/

COURSE OUTLINE
IN
POLITICAL LAW II REVIEW
Luis A. Vera Cruz, Jr.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

ARTICLE III, 1987 CONSTITUTION

I. INTERPLAY OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, POLICE POWER AND DUE

PROCESS/EQUALITY

A. Review of Police Power

1.) Definition and Scope

a) Legal Subject, b) Legal Method

/2HIL. ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE EXPORTERS vs.

DRILON, 163 SCRA 386
✓us vs. POMPEYA, 31 Phil. 245

II. LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY AND DUE PROCESS/EQUAL

PROTECTION OF THE LAW

Section 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law, nor shall any person be denied equal protection of the law.

1. Liberty; Civil Liberty

/2.uBI et al. vs. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, 39 Phil. 660

2. Due Process; Requisite

RUBI et al. vs. PROVINCIAL BOARD OF MINDORO, supra.

a. Substantive Due Process

✓ ERMITA MALATE HOTEL ASSOCIATION vs. CITY

MAYOR OF MANILA, July 31, 1967
 V CORONA vs. UNITED HARBOR PILOTS ASSOCIATION
/ OF THE PHILS., 283 SCRA 31
V JELTRAN vs. SEC. OF HEALTH, 476 SCRA 168
VLUPANGCO vs. CA, 160 SCRA 848

b. Procedural Due Process

!MNCO ESPANOL B. PALANCA, 37 Phil. 921

✓MAYOR BAYANI ALONTE vs. JUDGE SA VELLANO, 287
SCRA 245

Requisites:

1) Impartial court/tribunal clothed with judicial power

to hear or determine the matter before it

/JAVIER vs. COMELEC, 144 SCRA 194

VT~BUENA vs. SANDIGANBYAN, 268 SCRA 332
vRJVERA vs. CSC, 240 SCRA 43

2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the

person of the defendant and over the property which
is the subject matter of the proceeding.

~AMARTINO vs. RAON, G.R. No. 131482, July 3,

2002

3) The defendant must be given the opportunity to be

heard

vYNOT vs. IAC, G.R. No. 74457, March 20, 1987

UNICRAFT vs. CA, G.R. No. 134309, March 26, 2001
MARIVELES SHIPYARD vs. CA, G.R. No. 144134,
November 11, 2003
ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, 166 SCRA 316
CHUA vs. CA, 287 SCRA 33

4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing

c. "Administrative Due Process"

2
 ANG TIBA Y vs. CIR, 69 Phil. 635
MERALCO vs. NLRC, 263 SCRA 531

d. Due Process In Disciplinary Actions Against Students

GUZMAN vs. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, G.R. No. L-68288,

July 11, 1986

e. The Res Ipsa Loquitor Doctrine

IN RE: ATTY. LAURETA, 148 SCRA 45

IN RE: ATTY. ASOY, 152 SCRA 45

f. Due Process in Rule Making by Admin. Agencies

PHIIL. CONSUMERS vs. SEC. OF EDUCATION, 153 SCRA

622

g. Due Process In the Dismissal of Employees

MGG MARINE SERVICES vs. NLRC, 259 SCRA 664

SAMILLANO vs. NLRC, 265 SCRA 788
STOLT-NIELSEN vs. NLRC, 264 SCRA 307

h. Effect of a Motion for Reconsideration To A Claim for

Violation of Right To Due Process

CASUELA vs. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, 276 SCRA

635

i. Preliminary Investigation and Due Process

GO vs. CA, 206 SCRA 138

YUSOP vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, G.R. No. 138859-60,
February 22, 2001
TA TAD vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, 159 SCRA 70

3. The equal protection clause

3
 PEOPLE vs. CAY AT, 68 Phil. 12
PEOPLE vs. VERA, 65 Phil. 56
IMELDA MARCOS vs. CA, 278 SCRA 843
LACSON vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, January, 20, 1999
NUNEZ vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, 111 SCRA 433
FLORES vs. COMELEC, 184 SCRA 484
PHIL. ASSO. OF SERVICE EXPORTERS vs. DRILON, 163 SCRA
386
ORMOC SUGAR CO. vs. TREASURER OF ORMOC CITY, 22
SCRA 603

III. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROVISION; SECTION 2, ARTICLE III

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.

