BILL OF RIGHTS-Atty - Enad

CONTITUTIONAL LAW II - BILL OF RIGHTS
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
(BILL OF RIGHTS)
BASIC PRINCIPLES:
We consider the Bill of Rights as Limitations on State Power (intended to limit

what the government can do-not only the legislature but also on the executive
and the courts)
Provisions of the bill of rights are self-executing; (no need of implementing law;
can be invoked by persons in court)
They can only be invoked against the State (not against private individuals)
Basic human rights are superior to property rights (in the hierarchy of rights,
some rights are superior than the others)
Its provisions have no retroactive application. ( even if favorable to the accused,

it is not given retroactive application; because this is not criminal law)
CASES-
1. Yrasugue v. PAL [equal protection ] (involved an employee of PAL who was

overweight and dismissed by PAL; he raised the issue of violating the equal
protection clause because they are also other ee’s who are very heavy; why did
PAL single him out?; Accdg to SC, you cannot invoke the Bill of Rights against a
private entity, only against the state)
2. Bell Air. V. Dionesio [right to associate] (this involved a subdivision rules that
if you are an owner of a property in Bel Air, you have to be a member of the assn;
one owner don’t want to be a member, that it violates his right not to join; Bel Air
is a private entity, you cannot invoke the Bill of Rights against it )
3. People v. Bongcarawan [search by private individuals] (there is a Maranao on
board a ferry; somebody complained that he lost his wristwatch; guards of the
vessel searched everybody including the briefcase of Bongcarawan, which was
found to be full of shabu; he was charged in court; he tried to raise the issue of
illegal search, no warrant ; SC: the security guards of the vessel are private
individuals; you cannot invoke the Bill of Rights; admissible in evidence)
4. Atienza v. Comelec (2010) – procedure for expulsion (Atienza used to be a
1|Page
member of the liberal party; shortly before the 2010 elections, he was expelled;
accdg to Atienza, the LP did not observe due to process-notice and hearing as
laid down in the AngTibay decision; SC: due process in the AngTibay case
cannot be invoked against a private entity; the LP is n not a gov’t entity, you
cannot use it)
5. PBLMO v. PBMCI [human rights v. property] (involved workers dismissed by
their employers because they joined a rally and left the factory unmanned; accdg
to the owners, every time you come back and restart the machines, SC: the er’s
are invoking property rights/ profit money; the ee’s are invoking right to attend a
rally-petition and assembly; the rights of ee’s are superior because they are basic
human rights and it is superior to property rights)
OVER THE YRS, the SC has told us what rights are fundamental and therefore
superior. They are
Petition and assembly
Freedom of speech
Freedom of religion
Right to privacy
Right to information on matters of public concern
Bar Questions:
1. 1992, No.1
2. 2005, No.8
3. 2000, No.11
4. 2007, No.5
2005, No. 11: (2.) Emilio had long suspected that Alvin, his employee, had
been passing trade secrets to his competitor, Randy, but he had no proof. One
day, Emilio broke open the desk of Alvin and discovered a letter wherein Randy
thanked Alvin for having passed on to him vital trade secrets of P50,000.00
drawn against the account of Randy and payable to Alvin. Emilio then dismissed
Alvin from his employment. Emilio’s proof of Alvin’s perfidy are the said letter
and check which are objected to as inadmissible for having been obtained
through an illegal search. Alvin filled a suit assailing his dismissal. Rule on the
admissibility of the letter and check. (5%) [Are they admissible ?]YES. TAKEN BY
A PRIVATE PERSON. BILL OF RIGHTS CAN ONLY BE INVOKED AGAINST THE
STATE.
2007, V. The Destilleria Felipe Segundo is famous for its 15-year old rum,
which it has produced and marketed successfully for the past 70 years. Its latest
2|Page
commercial advertisement uses the line: “Nakatikim kana banangkinseanyos?”

Very soon, activist groups promoting women’s and children’s rights were up in
arms against the advertisement.
All advertising companies in the Philippines have formed an association, the

Philippine Advertising Council, and have agreed to abide by all the ethical
guidelines and decisions by the council orders the pull-out of the
“kinseanyos” advertising campaign. Can Destilleria Felipe Segundo claim
that its constitutional rights are thus infringed? PAC IS A PRIVATE ENTITY;
CANNOT INVOKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST A PRIVATE ENTITY
(b) One of the militant groups, the Amazing Amazonas, call on all the
government-ownedandcontrolled corporations (GOCC) to boycott any
newspaper, radio or TV station that carries the “kinseanyos” advertisements.
They call on all government nominees in sequestered corporations to block any
advertising funds allocated for any such newspaper, radio or TV station. Can the
GOCCs and sequestered corporations validly comply? YES, CAN BE INVOKED
AGAINST THE STATE.
2000, 11. On Oct. 1, 1985, Ramos was arrested by a security guard because
he appeared to be “suspicions” and brought to a police precinct where in the
course of the investigation he admitted a week earlier. The proceedings of his
investigation were putting writing and dated Oct. 1, 1985 and the only
participation of counsel assigned him was his mere presence and signature on
the statement. The admissibility of the statement of Ramos was placed in issue
but the prosecution claims that the confession was taken on Oct. 1, 1985 and the
1987 Constitution providing the tight to counsel of choice took effect on feb. 2,
1987 so it will not apply to Ramos. Is that correct?
Yes, because Art. III of the Constitution has no retroactive effect
No, because being favorable to Ramos, the provision must be given retroactive
effect
No, since the constitution does not distinguish to which confession it applies,
the courts should not also distinguish
No, since the trial proceedings were conducted while the 1987 Constitution was
in effect, its provisions should apply
3|Page
1992, No. 2: Sheila, an actress, signed a 2-year contract with

SolidaridadFilms. The film company undertook to promote her career and to
feature her as the leading lady in at least 4 movies. In turn, Sheila promised that,
for the duration of the contracts, she shall not get married or have a baby;
otherwise she shall be liable to refund the Film company a portion of its
promotion expenses. Is Solidaridad Films tries to enforce this contract judicially,
will Sheila’s constitutionally protected right prevail? THE PRINCIPLE HERE IS
BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS PREVAIL OVER PROPERTY RIGHTS. SHE IS INVOKING
HER RIGHT TO MARRY AND PROCREATE, A BASIC HR; THE FILM CO. IS
INVOKING PROPERTY RIGHT.
Sec.1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due

process of law, nor shall any person be deprived the equal protection of laws.
Not covered as “ property”: while the constitution protects property, the SC

told us that certain items are not regarded as a property and therefore do not
come under the due process clause
1. Permits and licenses [CM Timber] permits are privileges and can be revoked
upon the will of the issuing authority; cannot invoke due process clause-
example : permit to operate a cockpit is not protected by due process clause
2. Private employment [ Serrano] is not considered property; cannot invoke the
due process clause; if entitled to due process because he is dismissed, it is
because of the labor code, not the bill of rights
1. Public office is also not protected by the due process clause because public
employment is a public trust. The statement is used by the SC in the context of
abolition of an office. For instance, if an office is abolished by law, you cannot
claim that you are not previously informed or given proper notice and hearing.
But cases in comelec, when two persons are contesting an office, right to due
process actually applies. In this case, public office is some kind of property right;
given opportunity to present your side.
2006,-VI – Does a Permit to carry Firearm outside Residence (PTCFOR)
constitute a property right protected by the constitution? 2.5% NO
Outline of Sec. 1:
A. Due Process
4|Page
Procedural (procedures)
Substantive (content of the law itself)
B. Equal Protection
Due Process and equal protection
Due Process: Procedural vs. Substantive
Procedural due process relates to the mode of procedure which government

agencies must follow in the enforcement and application of laws.
Substantive due process pertains to the intrinsic validity of the law interfering
with life liberty and property.
Exempted from procedural due process:
Rule-making/quasi-legislative power (quasi judicial and quasi- legislative power:

many admin bodies exercise both; they issue rules and at the same time
decide cases for violating the rules; accdg. To SC: in the issuance of rules,
they need not observe due process. In the exercise of QJ function, observe
due process.)
b. Abatement of nuisance per se (exempt from the requirement of due

process danger to life, health, property-example: mad dog, falling tree)
Section 1: Procedural Due Process
Due Process in Administrative Proceedings:(as laid down in ANG TIBAY

DECISION)MEMORIZE!!
1. The right to hearing which includes the right of a party interested or affected
to present his case and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial,
5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing or at

5|Page
least contained on the records and disclosed to the party affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its or his own
independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy and not
simply accept the views of a subordinate in arriving at a decision,
7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision n
such a manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues
involved and the reason for the decision. (equivalent to consti provision on the
judiciary decision to state the law and the facts)
CASES:
1. Doruelo v. MND involved a ship captain who figured in a maritime accident

and was suspended by marina for 6 months because of negligence. He
appealed. While the case is on appeal, he continued sailing. Eventually, the DND
affirmed the decision, “we affirmed the decision of the MARINA to suspend you
for 6 months. However, we learned from the news yesterday that you also
collided with another ship. For this reason, we dismiss you.” SC: you violated one
of the requirement in AngTibay. Decision must be based on the evidence
contained in the records.
2. Go v. NAPLOCOM there was a law passed by congress allowing summary
dismissal of police officers. The question decided by SC: can we still have
summary without violating due process? SC: Yes we allow it for police officers.
However, this will be the procedure. The police officer charged should be
informed of the complainant against him and the evidence. He should be given
opportunity to submit his answer in writing. After that, the investigator can
dismiss him. Why summary? It is shortcut. No need to appear. Due process is
not sacrificed. Applies to police officers only.
3. Executive v. Southwingthe president issued an E.O. banning the importation of
second hand vehicle. This was challenged as violation to due process because
importers were not informed. It is in exercise of quasi-legislative power/ rule
making, no need of notice and hearing.
4. Rivera v. CSC. The person was dismissed by the merit system and protection
board. The person appealed to CSC. The person who dismissed him was already
promoted to the commission and affirmed the decision. He cannot be impartial;
expected to affirm his own decision; he should inhibit himself.
5. Mollaneda v. Umacob. Involves a DECS superintendent in Dvo. City. He was
dismissed by CSC. The investigation was done by the provincial legal officer of
CSC. The record was forwarded to the commission. All investigation were done
that way. Entrust investigation to legal officers. SC: no violation of due process.
6|Page
Not one of the guarantee in AngTibay. No guarantee that the one who receive the
evidence will be the one to make the decision.
Bar Questions: Procedural

1. 2000, No. 3
2. 1994, No. 9
1994, No.9: A complaint was filled by intelligence agents of the BID against
Stevie, a German, for his deportation. The commissioner directed the board of
inquiry to conduct an investigation. At the said investigation, a lawyer of the
Legal Department of the BID presented as witness the 3 intelligence agents who
filed the complaint. On the basis of the findings, report and recommendation of
the Board of Special Inquiry, the BID unanimously voted to deport Stevie. Stevie’s
lawyer questioned the deportation order:
1. On the ground that Stevie was denied due process because the BID
Commissioners who rendered the decision were not the ones who received the
evidence, in violation of the “he who decides must hear” rule. Is he correct? NO
SUCH RULE
2. On the ground that there was a violation of due process because the
complainants, the prosecutor and the hearing officers were all subordinates of
the BID Commissioners who rendered the deportation. Is he correct? ANG TIBAY
DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE PERSONS ACTIVELY INVOLVED MUST CAME
FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT. WHAT IS IMPORTANT IS THAT THE JUDGE
MADE THE DECISION ON HIS OWN INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION.
Which of the following violates procedural due process?
1. A decision rendered by a tribunal based on the transcript of the hearing

conducted by a subordinate officer authorized to receive evidence
2. A decision rendered by a judge, who took over after the judge who actually
tried the case retired
3. A decision of an agency after hearing where the prosecutor, the witnesses and
the officer deciding are all belonging to said agency
4. Unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals where the 3rd member who
concurred was the one who penned the RTC decision before he was promoted
7|Page
ANSWER: D (BASED ON RIVERA V. CSC)
2000, No. 3: the MARINA issued new rules and regulations governing pilotage
services and fees, and the conduct of pilots in the Philippine ports. This it did
without notice, hearing nor consultation with harbor pilots or their association
whose rights and activities are to be substantially affected. The harbor pilots
then filed suit to have the new MARINA rules declared unconstitutional for
having been issued without due process. Decide the case.
a. Unconstitutional, for failure to comply with notice and hearing
b. Constitutional, since MARINA was exercising a quasi-legislative power
c. Constitutional, for no life, liberty or property is involve so that no due process

is needed
d. Constitutional, since once cannot invoke the constitution against MARINA
ANSWER: B
2010, XIVABC operates an industrial waste processing plant within Laoag

City. Occasionally, whenever fluid substances are released through a nearby
creek, obnoxious odor is emitted causing dizziness among residents in Barangay
La Paz. On compliant of the Punong Barangay, the City Mayor wrote ABC
demanding that it abate the nuisance. This was ignored. An invitation to attend a
hearing called by the SangguniangPanlungsod was also declined by the
president of ABC. The city government thereupon issued a cease and desist
order to stop the operations of the plant, prompting ABC to file a petition for
injunction before the Regional Trial Court, arguing that the city government did
not have any power to abate the alleged nuisance. Decide with reasons. (3%)
2011 Bar Exam 77. Procedural due process in administrative proceedings
a. Requires the tribunal to consider the evidence presented
b. Allows the losing party to file a motion for reconsideration
c. Requires hearing the parties on oral argument
d. Permits the parties to file memoranda
8|Page
ANSWER: A
2011 Bar Exam: 48. An ordinance prohibits “notorious street gang members”
from loitering in public places. The police are to disperse them or, if they refuse,
place them under arrest. The ordinance enumerates which police officers can
make arrest and defines street gangs, membership in them, and public areas.
The ordinance was challenged for being vague regarding the meaning of
“notorious street gang members.” Is the ordinance valid?
a. No, it leaves the public uncertain as to what conduct it prohibits.
b. No, since it discriminates between loitering in public places and loitering in

private places.
c. Yes, it provides fair warning to gang members prior to arrest regarding their
unlawful conduct.
d. Yes, it is sufficiently clear for the public to know what acts it prohibits.
ANSWER: A (LAWS WHICH ARE VAGUE ALSO VIOLATE DUE PROCESS; DOES
NOT GIVE FAIR WARNING TO THE PUBLIC OF WHAT CONDUCT MUST BE
AVOIDED; GIVE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER UNBRIDLED DISCRETION IN
ENFORCING THE LAW) STANDARD FOR SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS
Is the law reasonable or is it an undue interference on life, liberty or property?

Is it a valid exercise of police power?
For example: violation of substantive due process if a law is passed declaring

illegal to smoke in public places; anybody caught will be sentenced to death; too
burdensome …..shot to death all students caught cheating; undue burden on life;
something is wrong with the law
POLICE POWER: The power of the government to prescribe regulations to

promote health, morals, education, good order or safety and the general welfare
of the people.
9|Page
Test for valid Exercise of Police Power:
1. That the interest of the public generally as distinguished from those of a

particular class require such interference.
2. That the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the
purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. (US VS. TORIBIO)
Example: requiring all citizens to wear yellow; no lawful subject; will not promote
health, morals, safety, etc.
Outline:
1. Lawful subject [it is lawful if related to the exercise of police power](covered

are health, morals, education, goodorder, safety, general welfare)
2. Lawful method [divided in two aspects
a. Rational relation between method and purpose [Ynot], Laguio] to preserve

and protect the carabao, it is unlawful to transport carabao from one province to
another. SC: there is no rational method between the method and the purpose.
Law does not serve its purpose. Carabaos can be killed without moving them.
b. Means chosen not unduly oppressive of another right
Cases:
1. Lupangco
2. Ermita-Malate and laguio and white light
1. ERMITA-MALATE Required registration in lobby, inspection and prohibition an

renting twice in 24 hours (to protect morals, Mayor Lim prohibited the operations
of motels in Ermita, Malate. To protect morals, prohibit in the entire city, not only
in Malate. No logic. Moral here, not moral there.)
2. LAGUIO prohibition of sauna, cabarets, motels, inns and dance halls in the
Ermita-Malate district. [no reasonable relation because it will not promote per se
protect morals [too restrictive? Immorality can be committed anywhere, even in
churches]
3. WHITE LIGHT Renting for less than 12hours [‘restrains business and patrons
without justification”] attitude of SC towards morals are rather permissive now:
ordinances prohibiting short time are now unconstitutional; too burdensome on
business
10 | P a g e
4. Beltran v. Secretary prohibition of private blood banks, one of the cases that
goes against the general way; ordinarily, police power sustained by the SC if it
limit a right because business for instance are not harmful per se, you can
regulate, but you cannot abolish them; however, in this case, in the interest of
health , it allowed the abolition
5. Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD 20% discount to senior citizens; a valid exercise of
police power; how did the owners argue it as unconstitutional? That it is unduly
oppressive of their property rights; our profits will be diminished, we will go
bankrupt; SC: not all customers are senior citizens, minimal, not unduly
oppressive
5. MMDA v. Viron Transportation MMDA put up an ordinance --- no private

terminals; SC: no, prohibiting private terminals is unconstitutional because that
is undue restrain of private property.
6. SJS v. Atienza, Jr., ordinance of the city of Manila prohibiting oil companies
having their refineries in Pandacan Area. Get out. Move somewhere else. Is too
burdensome to oil companies? SC sustained it. There is a valid purpose- public
safety –these are foreign corporations; target of terrorist attacks; not unduly
oppressive; we are not telling you to stop your business; just move somewhere
else; not a total restriction, only regulate it
7. Planters v. Fertiphil decree of Marcos collecting 10 pesos of tax for every sack
of fertilizer sold. What is the purpose? To give it to planters so that it can
rehabilitate sold. SC: no longer a valid purpose for the interest of one individual/
entity
Bar Questions:
2003, No. 12
1994, No. 12, 2000, No. 4
2001, No. 13
1987, V: is an ordinance prohibiting barbershop operators from rendering

massage service to their customers in a separate room valid? YES. VALID
PURPOSE- MORALS. LAWFUL METHOD. NOT PROHIBITING THE BUSINESS,
JUST REGULATING IT.
2003, No. 12 : The Municipal council of the municipality of Guagua,

Pampanga, passed an ordinance penalizing any person or entity engaged in the
business of selling tickets or movies or other public exhibitions which would
11 | P a g e
charge children between 7-12 years of age the full price of admission tickets
instead of only ½ of the amount. Would you hold the ordinance a valid exercise
of legislative power? NO VALID PURPOSE DOES NOT PROMOTE HEALTH,
MORALS, ETC. TICKETS ARE PROPERTY RIGHTS.
2001,No.13: The PPA issued an administrative order to the effect that all existing
regular appointment to harbor pilot positions shall remain valid only up to Dec.
31 of the current ever and that henceforth all appointments to harbor pilots
positions shall be only for a term of one year. Pilotage as a profession may be
practiced only by duly licensed individuals, who have to pass five government
professional examinations. The harbor pilots association challenged the validity
of said admin order on the argument that it violated their right to exercise their
profession and their right to due process of law and that the said order was
without prior notice and hearing. Are they correct? DOES THE VIOLATE
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS? NO. APPLIES TO ALL. IT IS QUASI
LEEGESLATIVE.
DOES IT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE DEU PROCESS? YES. PILOTAGE IS A

PROFESSION. IT IS PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. IT IS UNDULY
BURDENSOME.
2000, No.4: Undaunted by his 3 failures in the NMAT, Cruz applied to take it
again but he was refused because of an order of the DECS disallowing flunkers
from taking the test for the 4th time. Cruz filed suit assailing this rule raising the
constitutional grounds of accessible quality education, academic freedom and
equal protection. The government opposes this, upholding the constitutionality
of the rule on the case discussing the grounds raised. A VALID EXERCISE OF
POLICE POWER. PURPOSE-HEALTH WE CANNOT HAVE DOCTORS WHO ARE
REALLY DUMB. IS THE METHOD CHOSEN VALID? YES. NOT UNDULY
OPPRESIVE. 3X. RIGHT TO CHOOSE PROFESSION IS NOT ABSOLUTE.
REASONABLE REGULATION.
2008, - VI – the Philippine National Police (PNP) issued a circular to all its
members directed at the style and length of male police officer’s hair, sideburns
and moustaches, as well as the size of their waistlines. It prohibits beards,
goatees and waistlines over 38 inches, except for medical reason. Some police
officers questioned the validity of the circular, claiming that it violated their right
to liberty under the Constitution. Resolve the controversy. (6%) A PERTICULAR
PROFESSION CAN LAY DOWN STANDARDS
12 | P a g e
V, 2009 to address the pervasive problem of gambling, Congress is

considering the following options: (1) prohibit all forms of gambling; (2) allow
gambling only on Sundays; (3) allow gambling only in government-owned
casinos; and (4) remove all prohibitions against gambling but impose a tax
equivalent to 30% on all winnings.
[a] if congress chooses the first option and passes the corresponding law
absolutely prohibiting all forms of gambling; can the law be validly attacked
on the ground that it is an invalid exercise of police power? Explain your
answer. (2%) IF 1, VALID. PURPOSE IS MORALS.NOTHING IN THE CONSTI
THAT PROTECTS GAMBLING.
IF 2, INVALID. MORAL TO GAMBLE ON SUNDAYS BUT IMMORAL ON OTHER

