AQUINO Members MAY AQUINO,
ERRIZA BUCU, MARICAR DELA CRUZ, KATHREEN GUNAYON, GRACIELA LEYGO, MARY GRACE MANZANO, RUTCHIE
MARANON, and DINAH MARTINEZ. All Rights Reserved by the SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF LAW BAR OPERATIONS
 2003.