Articles 129-130, Revised Penal Code

Section 2201-2212, 2301-2304, Tariff and Custom Code
Sec. 9, Republic Act No. 6235 (1971)

1. Rationale and Essentials of A Valid Warrant

Substantive and Procedural Requirements

PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP. OF THE PHIL. ET AL. vs.

JUDGEMAXIMIANO ASUNCION, ET AL., 307 SCRA 253
20TH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATED vs. CA ET AL, 164
SCRA 655
COLUMBIA PICTURES, INC. vs. CA, 261 SCRA 144 (1996)
UY vs. BIR, 344 SCRA 36
PENDON vs. CA, 191 SCRA 429 (1990)
SILVA vs. HON. PRESIDING JUDGE OF RTC NEGROS
ORIENTAL, 203 SCRA 140 (1991)
KHO vs. MACALINTAL, 307 SCRA 70 (1999)

4
 SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT (PHILS.), INC. vs. ESPANOL,
453 SCRA 360 (2005)
PEOPLE vs. CA, 291 SCRA 400
BURGOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF, 133 SCRA 800

2. Probable Cause;

ROBERTS vs. CA, 254 SCRA 307

DE LOS SANTOS vs. MONTESA, 247 SCRA 85
VICENTE LIM ET AL. vs. HON. FELIX, G.R. No. 99054-57
SOLIVEN vs. MAKASIAR, 167 SCRA 393

3. General or Roving Warrants

STONEHILL vs. DIOKNO, 20 SCRA 383 (1967)

KHO vs. MAKALINTAL, 306 SCRA 70

4. Scatter Shot Warrant

TAMBASEN vs. PEOPLE, July 14, 1995

PEOPLE vs. SALANGUIT, G.R. No. 133254-55, April 19, 2001

5. Issuing Court

MALALOAN vs. CA, 232 SCRA 249

6. Implementation of Warrant: Witnesses

PEOPLE vs. GESMUNDO, 219 SCRA 743

7. Warrantless Search

i. Motor Vehicle

CARROLL vs. U.S., 267 U.S. 132 (1925)

PEOPLE vs. QUE, 265 SCRA 721 (1996)
CABALLES vs. CA, 373 SCRA 221 (2002)
PEOPLE vs. EXALA, 221 SCRA 494 (1993)
U.S. vs. CHADWICK, 433 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed. 2d
538 977)

5
ii. Plain view

U.S. vs. GRAY, 484 F.2d 352 (6 th Cir, 1978)

ARIZONA vs. HICKS, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)
HORTON vs. CALIFORNIA, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)
PEOPLE vs. MUSA, 217 SCRA 597 (1993)
PEOPLE vs. DORIA, 301 SCRA 668 (1999)
PEOPLE vs. VALDEZ, 341 SCRA 25
CABALLES vs. CA, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002
PEOPLE vs. COMPACION, G.R. No. 124442, July 20, 2001
UNITED LABORATORIES vs. ISIP, G.R. No. 163858, June
28,2005

iii. Waiver or consented searches

SCHNECKLOTH vs. BUSTAMANTE, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)

OHIO vs. ROBINETTE, 519 U.S. 33 (1996)
PEOPLE vs. BAULA, 344 SCRA 663
VEROY vs. LAYA GUE, 210 SCRA97
U.S. vs. MATLOCK, 415 U.S. 164 (1996)
PEOPLE vs. DAMASO, 212 SCRA 547

iv. Stop and frisk

TERRY vs. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

ADAMS vs. WILLIAMS, 407 U.S. 143 (1974)
MINNEOSTA vs. DICKERSON, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
PEOPLE vs. SOLAYAO, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)

v. Search incidental to a lawful arrest

CHIMEL vs. CALIFORNIA, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

NEW YORK vs. BELTON, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)
PEOPLE vs. CHUA HO SAN, 308 SCRA 432 (1999)
PEOPLE vs. MUSA, 217 SCRA 597
JOHNSON v. U.S. 333 U.S. 10 68 S.Ct. 367, 92 L.Ed. 436
(1948)
CADUA vs. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999)
PADILLA vs. CA, 269 SCRA 402 (1997)