DAYS? NO RELATION TO PROTECTIOIN OF MORALS.
If Congress chooses the second option, would the law be valid?
a. Yes, it would be a valid exercise of police power since Congress aims to

protect morals
b. No, the ordinance does not protect any legitimate public interest
c. No, it is unduly oppressive of other constitutional right
d. No, there is no rational relation between the method chosen and the purpose
of the law
ANSWER: D
2010,XXI. The SangguniangPanlungsod of Pasay City passed an ordinance

requiring all disco pub owners to have all their hospitality girls tested for the
AIDS virus. Both disco pub owners and the hospitality girls assailed the validity
of the ordinance for being violative of their constitutional rights to privacy and to
freely choose a calling or business. Is the ordinance valid? Explain. (5%)
a. No, the ordinance is unduly oppressive of the right to privacy
b. No, the ordinance will not promote any public interest
c. No, the method chosen has no rational relation to the purpose of the
ordinance
d. Yes, it is a valid exercise of police power
ANSWER: D
13 | P a g e
2011 Bar Exam: 83. A law interfering with the rights of the person meets the
requirements of substantive due process when
a. The means employed is not against public policy.
b. It is in accord with the prescribed manner of enforcement as to time, place,

and person.
c. All affected parties are given the chance to be heard.
d. The interest of the general public, as distinguished from those of a particular

case, requires such interference.
ANSWER: D
2011 Bar Exam. 87. In the valid exercise of management prerogative

consistent with the company’s right to protect its economic interest, it may
prohibit its employees from
a. Joining rallies during their work shift.
b. Marrying employees of competitor companies.
C. Publicly converging with patrons of competitors companies.
d. Patronizing the product of competitor companies.
ANSWER: B (GLAXO CASE)
2011 Bar Exam: 67. The price of staple goods like rice may be regulated for
the protection of the consuming public through the exercise of
a. Power of subordinate legislation.
b. Emergency power.
c. Police power.
d. Residual power.
14 | P a g e
ANSWER: C
Section 1: due Process and Equal Protection
Equal protection pertains to the requirement that laws must treat all persons or
things similarity situated alike, both as to similarities conferred and liabilities
imposed. A law cannot create a class and give it favors and also a group and
subject it to disadvantages. Treat people equally.
Two ways of violating:
1. Classifying without basis [jalosjos]
2. Failure to classify when distinction exist
[Bar Q, 1989, No.18: Villegas case] An ordinance of the City of Manila

requires every alien desiring to obtain employment of whatever kind, including
casual and part-time employment permit from the city and to pay a work permit
fee of P500. Is the ordinance valid?
If you try to look at it, it seems to be treating equally, but not all aliens are
similarly situated. Some have high paying job, some have low paying job. To pay
500 will violate the EPC-failure to classify when substantial distinction exists.
When is classification permissible?
Two ways of justifying:
1. When the Constitution allows it; or [Nunez and Almonte] Cruz v. COMELEC]
Procedure in the ombudsman allowing an officer to be charged even if your

complaint is anonymous; in other tribunals, the complaint must make a
statement under oath and disclose his identity. That was a challenge for the
violation of EPC SC: consti allows it. The ombudsman shall entertain complaints
in any form of manner. Whenever there is a conflict between the provision of the
constitution and the equal protection clause, the EPC shall be considered the
general provision and the consti the exception. In the declaration of principles
and state policies, many are favored--- icc, landless farmers, labor. You cannot
complain. The consti permits it.
15 | P a g e
2. When it passes the 4 test for a valid classification
Test for valid classification: (must concur; memorize)
1. It must rest on a substantial distinction;(women are different from men; some

laws favoring women can be valid; ex. Grant of 60day maternity leave cannot be
challenged by men; but if women cannot be lawyers, EPC is violated)
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law; (relevant to the purpose of the
law)
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only: applicable not just today or
tomorrow
4. It must apply equally to members of the same class.
Parreno v. COA the law stated that if you are a military officer, went abroad,
naturalized, GSIS will withdrew his retirement in accordance with the provision of
law; why am I not given retirement when I served the military for so many years?
SC: there is a difference between you and the many retirees-you cannot be
required to serve in times of war, you are an alien, there is substantial
description.
Abakada v. Purismainvolves an incentive to those who are working with the BIR
and Com of Customs. If they make good collection or meet certain targets, they
are given bonuses. Some employees complain. SC: there is substantial
distinction. They are engaged in collection of revenue, others are not. The
purpose of the law is to increase revenue collection. Germane to the purpose of
the law.
Quinto v. COMELEC filing of COC; if appointive, deemed resigned: if elective,

not deemed resigned; valid distinction
Beltran there is substantial distinction between private blood banks; the farmer
operate for profit
Gutierrez v. DBM COLA which is removed except to the police/military.

Challenged. SC: these people are different because they can be transferred from
one place to another; living conditions can be different depending on where they
are assigned.
16 | P a g e
Lagiou [sauna parlors, beerhouses, cabarets, dance halls, motels and inns vs.
hotels, lodging houses, pension houses] prohibit motels … however it allowed
within ermita/malate hotels and pension houses. This violated EPC. The court
could not say the distinction between motels and hotels. Just change the name
from motel to hotel and it will be allowed. No substantial distinction.
Duncan v. Glaxoyou cannot invoke EPC against a private entity- a basic principle
of bill of rights; this is a policy that you cannot marry an ee of another competitor
company
League of Cites aside from quarrel of plenary power of congress, there is an

issue of EPC. Why? The SC keep in seesawing about the issues because last
decision now is saying that there is substantial distinction between the 16 cites
given a status of city without having met the income of 1M compared to other
cities. The quarrel is how to apply the 4 tests.
Biraogo v. Philippine Truth Commission, 637 SCRA 78 (2010)
The President on July 30, 2010, signed Executive order No. 1 establishing the
Philippine Truth Commission of 2010. The ad hoc body formed under the office
of the President with the primary task to investigate reports of graft and
corruption committed by third-level public officers and employees, their
co-principals, accomplices and accessories during the previous administration,
and thereafter to submit its finding and recommendation to the President,
Congress and the Ombudsman. Since the EO was tasked mainly to investigate
corruption under the administration of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, does it violate
the equal protection clause?YES, IT DOES. IT CANNOT MAKE A DISTINCTION
BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATION OF PGMA AND OTHER PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATIONS. SHOULD BE TREATED EQUALLY.
Bar Questions:
1987, No.6
Bar Q, No. 12, 1994
No. 2, 2007
1987,No. 6: Marina Neptunia, daughter of a sea captain wanted to become a full

fledged marine officer but she was not allowed to take the examination for
marine officers because the law regulating the Practice of the Marine Profession
prescribes that: “No person shall be qualified for examination as marine officer
unless he is:” Is the law valid? [Equal Protection?]
17 | P a g e
a. No, because it discriminates against women
b. Yes, because there is a substantial distinction between men and women
c. Yes, because the classification is germane to the purpose of the law which is
to protect women
d. Yes, because the Constitution permits discrimination against women
ANSWER: A (VIOLATE STATE POLICY OF EQUALITY OF MEN AND WOMEN)
1994, No. 12: The DECS issued a circular disqualifying anyone who fails for
the 4th time in the National Entrance Test from admission to a College of
Dentistry. X who was thus disqualified, questions the constitutionality of the
circular. (2) Did the circular violate the equal protection clause of the
Constitution?
a. Valid, because there is a substantial distinction between dentistry and other

profession
b. Valid, because laws and circulars issued by government agencies are superior
to the equal protection clause
c. Void, because all profession are the same and should be treated similarly
d. Void, because it discriminates against mentally deficient students
ANSWER: A
2007, No. 2. The city Mayor issues an executive order declaring that the city
promotes responsible parenthood and upholds family planning. He prohibits all
hospitals operated by the city from prescribing the use of artificial methods of
contraception, including condoms, pills, intrauterine devices and surgical
sterilization. As a result, poor women in his city lost their access to affordable
family planning programs. Private clinics, however, continue to render family
planning counsel and devices to paying clients. Is Executive Order in any way
constitutionally infirm? Explain [Equal Protection?] APPARENTLY IT CAN BE
CHALLENGED UNDER THE EPC. MAKE CONTRACEPTIVES UNAVAILABLE TO
THEPOOR AND AVAILABLE TO THE RICH.
2011 Bar Exam 23. The equal protection clause allows valid classification of
subjects that applies
a. Only to present conditions.
18 | P a g e
b. So long as it remains relevant to the government.
c. For a limited period only.
d. For as long as the problem to be corrected exists.
ANSWER: D
2011 Bar Exam 100. X, a Filipino and Y, an American, both teach at the
International Institute in Manila. The institute gave X a salary rate of P1,000 per
hour and Y, P1,250 per hour plus housing, transportation, shipping cost, and
leave travel allowance.
The school cited the dislocation factor and limited tenure of Y to justify his high
salary rate and additional benefits. The same package was given to the other
Foreign teachers. The Filipino teachers assailed such differential treatment,

claiming it is discriminatory and violates the equal protection clause. Decide.
a. The classification is based on superficial differences.
b. The classification undermines the “Filipino First” policy.
c. The distinction is fair considering the burden of teaching abroad.
d. The distinction is substantial and uniformly applied to each class.
ANSWER: A (NO SUBSTANTIAL DISTINCTION; NO SHOWING THAT ALIENS

TEACH BETTER THAN FILIPINO TEACHERS; SOMETHING IS WRONG HERE,
YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINTS A PRIVATE ENTITY; SC
FORGET THE PRINCIPLE?
All sugar produced by Ormoc Central be subject to tax. Limited to existing

conditions only; if somebody put up a central, he will not subj to tax because it
specifically mentioned Ormoc Central. Right now, pending before the SC is the
prohibition on aerial spray. Only on banana? How about others?
(By justice Moran) A law passed by congress prohibiting members of the cultural
communities from drinking foreign wine. If they do, they will be sent to jail. SC:
valid. There is a substantial distinction between natives and non-natives.
Purpose is to create peace among natives. They are not used to imported wines;
if they got drunk, they cause trouble. Germane to the purpose of the law. if you
render this kind of decision now, you will be killed by sparrow unit J .
19 | P a g e
Sec 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper
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 of affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produced, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized. (this is the warrant clause or search and
seizure clause. Here, questions on political law can also come out in remedial
law. In the process we are also reviewing remedial law, evidence and criminal
law)
Arrest, search and Seizure
1. Search Warrant
2. Arrest Warrant
3. Warrantless Searches
4. Warrantless Arrest
5. Exclusionary Rule
Section 2: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Requisities for a Valid Search Warrant:
1. It must be based upon probable cause; means that the judge believe more
likely than not that the objects to be seized are there. It is only probable cause,
very low degree of evidence
2. The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge ; cannot be

delegated to another
3. The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation

of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; taking of deposition of
witnesses
4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or

things to be searched.
Section 2: SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
20 | P a g e
Probable Cause: (in the context of search warrant)
Probable cause are such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place sought to be searched.
Questions on Probable Cause:
1. When the crime consist of possession of objects without a permit or license

what evidence is necessary to establish probable cause? [PICOP and Estrada
Cases] illegal possession of firearm/ illegal drugs: The court simply stated that if
you are applying for a search warrant on the ground that there is no permit,
secure a certification from appropriate agency and attach it to your application
to establish probable cause what happens when a warrant is issued for the
seizures of 2 items but there is only probable cause for the issuance of one of
them? [Salangguit: the judge questioned the deponent, the witness mentioned
about the presence of lots of shabu. When the judge issued the warrant, he
included paraphernalia for the use of shabu, so definitely, there is no probable
cause for the search warrant of paraphernalia but only for shabu. SC: the warrant
is servable. It can be valid in so far as there is probable cause and invalid as to
the portion where there is no probable cause. If shabu and paraphernalia are
taken, paraphernalia is inadmissible in evidence ---to save warrant from total
unconstitutionality]
Specific Description:
A search warrant must specifically describe: if it violates any of these, a general

warrant-null and void
1. The place to be searched;
2. The objects to be seized; and
3. Issue only for one specific offense
Rules on description of place illustrated:
1. If the place is under the control of one person, a general description may be
sufficient (Yao, Sr: MasaganaCompuond; it turned out to be one hectare SC
validated the warrant. Anyway it is under the control of one entity. The warrant is
valid.
21 | P a g e
PICOP: 155 hectare. Warrant for search of picop compound---300 buildings

inside, airport, wharf. Not valid.
If a compound is occupied by Various persons, the warrant must indicate the

place to be searched.
2. If the place is a compound occupied by various persons, the warrant must

specifically indicate the unit to be searched [Estrada -5T-] [apartment units,
rooms in a house] ½ hectare, 1 warrant-invalid. There were several units there
controlled by different persons. You are violating the privacy of different
individuals. Whose privacy do you want to violate by virtue of the warrant.
3. The police can only search the place described in the warrant, not an adjoining
one. [Pp. v. CA] warrant says search apt. A; they searched Apt. B because that
was they really applied for. The judge put A when they said it to be B. Null and
void. You can only search what is described in the warrant not the place in your
mind.
4. Once the place is specifically described, there is no need to name the

occupant or owner. [Uy v. BIR, Quelnan v. People] you cannot claim that there is
no name.
Bar Questions: 2001,No. 9, 1990, No. 9 2001: Armed with a search and
seizure warrant, a team of policemen led by instructor Trial entered a compound
and searched the house described therein as No. 17 Speaker Perez St., Sta.
Mesa Heights, Quezon city, owned by Mr. ErnaniPelets, for reported cache of
firearms and ammo. However, upon through search of the house, the police
found nothing.
Then, acting on a hunch, the policemen proceeded to a smaller house inside the
same compound with the address at No. 17-A Speaker Perez St. entered it and
conducted a search therein over the objection of Mr. Pelets who happened to be
the same owner of the first house. There, the e police found the unlicensed
firearms and ammunitions they were looking for.
As a result, Mr. ErnaniPelets was criminally charged in court with illegal

possession of firearms and ammunitions as penalized under PD 1866. At the
trail, he vehemently objected to the presentation of the same in evidence for
being inadmissible. Is Mr. Pelet’s contention valid or not? [Are the firearms
admissible?]
a. Yes, because the police officers were armed with a search warrant
b. Yes, because the objects were seized in plain view
22 | P a g e
c. No, because the objects were not specifically described in the warrant
d. No, because they were seized from a place not described in the warrant
ANSWER: D
1990: Some police operatives, acting under a lawfully issued warrant for the
purpose of searching of firearms in the house of X located at No. 10 Shaw Blvd.
Pasig metro manila, found instead of firearms, ten kilograms of cocaine.
(3) suppose the peace officers were able to find unlicensed firearms in the
house in an adjacent lot, that is, No. 12 Shaw Blvd, which is also owned by X.
May they lawfully seize the said unlicensed firearms?
Explain your answer. NO.
Rules on Description of Objects
1. Object need not be described in precise details [kho: firearms of various

calibers, chop chop vehicles, undetermined quantity of marijuana], unlicensed
radio com. Equipment – but Microsoft – “computer hardware including central
processing units and hard disks, CD Rom drives, key boards, monitor, screens
and diskettes (SUFFICIENT GUIDE FOR OFFICERS NOT TO EXERCISE
UNBRIDLED DISCRETION IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE WARRANT.)… Vallejo:
Undetermined number of fake land titles, blank form of land titles, official
receipts, undetermined number if land transfer transactions… to require- what
caliber, serial number---will render the search impossible
2. Minor discrepancies in between the objects described in the warrant from

those actually taken do not nullify the warrant for as long as they are of the same
kind and nature- Al Ghoul
Where a warrant contains a specific description of some objects and a general

description of others, the entire warrant is not voided. [Uy vs. BIR] preserve the
constitutionality of the warrant. Valid as to specific, in valid as to the general
ones.
Where a warrant contains a specific description of some objects and a general

description of others, the entire warrant is not voided. [Uy vs. BIR] preserve the
23 | P a g e
constitutionality of the warrant. Valid as to specific, in valid as to the general

ones.
Bar Question: 1990, No. 9 Specific doctrines on “one offense” rule:
When related offenses are punished by different provisions of the same law,
issuance of a single warrant is justified [Dischoso: marijuana, shabu and
paraphernalia, prudente:
Search warrant for firearms and shabu is null and void. A general warrant. Entire
warrant is Void. Search warrant for marijuana and shabu valid- punishable in
different provisions of the same law.
Where there are several counts of one specific offense, issuance of one
search warrant is sufficient [Columbia]
Sy Tan v. SyTiongGue, Dec. 15, 2010: after the Supreme Court sustained the
quashal of the Search Warrant for Robbery, the trial judge granted the motion of
the prosecution to withdraw the information charging accused of the offense.
The dismissal was without prejudice. Should the prosecution opt to file an
information against the accused for qualified theft may the objects taken under
the quashed warrant be used in evidence? A warrant can be issued only for one
offense. You cannot use it for another offense.
Territorial Validity: (when the court issues a warrant, where it will be effective? If
issued by the MTC judge of Tagum, valid in Tagum only. If issued by RTC judge,
place where judge has jurisdiction)
1. Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was committed; [Sony
Computer]
2. For compelling reasons stated in the application, any court within the judicial
region where the crime was committed or where the warrant shall be served.
[Chui] may allow to obtain in another place ex. All judges are on seminar – for
compelling reasons
Others:
3. Any court, subject to the requirement of territorial jurisdiction, can issue any
warrant for any offense. Kenneth Roy: regardless of nature or imposable penalty
any judge can issue a search warrant for any offense, cannot say that I am
family court judge, I cannot issue SW for drugs
24 | P a g e
In issuing a search warrant, the judge must: [5%]
a. Notify the person to be searched of the application
b. Personally study only the records to determine probable cause
c. See to it that the person to be searched is at home
d. Ensure that the order to search is in writing
ANSWER: D
Arrest Warrants: Questions
(Procedure is different from securing a search warrant. File a case in the

fiscal’s office. The fiscal will Conduct a preliminary investigation. If there is
probable cause, he will file a case in court and the judge will determine wheter
there is probable cause to issue an arrest warrant. Normally, it takes weeks or
months to secure an arrest warrant. What must the judge do? He can call the
witnesses but the consti does not mandate him to call the witnesses. How does
you satisfy the requirement that the judge must be personally determine
probable cause? By going over the records of the case)
1. Must the judge personally examine complainant and his witnesses? People v.
Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010) no need ----may go over the records coming from the
fiscal’s office.
2. Can the judge rely on the certification of the prosecutor that there is probable
cause for the offense? NO
3. Is the person subject to arrest entitled to notice and hearing before the judge
issues …? No need. But in a way, he is entitled to notice and hearing because at
the fiscal’s office, the accused submits his counter affidavit.
Warrantless Searches
Generally Void:
1. Failure to object to evidence during trial results to waiver (if we got an

evidence from you illegally and during trial your lawyer did not object to the
formal offer of evidence- deemed waived)
2. Only the person whose right was invaded can invoke illegal search [Stonehill]
Valid warrantless searches:

25 | P a g e
1. Incident to lawful arrest
2. Consented search
3. Plain view
4. Stop and frisk
5. Moving vehicles
6. Custom laws
7. Exigency
8. Airport security
9. Prison search
10. Private individuals
Bar questions 2000, No. 14: what are the instances when warrantless searches
may be effected?
2001, No. 4: A is an alien. State whether, in the Philippines, he is entitled to the

right against illegal searches and seizures and against illegal arrest. YES.
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION … NO PERSON—DOES NOT MAKE ANY
DISTINCTION. ONLY ONE RIGHT IN THE BOR IS NOT AVAILABLE TO
FOREIGNERS.
1. Incident to Arrest
Rules:
1. Contemporaneous to arrest
2. Place is under immediate control of the person arrested
Leangsiri. They conducted the search in a hotel room. It seems that the
person is occupying 2 rooms. After they arrested him in one room, they went to
the other room in another floor in the hotel. Not anymore under his immediate
control. Search is not valid with regard to the other room.
Che Chun Ting [inside house] they conducted a buy bust outside the condo unit
of the accused. They arrested him outside. After, they entered his apartment. SC:
no more, not a valid search. Not under his immediate control.
Tiu Won Chua [car] they had a search warrant and served it at the house of
26 | P a g e
the accused. Since they were able to get the shabu, they arrested him inside the
house. After, they saw the car parked outside the house. They searched the car
and found shabu. SC: shabu found inside the car is not admissible.
Valeroso- locked cabinets within the room? Valeroso is a police officer and there
is an arrest warrant for him. He was arrested in his room. There were cabinets
there which are locked. Arresting officers opened the locked cabinets and found
guns. Not admissible. Drawers, yes; but locked cabinets, NO.
2 .Consented Search
Principles-
1. Only the person whose right has been invaded can give consent [Asis,
Damaso] damaso was out of the house when the police served the warrant. The
housemaid allowed the police to come in and found armalite riffles inside. SC:
the one who gave the consent is the housemaid. Therefore, cannot be used in
evidence. Only the person whose right has been invaded can give consent.
Asis: asis was deaf and dumb. He was suspected of robbery with homicide.
When he was arrested, he was brought to his house. The purpose of the police is
to recover the items stolen. When they searched the house, the wife gave the
bag bloodied shirt and money inside. Admissible? No, only the person whose
right has been violated can gave consent. The one who gave the consent here is
the wife. Inadmissible.
2. Consent has to be given expressly
3. The search cannot extend beyond the purpose for which consent was given
[Layague] silence does not mean yes. Consent must be given expressly
Layague: house in skyline subdivision is owned by a couple working in SSS.

They were in Manila. There were reports that RAM soldiers are hiding in the
house. They called the couple in Manila asking for permission to search the
house. The couple agreed. Once inside, they open aparadors and they got
firearm. SC: The purpose is to search for rebels. You cannot extend it. Find
Rebels inside the aparador and drawes? Inadmissible
3.Plain View
Section 2: SEARCHES AND SIEZURES

27 | P a g e
Requisites for search in plain view:
1. There must be a prior justification for the intrusion; right to be there ---ex. With
search or arrest warrant---not intruders
2. The police inadvertently came across the evidence; accidentally—not

purposely looking for it
3. The illegality must be immediately apparent (PEOPLE VS. MUSA) valdez –

kaingin /[people v. del Rosario-. 45/.22
MUSA: police conducted a buy bust in the sala of Musa. The marijuana for
some reason disappeared. They went to the kitchen; found a plastic bag and
opened it; they found marijuana wrapped in paper. Valid intrusion? They did not
come across the object inadvertently. The illegality is not immediately apparent.
Inside a plastic bag, wrapped in paper, the moment one element is missing,
search is illegal.
Go: Assorted documents, passports, blank books, check, typewriter, dry seals,
stamp pads, and Chinese and Philippine currency/Elamparo—packing marijuana
in the table. Admissible? Yes, no problem
People v. Nunez, (2009)
The search warrant commanded the police to search for and sieze “shabu” and
paraphernalia foud in the house of the accused. In the course of the search,
believing that certain objects were bartered for “shabu” they also seized a lady’s
wallet, cash, grinder, camera, component, speakers, electric planner, jigsaw,
electric tester, saws, hammer, drill, and bolo. Is the seizure valid? NO.
ILLEGALITY IS NOT READILLY APPARENT
1990, No. 9: some police operatives acting under a lawfully issued warrant for
the purpose of searching for firearms in the house of X located at No. 10 Shaw
Blvd, pasig, MM, found instead of firearms, 10 kilos of cocaine.
May the said police operatives acting under a lawfully seized the cocaine? [is the
cocaine admissible in evidence?] IF IN PLAIN VIEW, YES.
28 | P a g e
4. Stop and Frisk
It must be based on probable cause, that is the person is acting suspiciously,

which must not be based on the subjective perception of the police. His unusual
behavior must suggest a crime. Reports do not constitute probable cause.
[Mengote/Posadas]
POSADAS: it happened in RMC Davao. They saw Posadas carrying a buri bag.
He looked suspicious. When the police approached him, he ran away. When they
caught him, inside his bag is a revolver. Valid stop and frisk? Yes, there was
probable cause. He was acting suspiciously.
MENGOTE: this happened in tondo, Mla. The police got a call that there was a
suspicious individual down the street. Mengote was holding his stomach and
looking from side to side. The police was suspicious and they found a gun
somewhere else in his waistline. He was charged with illegal possession of
firearms. SC : there is no valid stop and frisk. Mengote was not acting
suspiciously.
PRINCIPLE: WHEN YOU ARE ACTING SUSPICIOUSLY, THERE IS VALID REASON

TO SEARCH YOU. BUT WHAT IS ACTING SUSPICIOUSLY? POSADAS DECISION:
THE LAWYER DID NOT ACT FURTHER WHAT DID THE PERSON DO. IN
MENGOTE: THE LAWYER WAS SMARTER. HE ASKED WHAT DID MENGOTE DO?
THE ANSWER DID NOT SATISFY THE COURT.
Lacerna- slouched ( the policemen were in a patrol car; they were followed
by a taxi. At the front seat of the taxi, there was a person sitting and every time
they glance at the person in the taxi, the latter will not look at them. They went
after the man--- has bag full of marijuana. Valid search? No, not looking at the
police eye to eye is not a valid ground to conduct a search. The quarrel is --- what
is acting suspiciously.)
Esquillo v. People, Aug. 25, 2010
A police officer doing surveillance against a certain “Ryan” saw a woman who
was standing three meters away and seen placing inside a yellow cigarette case
what appeared to be small heat- sealed transparent plastic sachet containing
white substance. Not sure what the plastic sachet contained, he became
suspicious when the woman started acting strangely and he began to approach
her. He then introduced himself as a police officer and inquired about the plastic
sachet she was placing inside her cigarette case. Instead of replying, however,
she attempted to flee to her house nearby but was timely restrained by the
policeman who then requested her to take out the transparent plastic sachet
29 | P a g e
from the cigarette case. It turned out to be “shabu”. Is the evidence admissible?
YES, ACTING SUSPICIOUSLY .
Bar Question: 2000, 14: Crack units of the Anti-narcotics Unit where assigned
on surveillance of the environs of the cemetery where the sale and the use of
dangerous drugs are rampant. A man with reddish and glassy eyes was walking
unsteadily moving towards them but veered when he sensed the presence of
policemen. They, approached him, introduced themselves as police officers and
asked him what he had clenched in his hand. The police pried it open and found
marijuana. Is it admissible in evidence? [2009, No. 7]
a. No, because there was no probable cause for the search
b. yes, because there was probable cause for the search
c. yes , because the evidence was seized in plain view
d. yes, by failing to object to the search, accused is deemed to have waived his
right,
ANSWER : B
Bar Question, 1995: Remedial- What is Terry Search? “ A search whose object
this to determine the identity of a suspicions individual or to maintain the status
qou while the police seek to obtain more information.” TERRY V. STATE OF
OHIO-EQUIVALENT TO STOP AND FRISK 2011 Bar Exam 82. Using the
description of the supplier of shabu given by persons who had been arrested
earlier for selling it, the police conducted a surveillance of the area indicated.
When they saw a man who fitted the description walking from the apartment to
his car, they approached and frisked him and he did not object. The search
yielded an unlicensed gun tucked on his waist and shabu in his car. Is the search
valid?
a. No, the man did not manifest any suspicious behavior that would give the
police sufficient reason to search him.
b. Yes, the police acted on reliable information which proved correct when they
searched the man and his car.
c. Yes, the man should be deemed to have waived his right to challenge the
search when he failed to object to the frisking.
30 | P a g e
d. No, reliable information alone, absent any proof beyond reasonable doubt that
the man was actually committing an offense, will not validate the search.
(REQUIRMENT IS ONLY PROBABLE CAUSE)
ANSWER: A
5. Moving Vehicles
1. Vehicles may be stopped at check points and subjected to visual search only
not allowed to open compartments of car
2. Extensive search is permissible only if there is probable cause; they can now
open compartments
3. Probable cause can be a report that a contraband is being transported

[Bagista], or it can be that the person is acting suspiciously [Exala] Malmstead:
there was a report that a Manila carrying marijuana. In one bus, the foreigner fits
the description. Police asked for his passport, he refused. He was searched. The
pouch in his stomach is full of marijuana. With probable cause Fits the
description and acting suspiciously. Bagista : police got an info that a woman
with short hair,….. Police stopped jeepney, buses and in one of these, they saw
this woman sitting quietly doing nothing, not acting suspiciously. They opened
the bag-marijuana inside, SC: search is valid. There was a report that she was
carrying marijuana although she is not acting suspiciously. RELAXED VERY BAD
DECISION.
4. Failure to object is equivalent to consent, unless under the circumstances

we cannot expect the person to object.[Exala & Aniag]
Exala: failure to object is equivalent to consent to be searched. There is an black
bag which appeared to be bulging in the bus. Everybody turned quiet. Police got
suspicious. They searched it and found marijuana. In Exala, silence means you
agreed to be searched---vary dangerous. You keep quiet, you agreed to be
searched. If you complain, you are acting suspiciously. Either way, you get
convicted J J
Aniag: search of a driver of a congressman. In front of batasan. There are many
policemen in uniform. He did not object. SC: we cannot really expect Aniag to
object. He is only grade six, a lowly driver and there are many policemen with
guns. Under the circumstances, silence cannot mean yes.
IN SEARCES OF RESIDENCE, SILENCE MEANS NO. OUTSIDE THE RESIDENCE,
SILENCE MEANS YES EXCEPT IN ANIAG.
[Valdez: “thin Ilocano with Green bag”. Gonzales :”woman with long hair , maong
31 | P a g e
pants, jacket, ran ban and black travelling bag.” Reports alone can be sufficient
for probable cause
1992/5: During the recent electrons, checkpoints were set up to enforce the
election period ban on firearms. During one such routine search one night, while
looking through an open window with a flashlight, the police saw firearms at the
backseat of the car, partially covered by papers and clothes.
A. Antonio, owner and driver of the car in question, was charged with violation
of the firearms ban. Are the firearms admissible in evidence against him.
Explain.
a. Yes, because there was a valid search in plain view
b. Yes, because no search warrant is required in search of moving vehicles
c. Yes, Antonio’s failure to object amounts to consent to the search
d. No, because the police should have obtained a warrant
ANSWER:A
B. If upon further inspection by the police, prohibited drugs were found inside
the various compartments of the car, can the drugs be used in evidence against
him?
A. Yes, because there was a valid search in plain view

b. Yes, because no search warrant is required in search of moving vehicles
c. Yes, Antonio’s failure to object amounts to consent to the search
d. Yes, because it would now amount to search incident to a valid arrest
ANSWER: D
1989, No. 7: Pursuing reports that great quantities of prohibited drugs are
being smuggled at nighttime through the shore of Cavite, the Southern Luzon
command set up checkpoints at the end of the Cavite coastal road to search for
passing motor vehicles. A 19-year old boy, who finished fifth grade, while driving,
was stopped by the authorities at the checkpoint. Without any objection from
him , his car was inspected and the search yielded marijuana leaves hidden in
the compartment of the car. Was the search valid?
32 | P a g e
a. Yes, because there was a valid search in plain view
b. Yes, because there was a valid search of a moving vehicle
c. Yes, because there was a valid search in the enforcement of custom laws
d. No, because there was no valid search of moving vehicle
ANSWER: D
BAR QUESTION 2011 Exam 36. In what scenario is an extensive search of

moving vehicles without warrant valid?
a. The police became suspicious on seeing something on the car’s back seat
covered with blanket.
b. The police suspected an unfenced lot covered by rocks and bushes was
planted to marijuana.
c. The police became suspicious when they saw a car believed to be of the same
model used by the killers of a city major.
d. The driver sped away in his car when the police flagged him down at a
checkpoint.
ANSWER: D
2011 Bar Exam 40. An informer told the police that a Toyota car with plate
ABC 134 would deliver an unspecified quantity of ecstacy in Forbes Park, Makati
City. The officers whom the police sent to watch the Forbes Park gates saw the
described car and flagged it down. When the driver stopped and lowered his
window, an officer saw a gun tucked on the driver’s waist. The officer asked the
driver to step out and he did. When an officer looked inside the car, he saw many
tablets strewn on the driver’s seat. The driver admitted they were ecstacy. Is the
search valid?
a. No, the rule on warrantless search of moving vehicle does not allow
arbitrariness on the part of the police.
b. Yes, the police officers had the duty to verify the truth of the information they
33 | P a g e
got and pursue it to the end.
c. Yes, the police acted based on reliable information and the fact that an officer
saw the driver carrying a gun.
d. No, police officers do not have unbridled discretion to conduct a warrantless

search of moving vehicles.
Answer: c (usual search; fit description)
6. Custom Law Enforcement
Requisites for Search under Customs Laws:
1. It must be conducted by persons exercising police authority under the custom

laws; not ordinary policemen
2. There must be probable cause; in custom law, reports are sufficient
3. It is limited to persons vehicles, vessels, aircrafts, and enclosure, warehouse,

stores, but not dwelling houses; if dwelling house, needs a judicially issued
warrant
4. Only dutiable or prohibited goods can be sized.
(PAPA VS. MAGO)
Bar Question: 1991, No. 8 Ogario: A regular court (RTC) has no jurisdiction to
quash a Warrant of Seizure and Detention issued by the customs collector, it has
Exclusive jurisdiction. Remedy? Collector of customs -> commissioner of
customs -> court of tax appeals -> SC
Imported rice without payment of customs dues; searched by collector of

customs; issued warrant of customs was quashed by RTC. SC: no, RTC cannot
review a warrant issued by customs authorities in enforcement of custom laws.
Custom laws- do not go to regular courts; regular courts have no authority
Achacoso: an old case in labor law. Illegal recruitment. There is a provision in
34 | P a g e
the labor code that the secretary of labor can issue search order.
Unconstitutional. 1973 constitution---congress can authorize by law anybody
from issuing search and arrest warrants. 1987 constitution--- only judges after
determination of probable cause can do it. The provision in the labor code has
been superseded. The sec of labor can no longer issue warrants in the
enforcement of illegal recruitment in labor code.
Harvey v. Santiago: the president can issued an arrest order in order to carry out
a final order of deportation. The constitution has judicialized the issuance of
arrest warrants. What are the instances when administrative issuances of arrest
warrant is valid?
1. Warrant issued by custom authorities
2. Arrest warrant by the president to exercise his power to deport aliens
7.Exigency – De Gracia during coup d’ etat, they searched the establishment

of a businessman without warrant and they found bombs. SC justified the
search. During coup d’ etat, most courts are closed. Life of state is at stake.
Allowed the exception.
Martial law- military courts have no jurisdiction over civilians except when civil
courts are no longer functioning
Ampatuan massacre- conducted search in the residences of Ampatuan without

a warrant- because there is exigency or
martial law there. Problem is --- apply in the place where search is to be
conducted. Kidapawan is at peace. Why not
apply in kidapawan- same judicial region.
8. Airport Search
Johnson:
-“Reduced expectation of privacy” when taking a flight
-minimum intrusiveness (x ray machines)
-gravity of safety interest involved (by taking the flight. You consented to be
searched; if you don’t want to be searched, don’t take the flight)
35 | P a g e
Canton: RA 6235: Ticket -… holder thereof is subject to search for a seizure…

Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board aircraft.”
9. Jail Security: (standard operating procedure; cannot complain; restricted

rights)
Conde-seizure of knives from visiting wife—there was killing inside the jail. The
wife of Conde visited him. Smuggled out knife used in the killing; Wife’s bag was
inspected.
10.Private Persons Bongcarawan case-search by private individuals, cannot

invoke bill of rights
2002, No. 8: One day a passenger bus conductor found a man’s handbag left
in the bus. When the conductor opened the bag, he found inside a calling card
with the owner’s name (Dante Galang)and address and a small plastic bag
containing a white powdery substance. He brought the substance to the NBI for
laboratory examination and it turned out to be “shabu”. Galang was charged and
convicted. On appeal, he contends that the plastic bag and its contents are in
admissible in evidence being the product of an illegal search and seizure. Is he
correct? NO. IT IS ADMISSIBLE. DONE BY A PRIVATE PERSON.
1987, No. 3: X, a Constabulary officer, was arrested pursuant to a lawful court

order in Baguio City for murder. He was brought to manila where a warrantless
Crame. The search team found and sized the murder and seizure was illegal and
move for exclusion from evidence of the weapon sized?
a. No, because the search was incident to valid arrest
b. No, because the law does not require a search warrant when officers of law
are the subject of the search
c. Yes, because there was no valid search incident to a lawful arrest
d. Yes, because the arrest was illegal so that the search is also illegal
ANSWER: C
2010, XII A witnessed two hooded men with baseball bats enter the house of
their next door neighbor B. After a few seconds, he heard B shouting, “Huwag
36 | P a g e
Pilo babayran kita agad.” Then A saw the two hooded men hitting B until the
latter fell lifeless. The assailants escaped using a yellow motorcycle with a
fireball sticker on it toward the direction of an exclusive village nearby. A
reported the incident to PO1 Nuval. The following day, PO1 Nuval saw the
motorcycle parked in the garage of a house at Sta. Ines Street inside the
exclusive village. He inquired with the caretaker as to who owned the
motorcycle. The caretaker named the brothers Pilo and Ramond Maradona who
were then outside the country. PO1 Nuval insisted on getting inside the garage.
Out of fear , the caretaker allowed him. PO1 Nuval took 2 masks and 2 bats
beside the motorcycle. Was the search valid? What about the seizure? Decide
with reasons. NOT VALID. SEARCH OF A RESIDENCE; SHOULD HAVE
OBTAINED A SEARCH WARRANT.
2008. IX, Remedial Law: The search warrant authorized the seizure of the
search warrant, the raiding team also recovered a kilo of dried marijuana leaves
wrapped in newsprint. The accused moved to suppress section 11 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they were not covered by
search warrant. The state justified the seizure of the marijuana leaves under the
“plain view” doctrine. ?There was no indications of whether the marijuana leaves
were discovered and sized before or after the seizure of the shabu. if you are the
judge, how would you rule on he motion to suppress? (4%) WHEN WAS THE
MARIJUANA FOUND? BEFORE OR AFTER? IF BEFORE SHABU WAS FOUND, OK,
IN PLAIN VIEW. IF AFTER SHABU WAS FOUND, NO MORE REASON TO LOOK
FOR OTHER ITEMS,
6. [A] The warrant ordered the police to search and seized a . 45 caliber firearms
with serial NO. 35287-A in the house of “M” located at No. 17, Mayon St., Davao
City. After finding the firearms on top the table im M’s” bedroom, the police went
on searching and found and seized a hand grenade kept by “M” in a discarded
shoe box in the attic.
Based on the above facts, which statement is legally correct? [5%]
[a] Both the firearm and the grenade are admissible in evidence
[b] Both the firearm and the grenade are inadmissible in evidence
[c]Only the firearm is admissible in evidence
[d]Only the grenade is admissible in evidence
ANSWER: C
6. The police had a search warrant to search the residence of G for illegal
possession of “shabu”. As soon as they entered the house, they saw on top of
37 | P a g e
the kitchen table peso bills in various denominations amounting to about