6
 PEOPLE vs. DE LARA, 236 SCRA 291 (1994)

vi. Exigent and emergency circumstances

PEOPLE vs. DE GRACIA, 233 SCRA 716 (1994)

vii. Customs searches/ Seizure of Concealed Goods to avoid

duties and taxes

BOAC, ET AL. vs. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, 570

SCRA 533 (2008)
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS, ET AL. vs. OGARIO, ET AL., 329
SCRA 289 (2000)

viii. Airport searches

PEOPLE vs. JOHNSON, 348 SCRA 526 (2000)

PEOPLE vs. CANTON, 394 SCRA 478 (2002)
U.S. vs. DAVIS, 482 F.2d 893 (9 th Cir. 1973)

8. Warantless Search and Seizure On Informer's "Tip"

PEOPLE vs. ARUTA, 288 SCRA 626

9. Is Operation "kapkap"/"Saturation Drives" Valid

PEOPLE vs. MANGOTE, 210 SCRA 174

10. Warantless Search and Seizure by a Private Person

PEOPLE vs. MARTI, G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991

11. Validity of Checkpoints

VALMONTE vs. GEN. DE VILLA, G.R. No. 83988, September 29,

1989

12. Buy-bust Operation

PEOPLE vs. JUATAN, 260 SCRA 532

7
 l

13. Warrantless Arrest F

)
PADILLA vs. CA, 269 SCRA 402

14. Illegally Seized Evidence; Exclusionary Rule

STONEHILL vs. DIOKNO, supra

PICOP vs. ASUNCION, 307 SCRA 253

15. Documents obtained through Subpoena

16. Waiver

PEOPLE vs. MAMARIL, 420 SCRA 662

17. Not Limited To Dwelling

U.S. vs. CHADWICK ET AL., 433 U.S. 1; 97S.Ct. 2476, 53 L.Ed. 538,
supra

18. Search warrant Valid In Part

PEOPLE vs. SALANGUIT, 356 SCRA 683, supra

19. Ownership of House Searched

PEOPLE vs. DICHOSO, 223 SCRA 174

IV. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Section 3 (1). The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be

inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

R.A. 4200 (Anti-Wire Tapping Act)

RA 7438
ZULUET A vs. CA, February 10, 1996
RAMIREZ vs. CA, 248 SCRA 590
GAANAN vs. IAC, 145 SCRA 112
WATEROUS DRUG CORP. vs. NLRC, G.R. No. 113271, October 16, 1997

8
 PEOPLE vs. ALBOFERA, 152 SCRA 123
ALEJANO vs. CABUAY, 468 SCRA 188 (read RA 7438)
BRA TNICKI vs. VOPPER, 532 US 514

V. THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, EXPRESSION AND OF THE PRESS AND

THE RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE

Section 4. No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression,

or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.

1. Freedom of Expression and Of The Press

PHIL. BLOOMING MILLS EMPLOYEES ORG. vs. PHILIPPINE

BLOOMING MILLS, 51 SCRA 189
SALON GA vs. CRUZ PANO, 134 SCRA 438

a. Freedom from censorship or restraint

i) Publication, etc.

GROSJEAN vs. AMERICAN PRESS CO., 297 U.S. 233

BURGOS vs. CHIEF OF STAFF, 133 SCRA 800
MUTUC vs. COMELEC, 36 SCRA
ADIONG vs. COMELEC, 207 SCRA 712
US vs. O'BRIEN, 391 US 365 (O'BRIEN TEST)
MIRIAM COLLEGE FOUNDATION vs. CA, G.R. No.
127930, December 15, 2000

b. movie censorship

GONZALES vs. KATIGBAK, 137 SCRA 717

LAGUNSAD vs. SOTTO VOA DE GONZALEZ, 92
SCRA476
AYER PRODUCTION vs. JUDGE CAPULONG, 160
SCRA 861

b. Freedom from Subsequent Punishment

i) Libel

9
 NEW YORK TIMES vs. SULLIVAN, 376 US 254
ALONZO vs. CA, G.R. No. 110088, February 1, 1995
POLICARPIO vs. MANILA TIMES, 5 SCRA 148
BAGUIO MIDLAND COURIER vs. CA, G.R. No.
107566,November25,2004
LOPEZ vs. CA, 34 SCRA 116