P10,000.00, which they promptly seized. Proceeding further by opening drawers,
lockers and cabinets, the police managed to seize about one kilo of “shabu”
stowed in various location. After G was charged in court for illegal possession of
Dangerous Drugs, he filed a motion to retrieve the P10,000.00 on the ground that
the search warrant did not authorize the police to seize money. The police
countered that the amount was seized in plain view being proceeds of the sale of
“shabu.”
As judge, how would you resolve the motion?
a. I will not order the return because it was seized in plain view
b. I will order the return because the police had no prior justification for the
intrusion
c. I will order the return because the police did not come upon the money
inadvertently
d. I will order the return because the illegality of the object is not readily apparent
ANSWER: D
4.While PO1 Garcia was drinking coffee at a terminal one morning, he saw
accused dressed in patched and faded clothes boarding a bus. Slung over the
shoulder of accused was a new Highland back pack. His suspicion aroused by
the contrast between the old clothes and the new bag, PO1 Garcia hurriedly
gulped the steaming contents of his cup, accosted the accused and opened the
bag over the protests of the accused. True enough, PO1 Garcia’s suspicion was
confirmed for in one of the pockets of the bag, he found a bundle of marijuana
leaves.
Is the marijuana admissible in evidence?
a. Yes, because their was a valid stop and frisk
b. Yes, because there was a valid search of a moving vehicle
c. Yes, because accused is presumed to have consented to the search
d. No, because there was no probable cause for the conduct of the search
38 | P a g e
ANSWER: D
While a CAFGU member was urinating at a fence behind a bamboo school, he

saw a garden of about 70 square meters with corn and camote tops. Concealed
by the corn, however, were marijuana plants. The CAFGU asked from a
storekeeper nearby as to who owned the garden and was told that it was
accused. He reported to the detachment officer who dispatched a team of
CAFGUs an hour later. Going straight to his house, they asked accused, who was
too scared to object, to bring th team to the backyard garden which was just five
(5) meters away. The CAFGUs uprooted the marijuana and arrested accused.
The best way to justify the search and seizure is to argue that it is: [5%]
a. With the consent of accused
b. Done by a private person
c. A case of stop-and-risk search
d. Made in plain view.
ANSWER: D
COMELEC Resolution on checkpoint.- Any search at any COMELEC

checkpoint must be made only by members of the unit designated to man the
same. It should be done ina a manner which will impose minimum
inconvenience upon the person or persons so searched, to the end that civil,
political and human rights of the persons are not violated.
As a rule, a valid search must be authorized by a search warrant duly issued by

an appropriate authority. However, a warrantless search can be in the following
cases:
a. Moving vehicles and the seizure of evidence in plain view;
b. As long as the vehicle is neither searched not its occupants subjected to a

body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is merely limited to a visual
search;
c. When the occupant(s) of the vehicle appear to be nervous or suspicious or

exhibit unnatural reaction;
39 | P a g e
d. If the officer conducting the search has reasonable or probable cause to

believe that either the occupant(s) is a law offender or that the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to the commission of a crime can be found in the vehicle to
be searched; or
e. On the basis of prior confidential information which are reasonably

corroborated by other attendant matters.
Abad Sample: A warrantless search is valid when the search is made by:
a. A customs officer at the home of a known smuggler
b. Anti-drug enforcers
c. Policemen at the COMELEC checkpoint
d. NBI agents looking for a bomb at a mall
ANSWER: C
4. Valid warrant less Arrests:
When is his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually

committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; [Flagranti Delicto Rule]
2. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and [Freshly
Committed Rule] OLD RULE
Amendment: When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that
the person to be arrested has committed it. NEW RULE
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily
confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another. (RULES OF COURT)
REBELLION-EVEN IF YOU ARE NOT IN THE ACT OF CARRYING ARMS, YOU CAN
BE ARRESTED. IT IS A CONTINUING CRIME. IN FLARANTE DELICTO AT ALL
TIMES. A CRIME OF THE MIND. ONCE A REBEL, ALWAYS A REBEL. CAN BE
40 | P a g e
ARRESTED EVEN WHEN SLEEPING.
Requisites: Has just been committed]
1. Time element [Sinoc allowed 12, while Manlulu disallowed 19 it is up to

lawyers to argue] Continuing Offense? SC EXPANDED THE MEANING IN
NATIONAL SECURITY OFFENSES
2. Probable cause/ [personal knowledge?]
Jayson –a person was shot and killed. When police arrived, somebody told
police that the accused shot the victim SC: there is probable cause to arrest-
pointed to by the witness.
Alavario – the house helper called her sister and told her that she was a
victim of rape by her employer. The sister called the police. Police went to the
house and knocked. When the house helper opened the door she pointed to the
employer as the man who raped her. Was there probable cause to arrest hi,> yes,
the victim herself pointed to the person to be arrested.
Vinalon – robbery aboard a bus; shooting-many are wounded; wounded

passengers pointed to the police the robbers. SC: valid. Has just been committed
and there is probable cause.
Posadas-4 days- hazing incident in UP. Based on the investigation, Posadas

was responsible for the killing the police arrested him. SC: no, they were not
personally present when the crime was committed.
Kimura- 2 days ---buy bust operation. Kimura was able to run away. The
following day, how was seen by some policemen eating in a restaurant. Kimura
was arrested. The police who arrested was not present in the buy bust. Not a
valid arrest.
RULE: THE REPORT OF VICTIM/WITNESS IS SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE

PROVIDED THAT YOU SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT THAT THE CRIME HAS
JUST BEEN COMMITTED.
Test: Report of victim and witness generally sufficient
41 | P a g e
But Cubcubin ( somebody was killed; one person said that they saw the
victim with cubcubin before the killing, waitress on the beerhouse said that
cubcubin was drinking with the victim; because of that, they arrested cubcubin;
SC: that is not probable cause .
What is the testimony? Saw victim with cubcubin not cubcubin killing the
victim), Sequino (there were three people who withdrew money from the bank;
they boarded a motorcycle; after passing a certain place, they were shot; one
dead, one wounded, one managed to go to the police; police went to the crime
scene; they saw a piece of paper there with biodata af Sequino somebody used it
as a toilet paper; they arrested Sequino; he was jalled for many years ; SC: no
probable cause-biodata in the crime scene used as a toilet paper .
People v. Uyboco , Jan. 21, 2011
The police officers present in Magallanes Commercial Center were able to

witness the pay-off which consummated the crime of kidnapping. They saw
accused take the money from the car trunk of the father of the kidnap victims.
Such knowledge was then relayed to the other police officers stationed in front
Bonifacio where appellant was expected to pass by. The police officers in fort
Bonifacio tailed the car of the accused, later blocked it and arrested him. Was
the arrest valid? HAS JUST BEEN COMMITTED? YES. PROBABLE CAUSE? YES.
VALIDATED
People v. Marinez, Dec, 19, 2010
An Informant told the police that he had information that accused inside a
house. Without a warrant, the police raided the place and seized 155 plastic
sachets, 11 pieces of rolled used aluminum foil, and 27 of the 49 pieces of used
aluminum foil all of which tested positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Was the arrest valid? ILLEGAL THIRD HAND KNOWLEDGE
1993, No. 9 johann learned that the police were looking for him in connection
with the rape of an 18 year old girl, a neighbor. He went to the police station a
week later and presented himself [to the desk sergeant [to clear his name].
Coincidentally, the rape victim was in the premises executing an extra-judicial
statement. The victim pointed to him as the rapist and he was arrested. Valid?
42 | P a g e
a. Yes, because the victim pinpointed to him so that the police had probable
cause to arrest him
b. Yes, because the offense has just been committed as only one week lapsed
from its commission
c. Yes, because going to the police station amounts to waiver of his right against
illegal arrest
d. No, because with the lapse of one week, the police should have secured a
warrant
ANSWER: D Teenhankee case –even if pointed by accused, no longer has just

been committed
Question, 10, 1997: A, while on board a passenger jeep one night, was held up
by a groupd of 3 teenagers who forcibly divested her of her watch, necklace and
wallet containing P11. That done, the trio field. B, the jeepney driver, and A
complained to the police to whom they gave description of the culprits.
According to the jeep driver he would be able to identify the culprits if presented
to him. Next morning, A and B were called to arrest of C and D valid?
a. Yes, because the information given by the victim constitutes probable cause
b. No, the rules required that the police officers should have been personally
present during the commission of the crime
c. No, because at the time of the arrest the offense was no longer freshly
committed
d. No, because the Constitution provides that an arrest can only be effected by
virtue of an arrest warrant
ANSWER: A
Exclusionary Rule: Meaning – evidence cannot be used in court

Q
1. Illegal warrantless searches

2. Void warrants
. Consequence – return the objects, unless they are contraband. In most cases,
accused will have to be acquitted. (The state does not guarantee return) murder
case: gun was recovered illegally; can still be convicted of murder without the
43 | P a g e
gun. The gun is merely a corroborating evidence. Acquitted.
. Stonehill – A personal right who can invoke exclusionary rule? Only the person
whose right is violated. Search warrant for violation of RPC- a general warrant.
Several warrants were issued. Search was directed against the house of
Stonehill and others directed to the corporation, illegal search. During trial,
stonehill moved for the exclusion of all evidence. Those taken from the house
cannot be used against him, but those taken from the corporation can be used
against him.
A and B were illegally searched. Evidence taken from B can be used against A
and those taken from A can be used against B.
. Provisions with exclusionary rule: 2, 3, 12 & 17 WHO CAN INVOKE

EXCLUSIONARY RULE? ONLY THE PERSON WHOSE RIGHT IS VIOLATED
2-searches
3 privacy of communication
12-custodial investigation
17-self incrimination
Which of the following constitutes the meaning of the “fruit of the poisonous tree”
rule?
[a] All objects not described in the warrant should not be seized
[b] All objects obtained through illegal search should be returned to the owner
[c] All objects obtained through illegal search are inadmissible in evidence
[d]the officer making the illegal search may be criminally liable
ANSWER: C
No exclusionary rule in illegal arrest. Apply only to searches. Should those

illegally arrested be acquitted? NO. Charge again – if evidence is sufficient, can
still be convicted even if illegally arrested.

VICTIM: he raped me last month. No longer as just been committed. File the
case. Conduct preliminary investigation. Obtain an arrest warrant.
AN INFORMANT WENT TO THE POLICE STATION.SOMEBODY WAS PACKING

DRUGS INSIDE HIS HOUSE. POLICE WENT THERE AND SEIZED. NOT A VALID
ARREST. BASED ON INFO. BEFORE YOU ARREST SOMEBODY BECAUSE HE
44 | P a g e
COMMITTED A CRIME, YOU MUST KNOW THAT THERE IS A CRIME GOING ON.
BURGOS: plowing his fields. Cafgus told military that this guy have guns- a rebel.
They arrested Burgos and dug the field and they found guns. Arrest was illegal.
No probable cause. You cannot make an arrest based on information alone.
There must be probable cause.
Sec. 3
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except

upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires as
prescribed by law.
2011 Bar Exam:
7. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except

upon lawful order of the court or when
A. public safety or public health requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
B. dictated by the need to maintain public peace and order.
C. public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

D. public safety or order requires otherwise as determined by the President.
Sec. 3. Privacy of Communications
May be restricted:
Upon lawful order of the court (court)
Court can order it in the manner in Sec. 2… apply before the judge for the tapping
and prove that there is probable cause and the judge can order the conduct
of wiretapping
When prescribed by law as public order and safety requires (congress has to
pass a law)
It applies new of modes of communications such as text messages as it is also

a form of communication
45 | P a g e
RA 4200 – punishes interception and recording of conversation without the

consent of both parties. [Anti-Wire Tapping Law]
It is similar to Sec. 3 in the sense that they are both exclusionary rules, but it
goes further because it punishes (violation becomes a crime). It is narrower
in the sense that it covers only oral communication (it is about oral
communications only not written or letters). Text messages are not covered
with this.. Call definitely included
Alejano – Can letters of detainees or convicts be opened and read? Is Sec. 3

available to them? Exception? Yes… as a general rule, all letters can be
opened.. People in jail do not enjoy privacy to communications except
letters written between detainees/convicts and their lawyers in view of the
lawyer-client privilege
This can be done as part of the Standard Operating Procedure in Jails…
The letter between lawyer and client may be opened but cannot be read… IT IS
SUBJECT TO OPENING BUT CANNOT BE READ!!!!
Ople: Does the Constitution protect the right to privacy? When may it be
curtailed?/Sabio (the constitution only provided the privacy of
communication-which is very limited…) However, it is a constitutional right
even if not specifically provided or listed in the constitution as the
PROVISIONS OF bill of rights is really intended to protect person’s privacy…
SUCH as due process, against unreasonable seizures, against self
incrimination….
Character: Right to Privacy is a fundamental right.. It is superior to property

rights… it is fundamental like right to freedom of religion, speech and
expression….
Can it be curtailed? Before you can have it curtailed, it must be shown that there
is a compelling state interest (same in freedom of religion) as compared to
requirement of substantial state interest in the exercise of police power.
Salcedo-Ortanez – taped recorded conversation
Zulueta – pictures [Marti rule?]
Bar Questions:
1998, No. 7: The police had suspicions that Juan Samson, member of the
subversive New Proletarian Army, was using the mail for propaganda
purposes in gaining new adherents to its cause, The Chief of Police of
Bantolan, Lanao del sur ordered the Postmaster of the town to intercept and
46 | P a g e
open all mail addressed to and coming from Juan Samson in the interest of
national security. Was the order of the Chief of Police valid?
a. yes, because the order was premised on national security
b. yes, because a Chief of Police is authorized by law to open the

correspondence of any person
c. yes, because as a police officer, the presumption of regularity in the

performance of official function applies
d. no, because the order violates the privacy of communication and

correspondence it can be had only through court order or a law passed by
congress
No. 8, 1989: While serving sentence in Muntinglupa for the crime of theft, X
stabbed dead one of his guards. X was charged with murder. During his
trial, the prosecution introduced as evidence a letter written in prison by X to
his wife tending to establish that the crime of murder was the result of
premeditation. The letter was written voluntarily. In the course of
inspection, it was opened and read by a warden pursuant to the rules of
discipline of the Bureau of Prisons and considering its contents, the letter
was turned over to the prosecutor. The lawyer of X objected to the
presentation of the letter and moved for its return on the ground that it
violates the right of X against unlawful search and seizure. Decide.
a. no, because jail authorities cannot restrict the privacy of communication

unless there is a court order
b. no, because while a rule the letters of detainees may be openned, a

letter to one’s spouse is covered by marital privilege (
c. yes, because detainees and prisoners have a limited claim to privacy and
all their letters may be read without a court order
d. yes, the letter may be opened and read by the warden because it was not
addressed to nor was it from his lawyer (letter between lawyer and
client/detainees is the only exception to the general rule)
No. 12, 2001: A has a telephone line with an extension. One day, A was talking to
B over the telephone. A conspired with his friend C, who was at the end of
47 | P a g e
the extension line listening to A’s telephone conversation with B, to overhear

and tape-record the conversation wherein B confidentially admitted that with
evident premeditation, he killed D for having cheated him in their business
partnership. B was not aware that the telephone conversation was being
tape-recorded.
In the criminal case against B for murder, is the tape recorded conversation
containing his admission admissible in evidence?
(this is prohibited under the Anti-wiretapping law…the tape was recorded without
the consent of other party… unauthorized recording of conversation!!!!!
[Assume that C only listened through the extension line and he was later called
to testify on what he heard. Would his testimony be admissible?] (note that
phone extension is not prohibited by law… C may testify…)
A filed an annulment case against her husband based on psychological

incapacity of the latter. While the case was pending, she broke open the
drawers and cabinets in her husband’s office and took away the pictures,
letters and cards sent to her husband by his paramour. Her husband
objected to the admission into evidence of the documents on the ground of
illegal search and seizure. Are they admissible?
yes, because one cannot invoke the Bill of Rights against a private person, in this
case one’s spouse
yes, because by entering into a contract of marriage, one waives his right to
privacy with respect to his spouse
no, because there was no court order or a law authorizing the seizure of the
documents ZULUETA CASE!!! NOTE THAT YOU CANNOT INVOKE BILL
OF RIGHTS AGAINST PRIVATE PERSON… STRANGE PROBLEM… BUT
THE EMPHASIS IS THAT 1. by entering into a contract of marriage, one
DOES NOT waive his right to privAcy with respect to his spouse 2. THIS
DOCTRINE APPLIES ONLY IF THE SUIT IS BETWEEN SPOUSE in view of
the fact that bill of rights can be invoke only against state.. SEC. 3 IS
STILL COVERED BY EXCLUSIONARY RULE..
no, because the seizure violated the Anti-Wire Tapping Act
2009, VI
In a criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution presented, as witness, an

employee of the Manila Hotel who produced in court a videotape recording
showing the heated exchange between the accused and the victim that took
48 | P a g e
place at the lobby of the hotel barely 30 minutes before the killing. The
accused objects to the admission of the videotape recording on the ground
that it was taken without his knowledge or consent, in violation of his right to
privacy and the Anti-Wire Tapping law. Resolve the objection with reasons.
(3%) [Is the evidence admissible?]
YES! (NOTEWORTHY IS THE FACT THAT THE ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW

APPLIES EVEN TO PRIVATE PERSONS NOT ONLY STATES)…. IT DOES NOT
VIOLATE THE ANTI WIRETAPPING LAW BECAUSE HIS PRIVACY WAS NOT
VIOLATED IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INCIDENT HAPPENED IN THE
LOBBY… PRIVACY CANNOT BE EXPECTED IN A PLACE LIKE LOBBY OR
STREETS.. YOU CANNOT EXPECT YOUR RIGHT TO BE RESPECTED IN
SUCH PLACES… HENCE INSTALLATION OF CCTV IS ALLOWABLE IN SUCH
PLACES.. MOREOVER, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE
CONVERSATION AS THE ACCUSED WAS SHOWN IN THE TAPE TO BE
SHOUTING AT THE VICTIM.. IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A PRIVATE
CONVERSATION.. HENCE, LECTURES ARE NOT COVERED BY PRIVATE
CONVERSATIONS.. IT CAN BE RECORDED
RA No. 9372
Please take note that the right to privacy to communications may be limited by
law..
Anti-wiretapping law
Anti-terrorism law
SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of

Communications. – The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-wire
Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement
official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court
of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form,
kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and
tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for
that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or
spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any
person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism.
NOTE: IF YOU ARE NON TERRORIST.. YOU CAN APPLY WITH THE RTC, MTC
MTC (BECAUSE THEY ARE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE SEARCH WARRANTS)
TO TAP THEIR PRIVATE CONVERSATION!
49 | P a g e
Sec. 27. Judicial Authorization Required to Examine Bank Deposits, Accounts,

and Records. - The provisions of Republic Act No. 1405, as amended, to the
contrary notwithstanding, the justices of the Court of Appeals designated as
a special court to handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of
the existence of probable cause in a hearing called for that purpose [may
authorize law enforcement officers to]:
(a) examine, or cause the examination of, the deposits, placements, trust
accounts, assets and records in a bank or financial institution; and
(b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such
deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a bank or
financial institution. The bank or financial institution concerned, shall not
refuse to allow such examination or to provide the desired information, when
so, ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of Appeals.
Question! HOW IS THIS LIMITATION BALANCED? IT IS NOW BALANCED WITH

THE INTRODUCTION OF HABEAS DATA
SECTION 1. Habeas Data.â€”The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to

any person whose right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or
threatened by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or storing
of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
So if abovementioned persons violate your right to PRIVACY as when they got

information about you without court order, YOU FILE petition FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF HABEAS DATA to protect you right to PRIVACY
MERALCO v. Lim, Oct. 5, 2010
May an employee invoke the remedies available under such writ of habeas
data where an employer decides to transfer her workplace on the basis of
copies of an anonymous letter posted therein ─ imputing to her disloyalty to
the company and calling for her to leave, which imputation it investigated
but fails to inform her of the details thereof?
What happened here is that letters were posted in the working places attaking
against a meralco employee.. The employer decided to transfer her to another
50 | P a g e
unit.. She asked copies of the same which had been the basis of her transfer but
the company did not assented to her request.. So she filed a petition for the
issuance for habeas data on the ground that it covers Private persons.. Held:
PETITION DENIED!!!! THIS MATTER HAS REFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT….
UNDER SEC. 1, EMPLOYMENT IS A PROPERTY RIGHT.. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH LIFE, LIBERTY AND SECURITY!!!! HABEAS DATA WAS CREATED TO
ADDRESS EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS, salvaging! YOU GO TO THE NLRC AS
HER CAUSE OF ACTION HAS REFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT!!!!
Sec. 4. No law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech, of expression, or of

the press or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.
5 RIGHTS PROTECTED!!!
SPEECH
EXPRESSION
PRESS
ASSEMBLY
PETITION
THESE ARE POLITICAL RIGHTS AS THEY ARE EJOYED INORDER TO

PARTICIPATE IN AFFAIRS OF THE GOVERNMENT!!!
Freedom of speech, expression and of the press is the liberty to

discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public interest without
censorship or punishment.
Outline
Forms of restriction
Tests on Restriction
Petition and Assembly
Restraints on Expression:
51 | P a g e
1. Prior Restraint
Prior restraint is government restriction on forms of expression

in advance of actual publication or dissemination.
2. Subsequent Punishment
Subsequent punishment is the restraint on freedom of speech,

expression and of the press that comes after the exercise of said rights in
the form of criminal prosecutions, citations for contempt or suits for
damages.
Chavez v. Gonzales, 555 SCRA 441 (2008): Do press statements of high officials
threatening the press with prosecution (IF THEY WILL KEEP ON AIRING
GARCILLIANO TAPES), even fi not reduced to formal orders or directives,
forms of prior restraint? YES! EVEN PRESS STATEMENTS OF HIGH
GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS CAN BE CONSIDERD AS FORM OF PRIOR
RESTRAINT SINCE IT RELATES TO THEIR EXERCISE OF OFFICIAL
FUNCTIONS BECAUSE IT THREATEN PEOPLE WITH PUNISHMENT OR
CLOSURE OF ESTABLISMENT
The exercise of prior restraint bears a presumption of unconstitutionality (IT IS

BECAUSE FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IS IMPORTANT TO THE VITALITY
OF THE SOCIETY…. THERE SHOULD BE PUBLIC DEBATE ON ISSUES..
HENCE, ANY RESTRICITON TO THE SAME, IS PRESUMED ILLEGAL ,
except: (WHEN THE PRESUMPTION OF UNCONSTITUTIONALITY DOES
NOT APPLY)
In times of war
When the COMELEC exercises its power under Sec. 4, Art. XI ©. (REGULATION
OF FRANCHISE OF MASS MEDIA DURING ELECTION PERIOD AS WHEN
IT PROHIBITED THE SALE OF TIME IN RADIO AND TV)… NOTE THAT
SUCH POWER IS VESTED BY THE CONSTITUTION TO THE COMELEC..
HENCE PRESUMED CONSTITUTIONAL!!
When the restriction is content neutral
Content-Neutral v. Content-Based
Content-Neutral – One that is imposed not on the content of the speech but on
the time mode or manner of place of the exercise of the right. [No
presumption of unconstitutionality, and a deferential standard of review is
required. (intermediate review)] – IS THE RESTRICITON REASONABLE?
MILD FORM OF REVIEW!
DO NOT WRITE GRAFITTI ON THE WALL.. YOU ARE NOT RESTRICTING THE
52 | P a g e
RIGHT TO MAKE GRAFITTI BUT ONLY THE MANNER.. YOU ARE NOT BEING
PROHIBITED FROM EXPRESSING YOURSELF.. EXPRESS IT SOME OTHER
MANNER! YOU WRITE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE IT CANNOT MAKE
DIRTY BUT NOT ON THE WALL !!
Content-based- imposed on content, suffers from presumption of

unconstitutionality and should be subject to the clear and present danger
rule (TO JUSTIFY IT, THE GOVERNMENT MUST SHOW THE CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER WHY IT IS MAKING SUCH RESTRICTION!!
EX. PROHIBITION ON AIR INTERVIEWS INVOLVING ABU SAYAF.. YOU ARE

ACTUALLY PROHIBITING THE EXERCISE OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION!!!
Which restriction is content-based:
a. prohibition on the writing of graffiti on walls
b. prohibition to conduct rallies within 200 meters of any court house
c. prohibition on mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space
or air time for campaign purposes
d. prohibition on newspaper columnists from discussing plebiscite issues in

their columns
The prohibition on mass media from selling or giving free of charge print space
or air time
for campaign purposes is:
(a) content-neutral it regulates only the time, manner,

(b) needs to be subjected to the clear and present danger test (APPLIES
ONLY IF IT IS CONTENT NEUTRAL)
© is presumed unconstitutional
(d) can be justified if there is a compelling state interest
Bar Question 2011:
11. An example of a content based restraint on free speech is a regulation

prescribing
A. maximum tolerance of pro-government demonstrations.