ii) Obscenity

PEOPLE vs. KOTTINGER, 45 Phil. 352

MILLER vs. CALIFORNIA, 37 L Ed. 2D 419
GENSBERG vs. NY, 390 US 629
PITA vs. CA, 178 SCRA 362

iii) Criticism of Official Conduct

US vs. BUSTOS, 37 Phil. 731

PEOPLE vs. ALARCON, 69 Phil. 265
ESPUELAS vs. PEOPLE, 90 Phil. 524

c. Tests and Valid Government Interference

i) Clear and Present Danger Rule

SCHENCK vs. US, 249 US 97

GONZALES vs. COMELEC, 27 SCRA 835
ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, 170 SCRA 1
IGLESIA NI CRISTO vs. CA, 259 SCRA 529
VIV A PRODUCTIONS vs. CA, HUBERT WEBB, G.R.
No. 123881, March 13, 1997

ii) Dangerous Tendency Rule

CABANSANG vs. FERNANDEZ, 102 Phil. 152

PEOPLE vs. PEREZ, 45 Phil. 599

iii) Balancing of Interest Tests

10
 AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSO. vs.
DOUDS, 339 US 282
ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, supra

2. Freedom of Assembly

BP 880 (Public Assembly Act)

REYES vs. BAGATSING, 125 SCRA 553
DE LA CRUZ vs. CA, G.R. Nos. 126183 AND 129221, March 25,
1999
NON vs. DAMES, 185 SCRA 523
MALABANAN vs. RAMENTO, 129 SCRA 359
EVANGELISTA vs. EARNSHAW, 57Phil. 255
PRIMICIAS vs. FUGOSO, 80 Phil. 71

i) Clear and Present Danger/Dangerous Tendency Rule

REYES vs. BAGATSING, supra

RUIZ vs. GORDON, supra
ZALDIVAR vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 80578,
February 1, 1989
CABANSAG vs. FERNANDEZ, 102 Phil. 152

ii) Balancing of Interest Test

A YER PRODUCTION vs. JUDGE CAPULONG ET AL., 160

SCRA 861
LAGUNSAD vs. GONZALES, 92 SCRA 476
GITLOW vs. NY, 268 US 652

VI. FREEDOM OF RELIGION/NON-ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION

CLAUSE

Section 5. No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be

11
 a~lowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political
ngh ts.
Also: Section 6, Art. II, Section 2(5), Art. IX-C, Section 5(2), Art. VI
Section 29 (2), Section 28(3), Art. VI, Section 4(2), Art. XIV,
Section 3(3), Art. XIV, Section 29(2), Art. VI.

1. Non-Establishment Clause

EVERSON vs. BD OF EDUCATION, 330 US 1

LEMON vs. KURTZMAN, 403 US 602
ENGEL vs. VITALE, 370 US 421
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF ABINGTON vs. SCHEMP, 374 US 203
ADONG vs. CHEONG SENG GEE, 43 Phil. 43

2. Right To Religious Profession and Worship

PEOPLE vs. LAGMAN, 38 O.G. 1676

IN RE: SUMMERS, 325 US 561
EBRALINAG ET AL. vs. THE DIVISION SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS OF CEBU, March 1, 1993

3. Compelling State Interest Test

ESTRADA vs. ESCRITOR, A.M. No. P-02-1651, August 4, 2003

VII. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL

Section 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall no be impaired except upon lawful order of the court.
Neither shall the right to travel be impaired except in the interest of national
security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law.

MARCOS ET AL. vs. MANGLAPUS, G.R. No. 88211, September 15, 1989
and the Resolution on the Motion for Reconsideration da ted
October 27, 1989
MANOTOC vs. CA, 142 SCRA 149
VILLA VICENCIO vs. LUKBAN, 39 Phil. 778
SALONGA vs. HERMOSO, 97 SCRA 121

VIII. RIGHT TO INFORMATION

12
 Section 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern
shall be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the citizen,
subject to such limitation as may be provided by law.