B. a no rally-no permit policy. CONTENT NEUTRAL
53 | P a g e
C. when, where, and how lawful assemblies are to be conducted. CONTENT

NEUTRAL
D. calibrated response to rallies that have become violent.
Challenges to restriction on free speech :
Overbreath – a law is overbroad which sweeps unnecessarily broadly and invade

an area of protected freedom
Vagueness – a law which lacks comprehensive standard so that people would

differ as to its meaning
Southern Hemispere v. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 5 (2010)
How is the doctrine of vagueness differentiated from the doctrine of

overbreadth?
Answer: A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks
comprehensible standards that men of common intelligence must
necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is
repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for
failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of
the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in
carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the
Government muscle. The overbreadth doctrine, meanwhile, decrees that a
governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally
subject to state regulations may not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.
IF THE GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF SPEECH, IT MUST

THAT WHICH IN SUCH A MANNER THAT NO OTHER RIGHTS WILL BE
VIOLATED OR AFFECTED OR BURDENED!
Example of an overbroad restriction:
2003, No. 9: May the COMELEC prohibit the posting of decals and stickers on
mobile places, public or private, such as on a private vehicle and limit theor
location only to the authorized posting areas that the COMELEC itself fixes.
NO! WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE REGULATION WILL PROMOTE ORDERLY
ELECTIONS, IT AFFECTS THE RIGHT OF A PERSON TO PRIVATE
PROPERTY….. HENCE, OVERBROAD RESTRICTIONS!!!
Also ABS-CBN – prohibiting exit polls- COMELEC ISSUED RESOLUTION

PROHIBITING EXIT POLLS ON THE PREMISE THAT IT WILL AFFECT THE
CANVASSING CREDIBILITY OF THE COMELEC… HELD: IT IS
UNCONSTITTIONAL FOR BEING OVERBROAD… COMELEC CANNOT
PROHIBIT THE SAME BUT MAY ONLY REGULATE SUCH (FREEDOM OF
SPEECH).. IT IS UNDULY OPPRESSIVE TO THE RIGHT OF RIGHT OF
54 | P a g e
EXPRESSSION…. IT MAY REGULATE THAT ONLY CREDIBLE POLLSTERS

WILL CONDUCT EXIT POLLS
Example of vague law:
Ople Case- NATIONAL ID SYSTEM WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE FREE

SPEECH.. HOWEVER, SC RULED THAT IT WAS VAGUE BECAUSE IT PUT NO
PARAMETERS IN THE CONDUCT OF STORING INFORMATION OF A
PERSON… AS TO WHAT DATA SHOULD BE STORED IN THE SYSTEM… THE
ADMIN CODE DID NOT ALSO SPECIFY AS TO WHO ARE GIVEN ACCESS TO
THE INFORMATION.. POLICE MAY ENDUP USING THE INFORMATION TO
BLACK MAIL PEOPLE
2011 Bar Exam:
48. An ordinance prohibits “notorious street gang members” from loitering in

public places. The police are to disperse them or, if they refuse, place them
under arrest. The ordinance enumerates which police officers can make
arrest and defines street gangs, membership in them, and public areas. The
ordinance was challenged for being vague regarding the meaning of
“notorious street gang members.” Is the ordinance valid?
A. No, it leaves the public uncertain as to what conduct it prohibits.

LOITERING- WHAT DOES IT MEAN.. WHAT IS LOITERING! HENCE LEAVING
AUTHORITIES UNBRIDDLED DISCRETION!
B. No, since it discriminates between loitering in public places and loitering in

private places.
C. Yes, it provides fair warning to gang members prior to arrest regarding their
unlawful conduct.
D. Yes, it is sufficiently clear for the public to know what acts it prohibits.
AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE HAS IT THAT LAW AUTHORIZING THE ARREST

OF “3 OR MORE PEOPLE TO GATHERING IN A SIDEWALK IN AN ANNOYING
MANNER”- HELD- IT IS VAGUE BECAUSE “ANNOYING MANNER” IS NOT
CLEAR.. AN ACT MAY BE ANNOYING TO ME BUT NOT TO OTHER..
ALSO CSC CIRCULAR PROHIBITING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES FROM

WEARING TOO MUCH JEWELRIES- DEAN OBSERVED THE SAME TO BE VAGUE
AS IT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY DEFINE WHAT IS “TOO MUCH” JEWELRY.. Also
PROHIBITION FROM WEARING MINI SKIRTS- IT IS VAGUE AS IT CANNOT BE
DETERMINED WHAT IS MINI SKITS.. HOW SHORT? HHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHE
Southern Hemishphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council, Oct. 5, 2010
55 | P a g e
Under Sec. 3 of RA 9372, the crime of terrorism has the following elements:
(1) the offender commits an act punishable under any of the cited provisions
of the Revised Penal Code, or under any of the enumerated special penal
laws; (2) the commission of the predicate crime sows and creates a
condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace; and (3) the offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand. Considering that an “unlawful
demand” has to be transmitted through some form of expression, does the
law violate the free speech clause?
HELD: no! WHAT THE LAW PUNISHES IS THE CONDUCT AND NOT THE
FREEDOM OF SPEECH… THE SPEECH IS ONLY INCIDENTAL TO THE
CRIME.
This was premised on an american jurisprudence wherein a man was

prosecuted for criminal offense for wearing tshirt with a tag “FUCK YOU”.. The
law was impugned for being violative to the right of freedom of expression..
Held.. IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE AS THE LAW DOES NOT PUNISHES YOU FOR
EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF EXPRESSSION BUT BASED ON YOUR CONDUCT
Note distinction of conduct and expression!
BEWARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tests on Restrictions (ON EXPRESSION to determine w/n it is valid:
1. Dangerous Tendency
If the words spoken create a dangerous tendency which the state

has a right to prevent, then such words are punishable. (what is being
punished here is the tendency of the speech)
2. Clear and Present Danger.
Whether the words are used in such circumstances and are such
nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evil that the legislature has a right to prevent. (the danger is
about to happen or is happen and the problem is very serious) ex. “ shouting
fire or a bombscare in a theater)
(GONZALES VS. COMELEC)
3. Balancing of Interest
Courts will weigh or balance the conflicting social interests that will
be affected by legislation and uphold what should be considered as the
most important interest.
56 | P a g e
- Lagunsad- this involved the filmaking of the life of MOISES PADILLA, the
family asked for Royalty fees but the producer refused the same that Moises
Padilla is a public figure, hence it only exercises the right of expression by
portraying the life of a public figure.. RIGHT OF PRIVACY VS. FREE OF
EXPRESSION
-Contempt/SC- CRITICIZING THE SC AND THE LATTER HOLDS A PERSON IN

CONTEMPT USING THE BALANCING OF INTEREST.. USUALLY SC USES
THIS TEST IN PUNISHING PEOPLE FOR CONTEMPT IN MOST CRITICIMS
LEVELED AGAINST FORMER IN THAT- WHILE A PERSON HAS THE RIGHT
OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION, THE SC HAS ALSO RIGHT TO PROPER
ADMINSTRATION OF JUSTICE.. HENCE, THE LATTER WOULD ALWAYS
PREVAIL THAT SC WOULD EASILY HOLD PEOPLE IN CONTEMPT FOR
CRITICISMS LEVELED AGAINST SC.
HOWEVER, SC USES THE CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE TO DETERMINE

W/N CONTEMPT SHOULD BE HAD IN LOWER COURTS.. OTHERWISE
STATED, IT IS VERY HARD TO HOLD A PERSON IN CONTEMPT FOR
CRITICIZING A LOWER COURT AS IT USES CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
TEST!!
NORMALLY, CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER RULE IS APPLIED IN OUR

JURISDICTION… THESE ARE THE ONLY 2 INSTANCES WHERE SC USES
BALANCING OF INTEREST TEST
Libel: Vasquez Rule ( this INVOLVES USUALLY LIBEL AGAINST PUBLIC

OFFICERS,.. NOTE THAT IF IT IS AGAINST PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, NO
CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE WOULD ARISE- BECAUSE THERE IS NO PUBLIC
INTEREST INVOLVED IN MALIGNING PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL)
NOTE THAT WHEN GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS ARE BEING CRITICIZED OR

LIBELED IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS FUNCTION, CONSTITUTIONAL
ISSUES WOULD ARISE AS EVERY PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO
EXPRESS MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN AND IN VIEW OF THE
ACCOUNTABLITY OF GOVERNMENT OFFICERS IN THE PERFORMANCE
OF ITS OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS!
If the libelous statement relates to official functions (OR IT RELATES TO A

CRIME), truth is a defense. EX. WHEN YOUR ARE BEING LIBELED TO
HAVE BEEN REPORTING ONLY DURING RELEASE OF SALARIES, SINCE
IT IS RELATED TO YOUR FUNCTIONS, TRUTH IS A DEFENSE. HOWEVER,
IF YOU ARE BEING MALIGNED FOR BEING CRAZY, TRUTH IS NOT A
DEFENSE. It is the public official who must prove that the statement is
false, and
It was made with knowledge of its falsity, or
57 | P a g e
There was reckless disregard whether it is true or not. (WHEN THE PERSON
LIBELING DID NOT BOTHER TO VERIFY THE SOURCE)
Borjal-
The reverse presumption applies not only to public officials but to a “public
figure” (ACTRESSES, PACQUIAO, CHURCH LEADERS WHO CRITIZES OF
GOVERNMENT-BECAUSE PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE INTEREST IN HIS
EVERY ACTIVITIES):
PUBLIC FIGURE- any person who, by his accomplishment, fame, mode of living,
or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public interest in his
doings, affair or character.
Also take note of:
Re: Letter of UP Law…, 644 SCRA 543 (2011) (VINUYA CASE)
LAWYERS HAVE LIMITED FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION AS THEY ARE

GOVERNMENT BY THE CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS …. NARROWER RIGHTS
Question 5, 2004: The STAR, a national daily newspaper, carried an exclusive

report stating that Senator XX received a house and lot located at YY St.,
Makati, in consideration for his vote cutting cigarette by 50%. The Senator
sued the Star for libel claiming the report was completely false and
malicious. According to the Senator, there is no YY St. in Makati, and the tax
cut was only 20%.
The defendants denied actual malice, claiming privilege communication and

absolute freedom of the press to report on public officials and matters of
public concern. If there was any error, the Star said it would publish the
correction promptly.
Is thee actual malice in Star’s report. How is actual malice defined? Are the
defendants liable for damages?
THE BURDENED BELONG TO THE SENATOR… HE must prove that the statement
is false, and
It was made with knowledge of its falsity, or
There was reckless disregard whether it is true or not.
AS LONG AS THERE EXIST NO MALICE, LIBEL CASE IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE
If a newspaperman accuses a Sangguniang Bayan member of being corrupt, and

the latter sues the newsman for libel:
(a) the accused has the burden of proving his accusation to be true to get
58 | P a g e
acquitted
(b) the government official has the burden of proving that it is false
© the accused has the burden of proving that it was made without malice
(d) the right to free expression cannot be invoked by the accused
2007, No. V. The Destilleria Felipe Segundo is famous for its 15-year old rum,
which it has produced and marketed successfully for the past 70 years.
Its latest commercial advertisement uses the line: “Nakatikim ka na ba
ng kinse anyos?” Very soon, activist groups promoting women’s and
children’s rights were up in arms against the advertisement.
(b) One of the militant groups, the Amazing Amazonas, call on all the
government-owned and controlled corporations (GOCC) to boycott any
newspaper, radio or TV station that carries the “kinse anyos”
advertisements. They call on all government nominees in sequestered
corporations to block any advertising funds allocated for any such
newspaper, radio or TV station. Can the GOCCs and sequestered
corporations validly comply?
YES
ASSUMING IT CAN COMPLY, IT CANNOT NOT PASS THE CLEAR AND PRESENT
DANGER RULE… NOTE THAT ADVERTISEMENT IS COVERED BY THE
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.. WHILE THERE IS A DANGER TO MORALS,
IT IS NOT IMMEDIATE AND CLEAR…
Petition and Assembly
Freedom of assembly is the right of the people to meet peaceably for

consultation and discussion of matters of public concern.
Test: Clear and Present Danger to Public Safety, Order, Morals, etc.
(PURPOSES OF POLICE POWER)
Bayan v. Ermita:
1. Is BP 880 constitutional? PUBLIC ASSEMBLY ACT: REQUIREMENT OF

SECURING PERMIT BEFORE HOLDING
PROTEST/DEMONSTRATIONS-HELD-CONSTITUTIONAL! IT IS CONTENT
NEUTRAL- IT ONLY RESTRICTS THE MANNER, AND MODE OF THE
59 | P a g e
EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO HOLD DEMONSTRATION
2. Is CPR constitutional? CALIBRATED PRE-EMPTIVE RESPONSE-

UNCONSTITUTIONAL! NOTE THAT UNDER BP 880, POLICE ARE REQUIRED
TO MAKE MAXIMUM TOLERANCE IN RESPONDING DEMONSTRATIONS!
DO NOT DESTRUCT RALLIES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE
3. What if there is no freedom park? SC OBSERVED THAT LGUS WERE NOT

COMPLYING THE MANDATE TO PUT UP FREEDOM PARKS.. HENCE, IN
DECISION, IT MANDATED ALL LGUS TO ESTABLISH THEIR OWN WITHIN 60
DAYS FROM COURT DECISION.. OTHERWISE, ALL GOVERNMENT PLAZAS
WILL BE CONSIDERED FREEDOM PARKS IN THAT PEOPLE CAN HOLD
RALLIES IN SUCH PLACES WITHOUT THE NEED OF SECURING PERMIT
FOR THE SAME... WHO HAS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THAT THERE IS NO
PERMIT TO HOLD A RALLY?- FOR AS LONG AS THE
APPLICANT/DEMONSTRATORS CAN SHOW THAT THEY MADE
APPLICATION FOR PERMIT 3 DAYS BEFORE THE INTENDED RALLY,
THERE IS PRESUMPTION THAT IT HAS BEEN GRANTED! SO THE BURDEN
THAT IT WAS NOT GRANTED BELONG TO THE AUTHORITIES
4. Who has the burden of proving that there is no permit? THE BURDEN THAT
IT WAS NOT GRANTED BELONG TO THE AUTHORITIES/POLICE
5. When may freedom Of assembly be restricted or denied? ONLY WHEN

THERE IS CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER! IBP v. Atienza, 2010- THIS
HAPPENED WHEN MAYOR ATIENZA ISSUED A PERMIT ALLOWING HOLING
RALLY ONLY IN LUNETA AND NOT IN MENDIOLA AS APPLIED.. HELD:
THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!! YOU CAN ONLY RESTRICT THE RIGHT OR
THE CHANGE TERMS OF THE PERMIT OR PLACEOF HOLDING IF YOU ARE
ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS NO CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER –
IT IS THE STANDARD THAT SHALL BE USED TO RESTRICT, CHANGE THE
TERMS OF PERMIT
he can only modify terms of the of the application on the ground of clear and
present danger which must be indicated in his approval
The IBP applied for a permit to hold a rally at Magsaysay Park at 2-5:00 PM of
April10. The Mayor, without any explanation, granted the application for
them to hold a rally at Rizal Park. Is the act of the Mayor proper?
yes, because as chief executive he has discretion whether or not to grant the
application
yes, because the right to assembly is not an absolute constitutional right but is
subject to restriction
no, because he can only modify terms of the of the application on the ground of
clear and present danger which must be indicated in his approval
60 | P a g e
RELATE THIS WITH PREVIOUS SLIDE

no, because the constitutional right is not subject to any limitation by local
authorities
Bar question!
2002, No. 10: 10 public school teachers of Caloocan left their classrooms to join
a strike, which lasted for one month, to ask for teachers’ benefits. They were
dismissed by the DECS Secretary. They argue that their strike was an
exercise of their Constitutional right to peaceful assembly and to petition the
government for redress of grievances. Resolve. [Also 2000, No. 12] WHILE IT
IS TRUE THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO PEACEFUL ASSEMBLY…. THE
STUDENTS HAVE ALSO THEIR RIGHT TO EDUCATION.. THE SC BALANCED
THE CLASH BETWEEN 2 CONFILICTING RIGHTS. IT SAID THAT YOU
EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT WILL NOT AFFECT THE
RIGHT OF THE STUDENT OR CLASS HOURS… HENCE, SC VALIDATED THE
DISMISSAL OF THE TEACHERS!
2006, No. II, The SM filed with the Office of the City Mayor of Manila an
application for permit to hold a rally on Mendiola St. on Sept. 5, 2006 fro
10:00 to 3:00pm to protest the political killings of journalist. However, the
City Mayor denied their application on the ground that a rally at the time and
place applied for will block traffic in the San Miguel and Quiapo districts. He
suggested the Liwasang Bonifacio, which has been designated a Freedom
Park, as venue for the rally.
1. Does the SM have a remedy to contest the denial of its application for a
permit?
2. Does the availability of the Freedom Park justify the denial of SM’s
application for a permit?
3. Is the requirement to apply for a permit to hold a rally a prior restraint on

freedom of speech and assembly?
4. Assuming that despite the denial of the application for a permit,its membes
held a rally prompting the police to arrest them. Are the arrests without
judicial warrants lawful?
1. Does the SM have a remedy to contest the denial of its application for a
permit?
YOU GO TO COURT AND FILE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTION OR

MANDAMUS!
2. Does the availability of the Freedom Park justify the denial of SM’s
61 | P a g e
application for a permit? NO! IT IS NOT CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER!