VALMONTE vs. BELMONTE, C.R. No. 74930, February 13, 1989

LEGASPI vs. CSC, 150 SCRA 530
BALDOZA vs. DIMAANO, 71 SCRA 14
LANTACO vs. LLAMAS, 108 SCRA 502
GARCIA vs. BOARD OF INVESTMENTS, 177 SCRA 374
CHAVEZ vs. PEA and AMARI, C.R. No. 133250, July 9, 2002

IX. RIGHT TO FORM AND JOIN ASSOCIATION

Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and
private sectors, to form unions, associations, or societies for purposes not contrary
to law shall not be abridged.

TERNATE vs. NORIEL, 100 SCRA 93

SAMAHAN NG MANGA GAGA WA vs. NORIEL, 108 SCRA 381
PEOPLE vs. FERRER, 48 SCRA 382
PEOPLE vs. FERRER, 56 SCRA 793

Right To Strike

ALLIANCE OF GOVT. WORKERS vs. MINISTRY OF LABOR, 124

SCRA 1
SSS EMPLOYEES ASSO. vs. CA, 175 SCRA 686

X. PRIVATE PROPERTY AND EMINENT DOMAIN

Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.

Sec. 2, Rule 67, Rules of Court; Requisite for immediate entry by

government on expropriated property

13
 1. Just Compensation

BERKENKOTTER INC. vs. CA, December 14, 1992

NPC vs. CA, 129 SCRA 665
MUN. OF TALISAYvs. RAMIREZ, 183 SCRA 528
REP. vs. CA, 154 SCRA 428
COSCULLUELA vs. CA, 164 SCRA 393
IGNACIO vs. GUERRERO, 150 SCRA 369

2. "Public Use"

SUMULONG vs. GUERRERO, 154 SCRA 461

3. "Taking"

REP. vs. CASTELLYI, 58 SCRA 336

GARCIA vs. CA, 102 SCRA 597
US vs. CAUSBY, 328 US 256

4. Limitations To the Power of Eminent Domain

CITY OF MANILA vs. CHINESE COMMUNITY, 40 Phil. 349

RP vs. CRISTINA DE KECHT and CA, G.R. No. 87335, February 12,
1989

XI. NON- IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE

Section 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

KABILING vs. NHA, December 18, 1987

CO vs. PNB, 114 SCRA 842
ILUSORIO vs. CAR, 17 SCRA 25
ORTIGAS vs. FEA TI BANK, 94 SCRA 533
GANZON vs. INSERTO, 123 SCRA 713

XII. FREE ACCESS TO COURTS AND QUASI-JUDICIAL BODIES

Section 11. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal
assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

14
XIII. RIGHTS DURING CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS

Section 12 (1). Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

(2) No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are
prohibited.

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17

hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.

(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture
or similar practices, and their families.

1. "Custodial Investigation"

PEOPLE vs. JUDGE AYSON, 175 SCRA 216

PEOPLE vs. DE LA CRUZ, G.R. No. 118866-68, September 17, 1997
DE LA TORRE vs. CA, G.R. No. 102786, August 14, 1998
PEOPLE vs. BALOLOY, G.R. No. 140740, April 12, 2002
PEOPLE vs. DEL ROSARIO, 305 SCRA 740
PEOPLE vs. BRAVO, G.R. No. 135562, November 22, 1999

i) Police line-up

PEOPLE vs. DAGPIN, G.R. No. 149560, June 10, 2004

PEOPLE vs. ESCORDIAL, G.R. No. 138934-35, January 16,
2002

2. Guidelines and Procedures; RA 7438

PEOPLE vs. MAHINAY, G.R. No. 122485, February 1, 1999

MIRANDA vs. ARIZONA, 384 US 436
ESCOBEDO vs. ILLINOIS, 378 US 436

15
 PEOPLE vs. DUERO, 104 SCRA 379

3. Duties of Police and Arresting Officer

PEOPLE vs. NICANDRO, 141 SCRA 289

PEOPLE vs. DUHAN, 142 SCRA 100
PEOPLE vs. RAMOS, 122 SCRA 312
PEOPLE vs. CAGUIOA, 95 SCRA 2

4. Counsel of Choice, Extra judicial confession

RA 7438

PEOPLE vs. MATOC-VIDUYA, Sept. 11, 1990

PEOPLE vs. JEREZ, 285 SCRA 393
PEOPLE vs. PANFILO CABILES, 284 SCRA 199
PEOPLE vs. OBRERO, 332 SCRA 190
PEOPLE vs. JANUARIO, 267 SCRA 608
ABALLE vs. PEOPLE, 183 SCRA 196
PEOPLE vs. DANO, 339 SCRA 515
PEOPLE vs. SAMOLDE, 336 SCRA 632
PEOPLE vs. MARCOS, 147 SCRA 204
PEOPLE vs. ALEGRIA, September 28, 1990

5. Waiver of Rights

PEOPLE vs. ALBOFERA, 152 SCRA 123

PEOPLE vs. CAPITIN, 165 SCRA 47
PEOPLE vs. HIZON, 163 SCRA 760

6. Presumptions

PEOPLE vs. JARA, 144 SCRA 516

PEOPLE vs. ABANO, 145 SCRA 555
PEOPLE vs. TOLENTINO, 145 SCRA 597
PEOPLE vs. TRINIDAD, 162 SCRA 714

7. Admissibility/Inadmissibility of Evidence; Doctrine of the "FRUIT

OF THE POISONOUS TREE"

16
 8. Testimony of Arresting Officer On the Alleged Oral Confession of
the Accused

PEOPLE vs. DY, 158 SCRA 111

XIV. THE RIGHT TO BAIL

Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by
reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall, before conviction~ be
bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provide~
by law. The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the wrzt
of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.

Read Rule 114, Rules of Court

DE LA CAMARA vs. ENAGE, 41 SCRA 1

PEOPLE vs. DONATO, June 5, 1991
VILLASENOR vs. ABANO, 21 SCRA 312
PEOPLE vs. IAC, 147 SCRA 219
ALMEDA vs. VILLALUZ, 66 SCRA 38
PEOPLE vs. SAN DIEGO, 26 SCRA 522
COMENDADOR vs. DE VILLA, 200 SCRA 80

1. Section 10, Rule 114, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure

PEOPLE vs. AGBAYANI, 284 SCRA 315

XV. DUE PROCESS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Section 14 (1). No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without
due process of law.

(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed

innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to
be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial,
and public trial, to meet the witnesses fact to fact, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and
pr~duction of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment,
trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused

17
 provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear in
unjustifiable.

PEOPLE vs. TERROBIAS, 103 SCRA 321

1. Presumption of Innocence; Order of Trial; The Equipoise Rule

Rule 119, Section 11

PEOPLE vs. DE LOS SANTOS, 355 SCRA 415
PEOPLE vs. SATURNO, 355 SCRA 578
ALEJANDRO vs. PEPITO, 96 SCRA 322
SACAYvs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. L-66497-98, July 10, 1986
PEOPLE vs. DRAMMA YO, 42 SCRA 59
PEOPLE vs. FERNANDO, 145 SCRA 151

2. Right To Be Heard by Himself or By Counsel

PEOPLE vs. HOLGADO, 85 Phil. 752

DELGADO vs. CA, 145 SCRA 357
PEOPLE vs. CUISON, 193 Phil. 296
PEOPLE vs. NADERA, 324 SCRA 490
PEOPLE vs. YAMBOT, 343 SCRA 20
PEOPLE vs. BANIHIT, 339 SCRA 86

3. Right to be present during trial

PEOPLE vs. JUDGE, 125 SCRA 269

CARREDO vs. PEOPLE, 183 SCRA 273

4. Right to a speedy trial

SC Adm. Circular No. 4, Sept. 22, 1988

Department of Justice Circular No. 27, September 16, 1988
Sections 6 and 9, Rule 119 of the Revised Rules of Court

PEOPLE vs. HON. JUDGE JOSE R. HERNANDEZ, G.R. NO.