TRAFFIC IS NOT CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER
3. Is the requirement to apply for a permit to hold a rally a prior restraint on

freedom of speech and assembly?
4. Assuming that despite the denial of the application for a permit,its membes
held a rally prompting the police to arrest them. Are the arrests without
judicial warrants lawful?
2007, VII. Batas Pambansa 880, the Public Assembly Law of 1985, regulates the
conduct of all protest rallies in the Philippines.
Salakay, Bayan! held a protest rally and planned to march from Quezon City to
Luneta in Manila. They received a permit from the Mayor of Quezon City,
but not from the Mayor of Manila. They were able to March in Quezon
City and up to the boundary separating it from the City of Manila. Three
meters after crossing the boundary, the Manila Police stopped them for
posing a danger to public safety. Was this a valid exercise of police
power? YOU CAN ANSWER IT BOTH WAYS! 1. IT IS WITHOUT PERMIT
SO THAT THE POLICE CAN STOP THEM ONCE THEY ENTERED MANILA
2. MANILA POLICE AUTHORITIES MAY EXERCISE MAXIMUM
TOLERANCE… ANYWAYS THEY WERE ABLE TO SECURE PERMIT IN
QUEZON CITY.. NO CLEAR ANSWER!
(b) The security police of the Southern Luzon Expressway spotted a caravan of
20 vehicles, with paper banners taped on their sides and protesting graft
and corruption in government. They were driving at 50 kilometers per
hour in a 40-90 kilometers per hour zone. Some banners had been blown
off by the wind, and posed a hazard to other motorists. They were
stopped by the security police. The protesters then proceeded to march
instead, sandwiched between the caravan vehicles. They were also
stopped by the security force. May the security police validly stop the
vehicles and the marchers?
UNDER THE BP 880, CARAVAN IS COVERED AS EXERCISE OF PUBLIC

ASSEMBLY
2008, No. 15. Nationwide protests have erupted over rising gas prices, including
disruptive demonstrations in many universities throughout the country. The
Metro Manila State University, a public university, adopted a university-wide
circular prohibiting mass demonstrations and rallies within the campus.
Offended by the circular, militant students spread word that on the following
Friday, all students were to wear black T-shirts as a symbol of their protest
62 | P a g e
both against high gas prices and the university ban on demonstrations. The
effort was only moderately successful. Nonetheless, university officials
were outraged and compelled the student leaders to explain why they should
not be expelled for violating the circular against demonstrations.
The student leaders approached you for legal advice. They contended that
they should not be expelled since they did not violate the circular, their
protest action being neither a demonstration nor a rally since all they did
was wear black T-shirts. What would you advise the students?
WEARING BLACK TSHIRTS IS ONLY AN EXERCISE OF FREE EXPRESSION.. IT IS

NOT COVERED BY THIS SECTION!!! NOT ASSEMBLY!
Which one is an example of a Heckler’s Veto?
Veto by the mayor of an ordinance penalizing the writing of graffiti on the wall
Veto by the mayor of an ordinance designating a “freedom park” where rallies

without permit may be held
Refusal by the mayor to issue a rally permit on the ground that the applicant
advocates views contrary to that of the government
Refusal by the mayor to issue a permit on the ground that views to be expressed
in the rally might outrage other people and violence will result-
VIOLATIVE AS YOU ALLOW IT TO BE A GROUND OF NOT GRANTING
PERMIT! ONLY CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER IS A VALID GROUND
A heckler's veto occurs when an acting party's right to freedom of speech is

curtailed or restricted by the government in order to prevent a reacting
party's behavior. The common example is that of demonstrators (reacting
party) causing a speech (given by the acting party) to be terminated in order
to preserve the peace.
A heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the

possibility of] a violent reaction by hecklers.
Sec. 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 allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or
political rights.
63 | P a g e
Manosca owns a small lot which turned out to be the birth place of the founder
of the Iglesia Ni Cristo and this was sought to be expropriated by the
National Historical Society. The owner challenges the expropriation on the
ground that it favors one religion. The issue that was raised in Manosca
pertains to:
(a) the free exercise of religion [“free exercise clause”]
(b) the establishment of religion [“non-establishment clause] (favoring one

religion)
© requirement of religious test [“religious test clause”
(d) intramural religious dispute
A DECS circular requiring elementary students to sing the national anthem

and salute the flag regardless of religion raises an issue about:
(a) the free exercise clause

(b) the non-establishment clause
© the religious test clause
(d) intramural religious dispute
Section 5: Freedom of Religion
1. Non- Establishment Clause
The non-establishment clause prohibits legislation which aid one

religion, aid all religions, or prefers one over another. (IDEA IS THAT THE
STATE SHALL BE NEUTRAL WITH RESPECT TO ALL RELIGIONS) IT
APPLIES TO ALL GOVERNMENTAL ACT THAT SEEMS TO FAVOR ONE
RELIGION OVER THE ANOTHER.. IT SHOULD ALLOW RELIGION TO GROW
IN ITS OWN MERITS
2. Free-exercise clause (
Tests for Allowable Aid to Religion: W/N IT VIOLATES THE

NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE (ALL MUST CONCUR)
1. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose; IT HAS NO

RELIGIOUS PURPOSE
2. The principal or primary effect is neither one that advances or inhibits

religion; WHILE OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ACT MAY HAVE THE INCIDENTAL
EFFECT OF ADVANCING OR INHIBITING ONE RELIGION, THE PRIMARY
64 | P a g e
AND PRINCIPAL PURPOSE SHOULD NOT..
3. It must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion.

(LEMON TEST)-
( LEMON VS. KURTZMAN )
1. Manosca – 2000, No. 8
Madlangbayan is the owner of a 500 square meter lot which was the birthplace
of a religious sect who admittedly played an important role in Philippine
history and culture. The National Historical Commission passed a
resolution declaring it a national landmark and on its recommendation the
lot was subjected to expropriation proceedings. This was opposed by
Madlangbayan on the following grounds ….(b) that those to be benefited by
the expropriation would only be the members of the religious sect of its
founder. Resolve the opposition.
HELD: IT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NON-ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.
THE LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE IS TO PROMOTE CULTURE, HONOR THE

CONTRIBUTION OF MANALO TO OUR CULTURE
THE PRINCIPAL EFFECT IS TO ENRICH OUR CULTURE WHICH HAS NOTHING

TO DO WITH RELIGION.. THOUGH THE INCIDENTAL EFFECT MIGHT
FAVOR THE IGLESIA.
THERE IS NO EXCESSIVE ENTANGLEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT IN VIEW OF

THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WILL BE MANAGED BY THE NATIONAL
HISTORICAL INSTITUTE.
It pass the 3 test!!
2. In re: Iglesia.. Iglesias tv program kept on attacking catholic church.. MTRCB

ordered for the halt of the program: HELD: Issuance of TRO will amount to
favoring the Catholics which will violate the NONESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE…
DO NOT INTERFERE THE ISSUES BETWEEN RELIGIONS!!!
3. Ang Ladlad v. COMELEC, 2010- THE COMELEC DISALLOWED THE

REGISTRATION OF ANG LADLAD AS PARTY LIST PREMISING THE SAME
ON THE KORAN PROVISIONS WHICH CONDEMNED HOMOSEXUALITY.. IT
WAS IMPUGNED: HELD: SC SAID IT VIOLATED THE NON ESTABLISHMENT
CLAUSE.. BY APPLYING THE KORAN PROVISIONS, YOU ARE FAVORING
SAID RELIGION OR ITS MORALS!!!!
3. Question 10, 1992 (LEMON TEST): Recognizing the value of education in

making the Philippine labor market attractive to foreign investment, the
DECS offers subsidies to accredited colleges and universities in order to
65 | P a g e
promote quality education. The DECS grants subsidy to a Catholic school

which requires its students to take at least 3 hours a week of religious
instruction.
1. Is the subsidy permissible?
yes, because the subsidy does not violate any law
no, because the subsidy has no secular legislative purpose (making the
Philippine labor market attractive to foreign investment)
no, because the principal effect of the subsidy promotes religion (THE EFFECT IS
THE PROMOTE QUALITY EDUCATION AND PHILIPPINE ECONOMY)
no, because it can create entanglement between state and religion (IT IS
BECAUSE ONCE IT IS SUBSIDIZED TO STUDENTS, IT MIGHT END UP AS
PAYMENT TO TEACHERS WITH THE END VIEW OF HAVING THE
GOVERNMENT AUDITING SCHOOLS TO FIND OUT WHERE THE
SUBSIDY IS PAID) HENCE NULL AND VOID
2. Presuming that you answer in the negative, would it make a difference if the
subsidy were given solely in the form of laboratory equipment in chemistry
and physics? NO PROBLEM HERE.. ONCE THE SUBSIDY IS IN THE FORM
OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENTS, IT CANNOT CREATE EXCESSIVE
GOVERNMENT ENTANGLEMENT SINCE SUCH EQUIPMENTS CANNOT BE
USED FOR RELIGIOIUS PURPOSES
3. Presume, on the other hand, that the subsidy is given in the form of
scholarship vouchers given directly to the student and which the student
can use for paying tuition in any accredited school of his choice, whether
religious or non-sectarian. Will your answer be different?
THE LAW WILL BE OVERBROAD AND VAGUE… THERE ARE NO STANDARDS….

THE LAW SHOULD SPECIFICALLY SET STANDARDS THAT WILL ENSURE
THE SUBSIDY WILL NOT BE PAID FOR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES… LISTEN TO
DEAN DISCUSSIONS AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BUT REMEMBER THAT THE TEST WHETHER A LAW IS VAGUE OR OVERBROAD

SHOULD BE APPLED OBLY IN FREE SPEECH STATUTES ONLY! THIS IS THE
ANSWER OF UP WHICH MAY NO LONGER HOLD WATER NOW!
Free Exercise Clause
66 | P a g e
Free exercise of religion is the freedom to believe, which is absolute, and the
freedom to act, which may be restricted, in accordance with one’s beliefs.
Test: Clear and Present Danger
Freedom to believe-subject to no restriction because it is in the mind only..

Hence you can cause no harm to anybody… hence the state cannot
investigate you on matters of your belief (so long as it is only in the mind)
Freedom to act- subject to the limitation by the congress by means of a law…

because the moment we act, we are likely to harm others.. Exercise of police
power is a valid limitation to the freedom to act… hence no law can be
PASSED PUNISHING ONE WHO BELIEVES IN THE DEVIL!
-ONCE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR BELIEVING IN MURDER, RAPING OTHER

PEOPLE!!!! BUT ONCE YOU START TO CONVERT YOUR BELIEF INTO ACT,
IN THAT YOU ARE STARTING TO MURDER OR RAPING PEOPLE ,
(FREEDOM TO ACT!)- YOU CAN NOW BE PROSECUTED!!
1998, No. 15 – A religious organization has a weekly television program. The

program presents and propagates its religious doctrines and compares their
practices with those of of other religions.
As the MTRCB found offensive several episodes of the program which
attacked other religions, the MTRCB required the organization to submit its
tapes for review prior to airing.
The group brought the case to court on the ground that the action of the MTRCB
suppresses its freedom of speech and interferes with its right to free
exercise of religion. Decide. [MTRCB’s act is:
proper, because freedom to believe is subject to the police power of the state
proper, because freedom to act may be restricted by the state-AIRING

PROGRAMS IS ALREADY AN ACTION!! FREEDOM TO ACT! IT CAN BE
RESTRICTED!!
improper, because freedom to believe is absolute
67 | P a g e
improper, because of separation of church and state
1. Ebralinag, 1997, No. 12, 2003, No. 12- WHAT HAPPENED WAS THAT THE
DECS ISSUED A CIRCULAR REQUIRING ALL STUDENTS TO SING AND
SALUTE THE NATIONAL FLAG! THIS WAS IMPUGNED BY JEHOVA’S
WITNESS FOR BEING VIOLATIVE TO THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION AS THEY
ARE PROHITED TO ADORE SYMBOLS(SALUTING FLAG)– SC HELD IN
FAVOR OF JEVOVA’S WITNESSES AND EXEMPTED THEM FROM THE
MANDATE OF THE CIRCULAR in view OF THEIR INVOCATION OF FREEDOM
OF RELIGION
Clear and Present Danger- DECS MAINTAINED THAT IF WE ALLOW THEM TO

BE EXEMPTED, THERE IS A DANGER THAT IT MAY ALLOW OR PRODUCE
PEOPLE TO BE DISLOYAL TO THE REPUBLIC.. BUT THE SC SAID THAT
SINGING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM AND RECITING AND AMONG TOHERS
ARE NOT ONLY THE WAYS OF PROMOTING LOYALTY TO THE
GOVERNMENT.. IT CAN BE TAUGHT THROUGH HISTORY, CULTURAL AND
GOVERNMENT COURSES/SUBJECTS… HENCE, THERE IS NO CLEAR AND
PRESENT DANGER IF THEY BE EXEMPTED SO LONG AS THEY WILL NOT
DISTURB THE FLAG CEREMONY…. ONCE THEY DISTUB OTHERS, CLEAR
AND PRESENT DANGER MAY NOW ATTACHED
2. Ang mga Kaanib- THIS INVOLVE ELI SORIANO’S RELIGIOUS GROUP WHICH
SPLIT FOR SEVERAL TIMES INTO ANOTHER GROUP… SORIANO USE THE
SAME NAME OF THEIR GROUP WITH THE OTHER.. HENCE, THE SEC
ORDERED SORIANO TO CHANGE ITS NAME AS THERE IS ALREADY
EXISTING USING THE SAME.. SORIANO OPPOSED THAT IT CANNOT BE
DONE AS IT VIOLATES HIS FREEDOM OF RELIGION-FREEDOM TO ACT
ACCORDING TO HIS BELIEF- HELD- SC SAID THAT THE NAMING OF THE
GROUP HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION… SC EMPHASIZED THAT
THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS THE FREEDOM TO ACT ACCORDING TO
YOUR BELIEF-.. HENCE NAMES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.. THIS IS A
SIMILAR TO A CASE WHERE FOREIGN RELIGIOUS GROUP APPLIED FOR
THE REGISTRATION OF A LAND WITH ROD FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THEIR CHURCH OR RELIGIOUS PURPOSES… ROD DENIED IT AS ALIENS
ARE PROHIBITED BY LAW WHICH PROMPTED THEM TO IMPUGN THE
SAME ON THE GROUND OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION… HELD- REGISTERING
OR REGISTRATION OF LAND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH FREEDOM OF
RELIGION.. MOREOVER, YOU MAY STILL EXERCISE YOUR FREEDOM OF
RELIGION WITHOUT HAVING YOUR OWN LAND… YOU CAN WORSHIP GOD
WITHOUT OWNING PROPERTY
NOTE!!! FREEDOM OF RELIGION MUST HAVE SOMETHING TO WITH YOUR

RELIGIOUS BELIEF AND ACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR BELIEFS
3. Victoriano v. Elizalde- CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNION

68 | P a g e
AND THE MANAGEMENT WAS REACHED.. VICTORIANO, A WORKER,

IMPUGNED THE SAME AS HE WAS PROHIBITED BY HIS RELIGION FROM
BECOMING A MEMBER OF ANOTHER GROUP (IGLESIA) –SC HELD THAT A
COMPANY WORKER IS ENTITLED TO BE A NON MEMBER IN VIEW OF
FREEDOM OF RELIGION… NOTE THAT IN CASE OF CONFLICT BETWEEN A
BASIC HUMAN RIGHT (RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION) AND A
PROPERTY RIGHT (CONTRACT), THE FORMER SHOULD PREVAIL
4. Escritur: THIS INVOLVED A COURT A MARRIED COURT EMPLOYEE BUT WAS

SEPARATED FACTUALLY… SHE LIVED WITH A MARRIED MAN (GROUNDS
FOR ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE).. HER REMOVAL FROM OFFICE WAS
INSTITUTED BUT SHE DEFENDED ON THE GROUND OF FREEDOM OF
RELIGION (IN JEHOVA’S WITNESSES, MEMBERS WHO INTEND TO LIVE
EACH OTHER (EVEN IF PARTIES ARE ALREADY MARRIED TO OTHERS)
HAVE TO MAKE A STATEMENT OF PLEDGE OF FAITHFULNESS TO THEIR
HEIRARCHY.. ONCE THEY COMPLY THAT, A COUPLE ARE ALLOWED
ALREADY TO LIVE WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF CIVIL OR RELIGIUS
MARRIAGE.. CAN YOU IJNVOKE FREEDOM OF RELIGION TO LIVE A
ADULTEROUS OR CONCUBINUOUS LIFE? SC HELD ALLOWING THE SAM
E…. FOLLOW BELOW
1. What should be the state’s attitude towards religion? Benevolent neutrality-

THE STATE SHOULD BE NEUTRAL AND NOT HOSTILE TOWARDS IT
BECAUSE IT IS FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS PROTECTED BY THE
CONSTITUTION
2. What test should be applied? (HOW DO WE KNOW WHEN FREEDOM OF

RELIGION SHOULD BE RESPECTED?) “Compelling interest test” ‘paramount
and compelling” (NOTE THAT THE SC IS NOT USING CLEAR AND PRESENT
AND DANGER TEST… IT USED COMPELLING INTEREST TEST AS IT DID IN
CONTENT BASED (FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION) RESTRICTIONS)- THE
STATE MUST SHOW COMPELLING STATE INTEREST TO JUSTIFY STATE
INTERVENTION!)
3. Has it discharged the burden? Prejudice?
THE PROBLEM IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE SOLGEN ONLY PRESENTED ITS
SIDE BASED ON THE PROVISIONS OF FAMILY IN THE FAMILY CODE AS
INVIOLABLE INSTITUTION.. SC SAID THAT IS NOT A COMPELLING STATE
INTEREST… IT HELD THAT THE STATE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW A
STATE COMPELLING INTEREST THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THE PROHIBITION
OF THE JEHOVA’S PRACTICE IN THE INSTANT CASE. MOREOVER, SC SAID
THEY DID NOT PROSECUTE THEM FOR ADULTERY OR CONCUBINAGE…
FURTHER IT DID NOT AFFECT OTHER EMPLOYEES IN THE SUPREME
69 | P a g e
COURT…. HENCE, THE SC RULED THAT THE COUPLE CAN GO ON WITH

THEIR ARRANGEMENT (THE IMMORAL LIFE) IN THE NAME OF THE
RELIGION…
NOTE! IF THE STATE CAN DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF THE COMPELLING

STATE INTEREST, THEN THE COURT CAN PROHIBIT A PRACTICE OR
ARRANGEMENT (IMMORAL) WHICH MAY BE INVOKED IN THE NAME OF
RELIGION OR IN FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE… SAME WITH PRESENT AND
DANGER TEST!
OBSERVATION: ANNULMENT ISSUED BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO ITS

MEMBERS MIGHT BE RECOGNIZED IN VIEW OF THE BENEVOLENT
NEUTRALITY OF THE STATE TOWARDS RELIGION…
Soriano v. Laguardia, 587 SCRA 79 (2009)
In an episode of Ang Dating Daan, Eliseo Soriano uttered the following

statement: (IN A TV PROGRAM against THE IGLESIA NI CHRISTO)
Lehitimong anak ng demonyo; sinungaling;

Gago ka talaga Michael, masahol ka pa sa putang babae o di ba. Yung putang
babae ang gumagana lang doon yung ibaba, [dito] kay Michael ang
gumagana ang itaas, o di ba! O, masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sabi ng
lola ko masahol pa sa putang babae yan. Sobra ang kasinungalingan ng
mga demonyong ito.
SO THE IGLESIA FILED BEFORE THE MTRCB TO SUSPEND SORIANO FROM HIS
PROGRAM..
HELD: THE WORDS UTTERD BY SORIANO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS

BELIEF OR EXERCISE OF RELIGION.. NOTE THAT WHAT IS ONLY
PROTECTED BY THE FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS YOUR BELIEF AND
ACTIONS OR ACTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR BELIEF
RELIGIOUS DISPUTES-WHAT SHOULD BE THE ATTITUDE OF THE STATE WHEN

IT COMES TO RELIGIOUS QUARREL
1. As between religious groups- WE HAVE NO PROBLEM HERE!!!
(Iglesia)
2. Among members of same group (Austria, Taruc)
AUSTRIA- THIS INVOLVED A PASTOR OF SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST…. HE WAS

DISMISSED FOR MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS OF HIS CHURCH..
BUT THE NLRC DISMISSED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS
70 | P a g e
WITHOUT JURISDICTION AS IS IT IS A RELIGIOIUS MATTER…. SC HELD:

IT IS NOT A RELIGIOUS MATTER.. WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED HERE IS
LABOR CODE… THERE IS A NEED TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT
THERE WAS A VALID GROUND FOR HIS DISMISSAL… W/N HIS
DISMISSAL WAS VALID.. HENCE, THE NLRCE SHOULD TAKE
COGNIZANCE WITH THE SAME
TARUC- TARUC WAS A PRIEST OF AGLIPAYAN CHURCH WHO WAS

TRANSFERRED BY THEIR BISHOP BECAUSE THERE WAS A QUARREL
BETWEEN HIS GROUPS AND OTHER MEMBERS IN HIS PLACE.. WITH
THAT, TARUC AND HIS LOYALISTS WERE THROWN OUT FROM THE
AGLIPAYAN CHURCH BY THE BISHOP.. SO TARUC INSTITUED AN
ACTION FOR HIS REINSTATEMENT TO THE CHURCH….. SC HELD
COURTS CANNOT TAKE COGNIZANCE ON THE MATTER AS THE SAME
INVOLVED ECCLESIASTICAL OR RELIGIOUS MATTER- THE QUARREL IS
WHO SHOULD BE THE MEMBERS OF THE church…. POWER OF
EXLCUDING FROM SUCH ASSOCIATIONS!
An ecclesiastical or religious affair is one that concerns doctrine, creed or form
of worship of the church, or the adoption and enforcement of regulation
within the religious organization for the government of the membership
and the power of excluding from such associations those deemed
unworthy of membership” memo this !!!!
Creed or doctrine- example is the correct day of going to church… it cannot be
decided by the court!
EMPHASIS: THE COURT CANNOT DECIDE ecclesiastical or religious affairs

because no law can be applied in resolving this matter.. REMEMBER
THAT COURTS ONLY DECIDE BASED ON LAW AND THE
CONSTITUTION!!!
XVI, 2009
Angelina, a married woman, is a Division Chief in the Department of Science and

Technology. She had been living with a married man, not her husband, for
the last fifteen (15) years. Administratively charged with immorality and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, she admits her live-in
arrangement, but maintains that this conjugal understanding is in
conformity with their religious beliefs. As members of the religious sect,
Yahweh's Observers, they had executed a Declaration of Pledging
Faithfulness which has been confirmed and blessed by their Council of
Elders. At the formal investigation of the administrative case, the Grand
71 | P a g e
Elder of the sect affirmed Angelina's testimony and attested to the sincerity
of Angelina and her partner in the profession of their faith. If you were to
judge this case, will you exonerate Angelina? Reasons. (3%) YES!!! IN VIEW
OF ESCRITUR CASE… THE ARRANGMENT OR THE PRACTICE SHOULD BE
ALLOWED UNLESS THE STATE CAN DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF
PROVING COMPELLING STATE INTEREST!!!
Meanwhile, Jenny, also a member of Yahweh's Observers, was severely

disappointed at the manner the Grand Elder validated what she considered
was an obviously immoral conjugal arrangement between Angelina and her
partner. Jenny filed suit in court, seeking the removal of the Grand Elder
from the religious sect on the ground that his act in supporting Angelina not
only ruined the reputation of their religion, but also violated the
constitutional policy upholding the sanctity of marriage and the solidarity of
the family. Will Jenny's case prosper? Explain your answer. (2%)
THE COURT CANNOT DECIDE ecclesiastical or religious affairs because no law

can be applied in resolving this matter.. REMEMBER THAT COURTS ONLY
DECIDE BASED ON LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION!!!
Sec. 6. The liberty of abode and of changing the same within the limits
prescribed by law shall not 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.
Liberty of abode is the freedom where to live… Freedom of domicile
Sec. 6. A: Liberty of abode:
Restricted by:
1. Congress –Within the limits prescribed by law (this refers to law passed by
congress and not by ordinance) (PERSONA NON GRATA PASSED BY LOCAL
SANGGUNIANG BODY IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE) (THE CONGRESS HAS
THE GREATER DISCRETION AS TO WHAT GROUNDS FOR THE
RESTRICITON OF LIBERTY OF ABODE)
2. Court – lawful order of the court (Yap Case)
YAP- a person was convicted of estafa. Pending the appeal of his case, he was
granted bail but was ORDERED by the CA to inform them of his residence
from time to time OR REPORT MUST BE SUBMITED BEFORE THE CA
RELATIVE TO RESIDENCE… he impugned this on the ground of liberty of
72 | P a g e
abode.. HELD,,, Right to Liberty of abode may be restricted by LAWFUL

ORDER OF THE COURT!!!!
1996, No. 2: The military commander in charge of the operation against rebel
groups directed the inhabitants of the island which would be the target of
attacks by government forces to evacuate the area and offered the residents
temporary military hamlet. Can the military commander force the residents
to transfer their places of abode without court order? Explain.
yes, because of the risk to the lives of the people that might be caused by the
military operation
yes, because executive officials, including the police and the military, can restrict
the liberty of abode
yes, because forcing people to transfer their residence does not violate any law
no, because only the courts or Congress by means of a law can restrict the
liberty of abode
1998, 8- Juan Casanova contracted Hansen’s disease with open lesions. A law
requires that lepers be isolated upon petition of the City health Officer. The
wife of Juan Casanova wrote a letter to the City Health Officer to have her
formerly philandering husband confined in some isolated leprosarium. Juan
Casanova challenged the constitutionality of the law as violating his liberty
of abode. Will the suit prosper?
NO! IT WILL NOT PROSPER AS THERE IS A LAW REQUIRING LEPERS TO BE

ISOLATED UPON PETITION OF A CITY HEALTH OFFICER
B. Right to travel: Who can restrict?
73 | P a g e
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.
[Silverio and Santiago cases]- IT CLARIFIED THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR

NOT COURTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIALS CAN RESTRICT THE RIGHT TO
TRAVEL
THE SUPREME COURT RULED THAT DESPITE THE WORDING OF THE

CONSTITUTIONS ON THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL(WHICH MAY BE RESTRICTED
ONLY BY LAW), THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL MAY BE RESTRICTED BY THE
FOLLOWING:
1. Courts, of people out on bail- IT IS INHERENT IN THE ADMINSTRATION OF

JUSTICE.. OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE HARD FOR COURTS TO IMPOSE
SENTENCES BECAUSE THEY WILL BE NOW OUT OF COURTS
JURISDICTION… BUT IT APPLIES ONLY TO CRIMINIAL CASES AND NOT IN
CIVIL ONE BECAUSE THERE IS NO BAIL HERE IN CIVIL CASE AND IF YOU
RUN AWAY, YOU CAN BE DECLARED IN DEFAULT AND THE CASE WILL
PROCEED AND YOUR PROPERTY CAN BE EXECUTED…!!!!!!
2. Executive and administrative officials, if they do not act arbitrarily. Meaning

that (THEY ACT NOT ARBITRARILY IF) 1.THERE is a law authorizing them
and
2.they do it on the basis of national security, public safety and public health
(SO THERE MUST BE A LAW AUTHORIZING THEM FOR THE SAME)
3. Congress [Silverio and Santiago cases]-
Marcos case- THIS INVOLVED FORMER PRESIDENT MARCOS WHO WAS IN

HAWAII DURING HIS LAST DAYS WANTED TO RETURN TO THE
PHILIPPINES BUT WAS PROHIBTED BY PRESIDENT CORY AQUINO.. THEY
INVOKED THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL.. HELD: SC HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO
TRAVEL ENSHRINED IN THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT INCLUDE THE
RIGHT TO RETURN.. IT COVERS ONLY THE RIGHT TO LEAVE THE
COUNTRY…… RIGHT TO RETURN IS NOT COVERED BY THE BILL OF
RIGHTS!!!!
HOWEVER THE SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZED THAT THE RIGHT TO RETURN

OWNS COUNTRY IS PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW…
HAD THE RIGHT TO RETURN BEEN INCLUDED IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THE
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS COULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED OR
PROHIBITED MARCOS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO LAW THAT TIME
AUTHORIZING PRESIDENT CORY TO LIMIT SUCH RIGHT WHICH MUST BE
FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, NATIONAL SECURITY AND HEALTH.. HENCE, SINCE
74 | P a g e
THE RIGHT TO RETURN IS PROTECTED BY THE BILL OF RIGHTS, WE DON’

T HAVE TO APPLY THAT PROVISIONS IN THE PRECEDING SLIDE..
IT IS ONLY PROTECTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL LAW AND SINCE THE

CONSTITUTION IS SILENT AS TO WHO CAN LIMIT THE RIGHT TO RETURN,
THE PRESIDENT IS EMPOWERED TO LIMIT SUCH RIGHT IN VIEW OF HER
RESIDUAL, IMPLIED AND INCIDENTAL POWERS
-Mirasol- THE DPWH/MMDA ISSUED AN ORDER PROHIBITING THE USE OF

MOTORCYCLES ALONG CERTAIN ROADS IN METROMANILA… IT WAS
IMPUGNED AS VIOLATIVE TO THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL… HELD: IT DOES NOT
VIOLATE… SUCH ORDER DOES NOT PROHIBIT FROM GOING FROM ONE
PLACE TO ANOTHER.. WHAT IS BEING PROHIBITED HERE IS ONLY THE
MODE OF TRANSPORTATION.. THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL GUARANTEES YOU
TO REACH IN YOUR DESTNATION… THERE IS NO GUARANTEE AS TO THE
MODE OF TRANSPORATION
-GMA v. De Lima- IT IS NOT REALLY AN ISSUE OF RIGHT TO TRAVEL!!!! IT WAS

REALLY AN ISSUE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE TRO ISSUED BY THE COURT
WITHOUT HEARING.. BUT BASICALLY THIS CASE CAN BE APPLIED TO
EXECUTIVE AND ADMINSTRATIVE OFFICIALS AS THERE WAS NO LAW AT
THAT TIME AUTHORIZING THEM TO ISSUE HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER BUT
ONLY CIRCULAR BY DOJ
THESE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED IF A CASE HAS BEEN FILED

AGAINST YOU AND YOU INTEND TO TRAVEL ABROAD
Conditions when court may allow travel:
1. Prove urgency
2. State duration
3. Obtain consent of surety/
Bar--1991/No. 6:Mr. Esteban Krony, A Filipino citizen, is arrested for the crime
of smuggling. He posts bail for his release. Subsequently, he jumps bail
and is about to leave the country when the DFA cancels his passport. He
sues the DFA claiming violation of his freedom to travel citing Sec. 6 Art. III,
to wit: 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.
Decide.
IF YOU ARE ON BAIL FOR CRIMINAL CASES LEVELLED AGAINST YOU, THE
COURT MAY RESTRICT YOUR RIGHT TO TRAVEL!!!!! EVEN IF NOT
75 | P a g e
MENTIONED BY THE CONSTITUTION!!!
NOTE: THE PRACTICE NO IS THAT HOLD DEPARTURE ORDER ARE ISSUED TO

THOSE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FACING ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES
Which statement is legally correct? [5%]
Sec. 6 of the Bill of Rights with respect to the right to travel:
(a) includes the right of citizens to enter another country AS OTHER

COUNTRY MAY NOT ALLOW YOU
(b) covers the right of citizens to return to the Philippines MARCOS CASE
© guarantees the right of aliens to come to the Philippines BECAUSE THEY

MUST APPLY FOR VISA
(d) protects the right of citizens to leave the country PROVIDED THAT OTHER
COUNTRY ACCEPTS YOU
Sec. 7. The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall
be recognized. Access 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 limitations as may be provided by law.
Sec. 7: A. Right to Information
B. Access to official records
A. Matters of public concern – those which the public may want to know,
because
it directly affects their lives or
because they arouse the interest of a citizen
1. Bantay Republic v. COMELEC- RESOLUTION OF THE COMELEC HAD IT THAT

THE NAME OF PARTY LIST MEMBERS/NOMINEES WILL BE KEPT SECRET…
THIS WAS IMPUGNED BY SALONGA.. COMELEC CONTENDED THAT PARTY
LIST ELECTION IS NOT PERSON ORIENTED: HELD: TRUE, THE PARTY LIST
IS ELECTED BUT IT IS THE NOMINEES WHO WILL BE SEATING IN THE
CONGRESS.. HENCE, THIS IS A MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN!! SO THE
NAME SHOULD BE RELEASED BEFORE THE ELECTION!!!!
2. Legaspi – CS eligible- the CSC REFUSED TO DIVULGE INFORMATION AS TO

W/N A PERSON IS ELIGIBLE.. HELD: INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS
INDICATING W/N A PERSON IS A CS ELIGBLE IS A MATTERS OF PUBLIC
76 | P a g e
CONCERN BECAUSE ONLY THOSE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE CAN OCCUPY

GOVT. POSITIONS!
3. Hilado – Are all court records pertaining to a case public records (IN SUCH A
WAY THAT ANYBODY CAN ASK FOR THEM)? IT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED!
RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS, AND DECISIONS OF JUDGES- THESE ARE

MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERNS!!! EXCEPTION- CASE OF
SETTLEMENT OF ESTATE- THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC
CONCERN… ONLY INTERESTED PARTIES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO
ACCESS OF INFORMATION….. AFFIDAVITS OF RAPE CASES IS NOT
COVERED BY THE RIGHT..
PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCES PRESENTED BY THE PARTIES- (OTHER

MATTERS SHALL BE DECIDED ON CASES TO CASE BASIS IN THAT
AFFIDAVITS IN RAPE CASES CANNOT BE ACCESS
4. Chaves- not only consummated contracts, but also steps leading to a contract,
but not inter-agency recommendations. Foreign affairs? THIS HAS
REFERENCE WITH NEGOTITATION BETWEEN PCGG WITH THE HEIRS OF
MARCOS ON THE DIVISION OF ILL GOTTEN WEALTH.. CHAVEZ ASKED
FOR THE DOCUMENTS OF THE NEGOTIATION BUT PCGG REFUSED ON
THE GROUND THAT IT IS CONFIDENTIAL!!! HELD: sc said that not only
consummated contracts, but also steps leading to a contract ARE COVERED
BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION! MEANING THAT EVEN STEPS LEADING
TO THE CONTRACT (DIVISION OF ILLGOTTEN WEALTH ARE COVERED BY
THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION!! BUT NOT INTER-AGENCY
RECOMMENDATIONS AS IT IS NOT CONSIDERED AS STEPS LEADING TO A
CONTRACT!!! IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE INFORMATION RECOMMENDED
BY OTHER AGENCY TO PCGG AS TO THE AMOUNT TO BE NEGOTIATED, IS
NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION!! NO ACCESS CAN BE
ALLOWED!! HOWEVER ONCE, THE PCGG ACCEPTED THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF OTHER AGENCY, IT BECOMES A STEP LEADING
TO A CONTRACT.. HENCE COVERED ALREADY BY THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION!!!!! FOREIGN AFFAIRS…THIS IS NOT COVERED BY THE
ABOVE PRINCIPLE..NO ACCESS CAN BE ALLOWED!!! SO NOTES AND
DOCUMENTS LEADING TO TREATY MAKING CANNOT BE ACCESSED..5.
Akbayan – diplomatic notes [presumptively privilege] EVEN AFTER TREATY
HAS BEEN RATIFIED- COPIES OF PROPOSALS AND COUNTER PROPOSALS
TO TREATY NEGOTIATIONS EVEN IF IT HAS BEEN ALREADY RATIFIED ARE
PRESUMPTIVELY PRIVILEGE.. SO IT IS POSSIBLE YOU CAN BE ALLOWED
TO ACCESS OR NOT unless COVERED BY EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE!!!
77 | P a g e
6. . Chavez –Bids submitted for evaluation, official recommendation? “official

acts and transactions” CHAVEZ ASKED FOR COPIES OF BIDS FOR THE
SALE OF RECLAIMED LANDS OF THE GOVERNMENT!! HELD: Bids
submitted for evaluation, official recommendation ARE NOT CONSIDERED
“OFFICIAL ACTS AND TRANSACTIONS”.. BUT THE AWARDS OF THE
BIDDING SHALL BE NOW CONSIDERED AS OFFICIAL ACTS AND
TRANSACTIONS!!!
7. Bayan v. Ermita: Legislative investigation – THE ORDER ISSUED BY GMA

PROHIBITING ALL MEMEBRS OF THE CABINET FROM APPEARING
BEFORE LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATIONS IS VIOLATIVE TO RIGHT TO
INFORMATIONS!!!
8. Who has standing to enforce compliance in courts? Remedy-ANY CITIZEN

HAS STANDING TO ENFORCE COMPLIANCE IN COURTS BECAUSE THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION IS A PUBLIC RIGHT!!! YOU NEED NOT BE A
TAXPAYER TO ENFORCE THE SAME.. IT BELONGS TO ANYBODY!! YOU
FILE PETITION FOR MANDAMUS TO COMPELL THE DISCLOSURE OF THE
INFORMATION!!
9. Exceptions: Cabinet sessions, court deliberations, diplomatic and military and

national security matters, trade secrets. (NOT COVERED BY THIS RIGHT!!)
BEWARE!!
XIV, 2009
The Philippine Government is negotiating a new security treaty with the United
States which could involve engagement in joint military operations of the
two countries' armed forces. A loose organization of Filipinos, the
Kabataan at Matatandang Makabansa (KMM) wrote the Department of
Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Department of National Defense (DND)
demanding disclosure of the details of the negotiations, as well as copies
of the minutes of the meetings. The DFA and the DND refused,
contending that premature disclosure of the offers and counter-offers
between the parties could jeopardize on-going negotiations with another
country. KMM filed suit to compel disclosure of the negotiation details,
and be granted access to the records of the meetings, invoking the
constitutional right of the people to information on matters of public
concern.
Decide with reasons. (3%) INFORMATIONS WHILE THE TREATY

NEGOTIATIONS IS ON GOING CANNOT BE DISCLOSED!! AFTER
RATIFICATION OF THE SAME, IT MAY BE DISCLOSED UNLESS
COVERED BY THE EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE!!
Will your answer be the same if the information sought by KMM pertains to
contracts entered into by the Government in its proprietary or
78 | P a g e
commercial capacity? Why or why not? (3%)
CHAVEZ CASE SHALL BE APPLIED!! sc said that not only consummated

contracts, but also steps leading to a contract ARE COVERED BY THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION (CANNOT BE DISCLOSED)! MEANING THAT
EVEN STEPS LEADING TO THE CONTRACT (DIVISION OF ILLGOTTEN
WEALTH ARE COVERED BY THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION!! BUT NOT
INTER-AGENCY RECOMMENDATIONS AS IT IS NOT CONSIDERED AS
STEPS LEADING TO A CONTRACT!!! IN OTHER WORDS, THOSE
INFORMATION RECOMMENDED BY OTHER AGENCY TO PCGG AS TO
THE AMOUNT TO BE NEGOTIATED, IS NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION!!
Which statement is correct:
(a) any citizen who questions in court the withholding of
information must satisfy locus standi by showing direct injury
(b) the right to information is a fundamental right and any restriction is

presumed unconstitutional- THE STATE MUST SHOW COMPELLING STATE
INTEREST TO JUSTIFY ITS RESTRICTION
© all information in the possession of the government may be accessed by
citizens under Sec. 7
(d) the enactment of the Freedom of Information Act is a pre condition for
the enjoyment of the right to information
Which statement is legally correct?
A. Under Sec. 7, citizens can demand from government officials that they be
given abstracts, summaries and copies of official records. THE
CONSTITUTION ONLY GUARANTEES ACCESS AND NOT BE GIVEN THOSE
DOCUMENTS.. YOU HAVE TO REPRODUCE IT IN YOUR OWN
B. All records kept by any government agency are matters of public concern to
which citizens can demand access.NOT NECESSARILY
C. One can demand information from the Civil Service Commission about the
weight and height of an employee when s/he entered government service.
NOT OF PUBLIC CONCERN
D. Information on foreign loans obtained by the government may be excluded

from the scope of Sec. 7. IT MUST COVERED BY SECTION 7
79 | P a g e
NO CORRECT ANSWER!!!
Which statement is correct?
(a) all court records pertaining to a case should be made accessible
to the public
(b) all pleadings and other documents submitted by the parties
should be accessible to the public
© orders and decisions issued by the judge related to the case
should be accessible to the public
(d) access to records is a right that cannot be invoked against
courts
Sec. 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.
What the right to association guarantees?
The right to join any association
The right to refuse to join
Exception: Close-shop agreement (YOU CANNOT REFUSED TO JOIN IF

THERE IS A CLOSED SHOP AGREEEMENT)
Exception to the exception: freedom of religion (YOU CAN REFUSED TO JOIN

EVEN IF THERE IS A CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT IF YOU ARE
PROHIBITED BY YOUR RELIGION)
BPI v. BPI Employees, 627 SCRA 590 (2010)
In 2000, BPI merged with FETBC.
WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT BPI BANK CONSOLIDATED WITH FAR EAST
BANK… THE BPI EMPLOYEES HAS AN CLOSED SHOP AGREEMENT.
WHEN THE CONSOLIDATION WAS HAD, BPI REMAIN AND FEBTC
80 | P a g e
DISAPPEARED.. NOW EMPLOYEES OF THE FETBC DON’T WANT TO

JOIN THE UNION BPI. CAN THEY BE COMPELLED TO JOIN THE BPI
UNION PURSUANT TO THE CLOSED SHOPE AGREEEMENT? HELD:
YES!!!! THEY CAN BE COMPELLED TO BECOME MEMBERS
What does it guarantee? IT ONLY GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE

(FORM ASSOCIATION!!… AFTER ASSOCIATING, NOTHING IS PROTECTED
ANYMORE
1. PAFLU- A LABOR UNION IS REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED WITH THE BLR..