154218 and 154372, August 28, 2006
PEOPLE vs. ORSAL, 113 SCRA 226
CONDE vs. RIVERA, 59 Phil. 650
DUTERTE vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, 289 SCRA 721

18
I
ANCHANGCO vs. OMBUDSMAN, 269 SCRA 301
SUMBANG vs. COURT MARTIAL, 337 SCRA 227
BLANCO vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, 346 SCRA 108
SOLAR TEAM ENTERTAINMENT INC. vs. HOW, 338 SCRA 51

5. Right To An Impartial Trial

PEOPLE vs. TUAZON, 159 SCRA

IGNACIO vs. VILLALUZ, 90 SCRA 16
PEOPLE vs. SEND A YDIEGO, 81 SCRA 120
DIMACUHA vs. CONCEPCION, 117 SCRA 630

6. Right To Public Trial

GARCIA vs. DOMINGO, July 25, 1973

PEOPLE vs. TAMPUS, March 28, 1980

7. Right To Be Informed of the Nature and Cause of Accusation

SALES vs. CA, 164 SCRA 717

PEOPLE vs. CRISOLOGO, 150 SCRA 653
PEOPLE vs. CORRAL, 157 SCRA 678
PEOPLE vs. RESA YAGA, 159 SCRA 426
PEOPLE vs. CABALE, 185 SCRA 573

8. The Right To Meet Witnesses Face to Face

PEOPLE vs. VALERO, 112 SCRA 661

PEOPLE vs. BUNDALIAN, 117 SCRA 718
PEOPLE vs. SENERIS, 99 SCRA 92
PEOPLE vs. CLORES, 100 SCRA 227
CARREDO vs. PEOPLE, 183 SCRA 273

9. Right To Secure Witnesses and Production of Evidence

PEOPLE vs. BARDAJE, 99 SCRA 388

10. Trial In Absentia

NOLASCO vs. ENRILE, 139 SCRA 502

19
 PEOPLE vs. SALAS, 143 SCRA 163
GIMENEZ vs. NAZARENO, 160 SCRA 1

11. Duty of Judge To the Accused Before Trial

PEOPLE vs. AGBAYANI, 284 SCRA 315

XVI. HABEAS CORPUS

Section 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
except in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.

IN THE MA TIER OF PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF

FERDINAND MARCOS, C.R. No. 88079, May 18, 1989 and August
and October 1989.
CRUZ vs. ENRILE, April 15, 1988
ABADILLA vs. FIDEL RAMOS, December 1, 1987

XVII. RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES BEFORE, JUDICIAL

QUASI-JUDICIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES

Section 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

XVIII. RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

Section 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself

GALMAN vs. P AMARAN, 138 SCRA 294

CHAVEZ vs. CA, 24 SCRA 663
PEOPLE vs. BANIHIT, 339 SCRA 86
VILLAFLOR vs. SUMMERS, 41 Phil. 62
BEL TRAN vs. SAMSON, 50 Phil. 570
PEOPLE vs. OTADORA, 86 Phil. 244
FERNANDO vs. MAGLANOC, 95 Phil. 431
PEOPLE vs. BOHOLST-AMADORE, 152 SCRA 263
PEOPLE vs. ROSAS, 148 SCRA 464
PEOPLE vs. POLICARPIO, 158 SCRA 85

20
 XIX. RIGHT NOT TO BE DETAINED FOR ONES POLITICAL BELIEFS AND

, ASPIRATIONS/INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE

Section 18 (1). No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs
and aspirations.

(2) No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a punishment for a
crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.

ACLARATION vs. GATMAITAN, 64 SCRA 131

XX. RIGHT AGAINST CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT

Section 19 (1). Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall death penalty be imposed, unless,
for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter provides
for it. Any death penalty already imposed shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua.

(2) The employment of physical, psychological, or degrading punishment

against any prisoner or detainee or the use of substandard or inadequate penal
facilities under subhuman conditions shall be dealt with by law.

1. Death Penalty

PEOPLE vs. ESTOISTA, 93 Phil. 647

PEOPLE vs. VILLANUEVA, 128 SCRA 488
VINIEGAS vs. PEOPLE, 115 SCRA 79
PEOPLE vs. CAMANO, 115 SCRA 688
PEOPLE vs. IONA Y, 164 SCRA 358

XXI. RIGHT AGAINST IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT

Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.

AJENO vs. INCIERTO, 71 SCRA 166

XXII. RIGHT AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY

21
 Section 21 . No person shall be twice put in jeopardy or pu nishment for the same
offense. If an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal
under either shall constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

' 1. Requisites

PEOPLE vs. ALMARIO, 355 SCRA 1

PEOPLE vs. TAMPAL, 244 SCRA 202
PEOPLE vs. LEVISTE, 255 SCRA 238

2. When act is punished by both law and an ordinance

PEOPLE vs. RELOV A, 148 SCRA 292

3. Other cases.

PEOPLE vs. MOLERO, G.R. No. 1-67842, September 24, 1986

PEOPLE vs. HON. VELASCO, 340 SCRA 207
PEOPLE vs. BOCAR, 138 SCRA 166
PEOPLE vs. JUDGE HERNANDO, 108 SCRA 121
ESMENA vs. JUDGE POGOY, 102 SCRA 861
CUDIA vs. CA, 284 SCRA 173
CUISON vs. CA, 289 SCRA159
TANGAN vs. PEOPLE, 155 SCRA 435
US vs. YAM TUNG WAY, 21 Phil. 67
PEOPLE vs. ANG HO KIO, 95 Phil. 475

4. The "Supervening Fact Doctrine"

MELO vs. PEOPLE, 85 Phil. 766

PEOPLE vs. BULING, 107 Phil. 712
PEOPLE vs. ADIL, 76 SCRA 462
PEOPLE vs. CITY COURT OF MANILA, 121 SCRA 637
PEOPLE vs. BUAN, 22 SCRA 1383

XXIII. RIGHT AGAINST EX-POST FACTO LAW, BILL OF ATTAIND ER

Section 22. No ex post fa cto law or bill of attainder shall be enacted.

1. EX POST FACTO -

22
 a) Kinds:

r (1) Every law that makes criminal an action done before the passage of
the law and which was innocent when done, and punishes such
action;

(2) Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was
when committed;

(3) Every law that changes punishment, and inflicts a greater

punishment than the law annexed to the crime when committed;

(4) Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less
or different testimony than the law required at the time of the
commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender;

(5) Every law which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies
only, in effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful;

(6) Every law which deprives persons accused of a crime of some

lawful protection to which they have become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or of a proclamation
of amnesty;

z. Characteristics: (i) It refers to criminal matters; (ii) it is retroactive

in application; and (iii) It works to the prejudice of the accused.

2. Bill of Attainder. - It is a legislative act that inflicts punishments without

trial.

NUNEZ vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, 111 SCRA 433

LACSON vs. SANDIGANBAYAN, G.R. No. 128096, January 20,
1999
MEJIA vs. P AMARAN, 160 SCRA 457
PEOPLE vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, 211 SCRA 241
SEVILLEJA vs. COMELEC, 107 SCRA 141
BAYOT vs. SANDIGANBA YAN, 128 SCRA 383
WRIGHT vs. CA, 235 SCRA 341

23
 PEOPLE vs. FERRER, 43 SCRA 381

,
't
XXIV. CITIZENSHIP

( A. Section 1, Article IV

1. Who are citizens of the Philippines?

B. Section 2, Article IV

1. Natural Born Filipino

TECSON vs. COMELEC, 424 SCRA 277

CO vs. ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, 199 SCRA 692

C. Section 3, Article IV
Section 4, Article IV
Section 5, Article IV

1. Election of Philippine Citizenship

IN RE CHING, 316 SCRA 1

2. Loss of Philippine Citizenship

AZNAR vs. COMELEC, 185 SCRA 703

VA LIES vs. COMEL EC, 337 SCRA 543
MERCADO vs. MANZANO, 307 SCRA 630

3. Reacquisition of Philippine Citizenship; Repatriation

RA 8171
RA 9225

T ABASO vs. CA, 500 SCRA 9

REPUBLIC vs. T ANDA YAG, 117 SCRA 637
BENGSON vs. House of Representatives
ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, 357 SCRA 545

24
4. Renunciation of Foreign Citizenship

RA 9225

ADVOCATES AND ADHERENTS FOR SOCIAL

JUSTICE FOR SCHOOL TEACHERSAND ALLIED
WORKERS MEMBERS vs. DATUMANONG, 523
SCRA 108

5. Naturalization

YUNG VAN CHU vs. REPUBLIC, 159 SCRA 593

RA No. 9139
SO vs. REPUBLIC, 513 SCRA 267

25