NOW BLR DENIED ITS APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION.. THE UNION
IMPUGNED THE SAME FOR BEING VIOLATIVE TO THEIR RIGHT TO
ASSOCIATE.. HELD: IT WAS NOT VIOLATED AS THEY HAVE BEEN
ALLOWED TO FORM THEIR UNION… WHAT THE LAW GUARANTEES IS THE
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE AND TO FORM ASSOCIATION.. IT DOES NOT
GUARANTEE REGISTRATION OF UNION WITH BLR..!!!
2. Philippine Statehood USA- THIS ORGANIZATION WAS FORMED WITH THE

AIM OF HAVING THE PHILIPPINES PART OF THE USA.. ITS REGISTRATION
WAS REFUSED.. HELD: THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO
ASSOCIATE… THEY HAVE ALREADY FORM THEIR GROUP.. WHAT THE
CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE IS THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE AND FORM
ASSOCIATION.. IT DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT IT WILL BE GIVEN LEGAL
PERSONALITY
3. Occena- HERE THERE IS A LAW THAT IF YOU ARE RUNNING FOR

BARANGAY POSITIONS, YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT
YOURSELF AS A MEMBER OF A PARTY.. IT WAS IMPUGNED FOR BEING
VIOLATIVE… HELD: NO!! IT WAS NOT VIOLATIVE AS HE IS ALREADY A
MEMBER OF THE PARTY.. WHAT THE CONSTITUTION GUARANTEE IS THE
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE AND FORM ASSOCIATION.. IT DOES NOT
GUARANTEE THAT YOU MAY RUN UNDER A YOUR PARTY…. LIMITED
GUARANTEE
4. Tarnate v. Noriel- THERE WAS THIS RULES THAT ONLY

EMPLOYEES/UNION MEMBERS WORKING FOR AT LEAST 1 YEAR CAN
VOTE IN THE ELECTION OF UNION OFFICERS.. HELD: THE CONSTITUTION
ONLY GUARANTEES THE RIGHT TO ASSOCIATE. IT DOES NOT
GUARANTEE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE UNION OFFICERS.. YOU ARE ALREADY
A MEMBER OF THE UNION
81 | P a g e
But take note of Bell-Air, also (THIS HAS REFERENCE TO THE RULES OF THE
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION REQUIRING ALL HOMEOWNERS TO BE
MEMBER OF THE ASSOCIAITON…- HELD: IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE TO RIGHT
TO ASSOCIATE BECAUSE
YOU ARE NOT PROHIBTED FROM NOT JOINING.. YOU CAN REFUSE TO JOIN
BY NOT SELLING YOUR PROPERTY IN THE SUBDIVISION!!
YOU CANNOT INVOKE BILL OF RIGHTS AGAINST PRIVATE ENTITIES
PADCOM v. Ortigas [voluntary], but STA Clara?/
Bar Q, 2000, No. 12: Are employees in the public sector allowed to form unions?
To strike? Why?
YES THEY ARE ALLOWED TO FORM BUT PROHIBITED TO STRIKE IN IN VIEW

OF PD 180…
Union A has a “close shop” agreement with company X. B a new employee

refuses to join on the ground that his religion prohibits him from doing
so. Can B be forced to join the union?
a. yes, because he is bound by the close shop agreement like everyone else
b. yes, because the right to association does not include the right not to be a
member of an association
b. no, because no person can be compelled to join an association against his

will
D. no, because freedom of religion is superior to a close shop agreement
Section 9: Private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation
Eminent domain is the power of the government to take over private

property for public use after payment of just compensation.
MEMO THIS!
Who CANNOT expropriate?
a. the City of Davao LGU CAN EXPOPRIATE

82 | P a g e
b. Davao City Water District
c. Globe Telecom (IT IS A PUBLIC UTILITY INCLUDING SMART- THEY

GRANTED BY LAW TO EXPROPRIATE UNDER ITS CHARTER)
d. Commission on Elections– IT HAS NO POWER
Principles: Inherent in the State, but exercised by Congress and those expressly
authorized by law. Can the COMELEC expropriate? PPI and Telebap
PPI- THE COMELEC DEMANDED FREE SPACES FROM NEWSPAPERS WITHOUT
JUST COMPENSATION… NOTE THAT SPACES IN NEWSPAPERS ARE
CONSIDERED PROPERTY RIGHT.. HENCE JUST COMPENSATION MUST BE
HAD… HOWEVER AND SURPRISINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT COMELEC
UNDER THE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION HAS NO POWER TO
EXPOPRIATE.. IT IS INHERENT POWER OF CONGRESS
TELEBAP- THE COMELEC ASKED FOR AIR SPACE FROM TELEVISION AND
RADIO NETWORKS FOR ITS ELECTIONS PURPOSES.. CAN IT BE DONE ?
NOTE THAT AIR SPACE, TIME AND FREQUENCY IN RADIO AND
TELEVISION ARE NOT PRIVATE PROPERTIES BECAUSE THEY ARE
OBTAINED ONLY BY FRANCHISE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.. HENCE, IT
CAN BE DONE!!!! ITS FRANCHISE IS SUBJECT TO IMPOSITION BY THE
STATE!!!!
Outline:
1. Taking
2. Public Use
3. Just compensation
I. Taking:
1. Physical possession- EXPROPRIATOR GETS THE LAND AND OWNERSHIP

AND POSSESSION IS TRANSFERRED TO IT
2. Impairment of use – THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND

POSSESSION BUT THERE IS IMPAIRMENT OF USE OF PROPERTY
Gutierrez – transmission lines (THIS HAPPENS WHEN NPC INSTALLED

TRANSMISSION LINES IN ONE’S PRIVATE PROPERY WITH THE
IMPOSITION THAT NO PLANTS SHALL BE PLANTED UNDER IT… WHILE
THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP, THE OWNER
IS DEPRIVED OF THE FULL USE OF THE SAME.. HE CANNOT PLANT TREES
ANYMORE! THAT BURDENED THE PROPERTY ANYMORE
SO THESE ARE FORMS OF TAKING!!! JUST COMPENSATION IS A MUST!!!

83 | P a g e
Ibrahim (2007) - underground tunnels (THE NPC DIG TUNNELS UNDER

ONE’S PRIVATE PROPERTY. AFTER 13 YEARS, IT WAS DISCOVERED BY
THE OWNER AND THE LATTER FILED BEFORE A COURT FOR JUST
COMPENSATION:: HELD: THIS IS A FORM OF TAKING REQUIRING THE
PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION!!THE SC ALSO EMPHASIZED THE
EXTENT OF DEPTH UNDER ONE’S PROPERTY TO BE CONSIDERED AS
BEING TAKEN! OTHERWISE STATE, HOW HIGH OR HOW DEEP MUST IT BE …
IT RULED – TO THE EXTENT OF BENEFICIAL USE!!
Andaya (2007)– flooded portion (DIKES WERE CONSTRUCTED BY DPWH FOR

FLOOD CONTROL PURPOSES AND AS A RESULT OF WHICH, SOME
PROPERTIES WITHIN THE AREA HAVE BEEN FLOODED: HELD- SINCE THE
PROPERTY WERE ALREADY FLOODED, THERE IS AN IMPAIRMENT OF USE
OF THE PROPERTY.. HENCE, JUST COMPENSATION MUST BE HAD
Ayala Land (2009)– free parking (AYALA MALLS IN MANILA COLLECTS

PARKING FEE WITHIN THE AREA OF ITS BUILDING.. THE SOLICITOR
GENERAL FILED A CASE PROHIBITING AYALA FROM COLLECTING
PARKING FEES.. HELD: THE CASE MUST FAIL AS PROHIBITING AYALA
FROM COLLECTING PARKING FEES AMOUNTS TO TAKING A PROPERTY
WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION!! THERE IS IMPAIRMENT OF USE OF
PROPERTY
How much should expropriator pay? IT HAS TO BE ASCERTAINED BY THE

COURTS!! THE 10% SET BY LAW IS ILLEGAL. YOU HAVE TO PAY THE FULL
VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AFFECTED.
NPC v. Purefoods, 2008 – RA 6395
In expropriation for a right of way by the National Power Corporation, just

compensation is equivalent to:
(a) the full market value of the property as described in the owner’s title
(b) the full market value of the portion affected by the right of way
(c) 10% of the value of the property covered by the right of way clearance
(d) the extent of the loss suffered by the owner as he may be able to prove
during trial
Elements of Taking: CAVEAT! BECAUSE THIS IS VERY CRUCIAL AS TO VALUE

OF JUST COMPENSATION.. THE VALUE MAY BE SET AT THE TIME OF
TAKING OR AT THE TIME OF FILING.. NOTE THAT ALL THESE ELEMENTS
MUST CONCUR TO CONSTITUTE TAKING.. OTHERWISE, THE JUST
84 | P a g e
COMPENSATION MAY BE VALUED AT THE TIME OF FILING
1 . Expropriator must enter the private property; BUILDING OF IMPROVEMENT

OF ROADS ETC
2. The entrance must be for more than a limited period; MUST BE A

PERMANENT PERIOD
3. The entrance should be under warrant or color of legal authority;

GOVERNMENT MUST NOT BE A SQUATTER OR IT MUST BE WITH
PERMISSION
4. The property must be devoted to public use or otherwise informally

appropriated or injuriously affected (BURDENED) OR IMPAIRED OF ITS
USE);
5. The entrance must be to oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial
enjoyment . ( REPUBLIC VS. CASTELLVI )
Examples – NPC v. CA, Tan v. Republic, Tiongson v. NHA
In 1980, NPC entered the property of X thinking that it belong to the City of Iligan.
It built its power plants and paid royalties to the City. In 1990, it
acknowledged that the lot was owned by X and accordingly instituted
expropriation proceedings against X. The court ordered the City of Iligan to
pay just compensation based on the value in 1990. The court is correct
since there was no taking in 1980 because NPC did not :
(a) enter the property for more than a momentary period
(b)
enter under warrant or color of legal authority IT ENTERED
WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE OWNER
(c) devote the property to public use
(d) did not oust the owner and deprive him of
beneficial enjoyment of the property
Since 1960, DECS rented the property of X on a yearly basis, and constructed a
school thereon. In 1990, since they could not agree on the rent, X cancelled
the lease, but DECS instituted expropriation proceedings. The court ordered
compensation based on the value in 1990. The court is correct because in
1960:
85 | P a g e
a. DECS did not enter the private property;
b. The entrance was not under warrant or color of legal authority;
c. The property was not devoted to public use ;
d. The entrance did not oust the owner and deprive him of beneficial
enjoyment . RENTS AR E PAID HERE
II. Public Use
Use by the Public TO BUILD PUBLIC MARKET, CEMETERY, PLAZA
Indirect advantage or benefit to the public/Sumolong/Manosca
SUMULONG- PURPOSE IS HOUSING… THIS IS PUBLIC USE THOUGH ONLY FEW

WILL BE BENEFITED, IT WILL END UP FOR THE ADVANTAGE OF THE
PUBLIC AS IT WILL MINIMIZE CRIMES, DRUG ADDICTIONS!!!
MANOSCA- BIRTHPLACE OF MANALO WAS EXPOPRIATED BY THE GOVT… IT

IS STILL PUBLIC USE AS IT IS AIMED AT PROMOTING AND ENRICHING
OUR HISTORY AND CULTURE
Limits of second meaning: Manotoc
See also Masikip– [Homeowners’ Association]
MANOTOC- THIS HAPPENED WHEN THE GOVT EXPOPRIATED THE A

BUILDING, SOME PORTIONS OF WHICH WAS COMMERCIAL AND THE
OTHERS ARE NOT… THE SECOND PORTION WAS MADE FOR HOUSING
WHILE THE OTHERS WAS MADE FOR RENTS INORDER TO FINANCE
THE HOUSING IN THE OTHER PORTIONS… HELD: THIS IS NO LONGER
PUBLIC USE BECAUSE THE PURPOSE WOULD BE FOR COMMERCIAL
PURPOSE ALREADY
Bar Exam, 2011
10. The city government filed a complaint for expropriation of 10 lots to build a
recreational complex for the members of the homeowners' association of
Sitio Sto. Tomas, the most populated residential compound in the city. The
lot owners challenged the purpose of the expropriation. Does the
expropriation have a valid purpose?
A. No, because not everybody uses a recreational complex.
B. No, because it intends to benefit a private organization.

C. Yes, it is in accord with the general welfare clause.
86 | P a g e
D. Yes, it serves the well-being of the local residents.
1. May the owner recover the property on the ground that expropriator diverted
property to another public purpose/or abandons it? Reyes v. NHA (IN
EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS, THE BUYER BECOMES THE ABSOLUTE
OWNER… SO THE PROPERTY REMAINS TO BE OWNED BY THE
GOVERNMENT EVEN IF IT ABANDONS ITS PUBLIC PURPOSE..
(ABANDONED ALREADY!!!!)
2. As an exception, when may owner be allowed to recover? Heirs of Moreno-I

(HERE, THE GOVERNMENT AGREED WITH MORENO, THE OWNER, THAT IN
THE EVENT IT WILL ABANDONED THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPERTY FOR
WHICH IT WAS EXPROPRIATED (TO BE USED AS AIRPORT), THE OWNER
MAY RECOVER THE PROPERTY..CONDITIONAL EXPROPRIATION!!!! BUT
THE EXPROPRIATION JUDGEMENT DID NOT MENTIONED EXPRESSLY THE
CONDITION..
3. Must the condition be expressed in the decision? Heirs of Moreno-II NO NEED

THAT THE CONDITION BE EXPRESSED IN THE DECISION
Vda. de Ouano v. Republic, 642 SCRA 384 (2011)
If the expropriator does not use the property for the purpose for which it was
expropriated, or abandons it, or uses it for another public purpose, can the
owner recover it?
Held: Yes. The notion that the government, via expropriation proceedings,
acquires unrestricted ownership over or a fee simple title to the covered land
[Fery v. Municipality of Cabanatuan], is no longer tenable. We suggested as
much in Heirs of Moreno and in Tudtud and more recently in Lozada, Sr.
Expropriated lands should be differentiated from a piece of land, ownership of

which was absolutely transferred by way of an unconditional purchase and
sale contract freely entered by two parties, one without obligation to buy and
the other without the duty to sell. In that case, the fee simple concept really
comes into play. There is really no occasion to apply the “fee simple
concept” if the transfer is conditional. The taking of a private land in
expropriation proceedings is always conditioned on its continued devotion
to its public purpose. As a necessary corollary, once the purpose is
terminated or peremptorily abandoned, then the former owner, if he so
desires, may seek its reversion, subject of course to the return, at the very
least, of the just compensation received.
87 | P a g e
Hence, ALL EXPROPRIATION ARE CONDITIONAL!!!!! ONCE THE PURPOSE OF

PUBLIC USE IS ABANDONED, THE PROPERTY MAY NOW BE RECOVERED
BY THE OWNER!
Rights/Obligations of parties: Lozada, etc
Expropriator:
1. Return property
2. May give owner option to buy improvements, but if he declines, remove

them
3. Keep income and fruits of the property
Owner:
1. Return just compensation, without interest
2. Pay expropriator necessary expenses for maintenance of property to the

extent he got benefited
3. Pay interest only if there is delay in returning just compensation after

expropriator has reconvenyed
Once the public purpose of the expropriation is abandoned, it is correct to say

that:
(a) the expropriated property is restored to the previous owner
(b) property is restored only if the expropriation is made on condition that

it will be returned if the purpose is abandoned
© return is only applicable if the condition is stated in the court order

allowing the expropriation
(d) return is not permitted because the decree of expropriation gives to the
State a fee simple title
3. Just Compensation
Must be in cash, except Santos (EXPROPRIATION UNDER THE CARP LAW,

HERE THE GOVERNMENT PAYS BY ISSUANCE OF BONDS, STOCKS,..
ETC)
Determination is a judicial function [Purefoods and Libunao – RA 6395 only 10%

for right of way?]
88 | P a g e
Basis: Time of taking (ALL ELEMENTS HERE MUST BE COMPLETE) or time of

filing, whichever comes first, (RULES OF COURT)
except City of Cebu case (EXPROPRIATION OF LGUS, THE BASIS OF JUST

COMPENSATION IS ALWAYS AT THE TIME OF TAKING!!!! THE RULES OF
COURT IS NOT APPLIED!!...)
4. What is the rate of interest if expropriator fails to pay on time? Republic v. CA,
Reyes v. NHA – 12% [Libunao? 6% apparently if judgment is satisfied on
time] BUT IF THIS WILL BE ASKED IN THE BAR, USE THE 12%
FOREBEARANCE OF PROPERTY..
Can the owner recover the property if expropriator fails to pay just compensation
after an unreasonable lapse of time? Republic v. Lim NO!!!! BUT YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO INTEREST!!!
NOTE: NON PAYMENT IS NOT A GROUND FOR RECOVERY!!!! YOU ARE

ENTITLED WITH INTEREST ONLY!!!!
Note:
In 1978, the NHA took possession of parcels of land pursuant of PD No. 1669
and PD No. 1670, and set up a socialized housing project for squatters. On
May 27, 1987, the Supreme Court declared the decrees unconstitutional and
the expropriation of the parcels of land null and void for being violative of
the owner’s right to due process. On September 14, 1987, the NHA
instituted expropriation of the same parcels of land. From what date should
just compensation be based?
(a) 1978, because that was the time of the actual taking
(b) 1987, because the entrance in 1978 was not under color of title
© 1987, because the property was not devoted to public purpose in 1978
(d) 1987, because the utilization of the property did not oust the owner and
deprive him of beneficial enjoyment of the property
Non-payment of just compensation for a long period of time, as a rule:
(a) entitles the previous owner to return of the property without further
obligations to the expropriator
(b) entitles the owner to the market value of the property based at the time
when payment is actually made
© entitles him to the payment of the market value at the time of taking, plus
interest.
89 | P a g e
(d) entitles him to the return of the property provided he refunds the just
compensation previously received
When can expropriator enter the property?
After filing of complaint,
With notice to owner
Deposit with authorized government depository
Amount equivalent to assess value for taxation purposes [LGC – 15%
NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE FINAL COMPENSATION… THIS AMOUNT IS ONLY FOR
PURPOSES ENTERING THE PROPERTY
LGU IS SET TO 15% OF THE VALUE… THEN WRIT OF POSSESSION IS

ENTERED!!!!
Bar Question, 2011
19. The government sought to expropriate a parcel of land belonging to Y. The

law provides that, to get immediate possession of the land, the government
must deposit the equivalent of the land's zonal value. The government
insisted, however, that what apply are the rules of court which require an
initial deposit only of the assessed value of the property. Which should
prevail on this matter, the law or the rules of court?
A. Both law and rules apply because just compensation should be fixed based
on its zonal or assessed value, whichever is higher.
B. Both law and rules apply because just compensation should be fixed based
on its zonal or assessed value, whichever is lower.
C. The law should prevail since the right to just compensation is a substantive
right that Congress has the power to define. SUBSTANTIVE LAW PREVAILS
OVER PROCEDURAL LAW!!! the government must deposit the equivalent of
the land's zonal value
D. The rules of court should prevail since just compensation is a procedural

matter subject to the rule making power of the Supreme Court.
Expropriation bY LGU’s
It must be based on an ordinance, not a resolution; VM Realty, Saguitan
90 | P a g e
There is no need to secure DAR clearance even if property is converted to

non-agricultural [Province of Camarines] (USUALLY, WHEN AN
AGRICULTURAL LAND IS CONVERTED INTO A NON-AGRICULTURAL,
DAR CLEARANCE MUST BE SECURED.. HOWEVER, IN EXPROPRIATION
PROCEEDINGS BY LGU, NO NEED TO SECURE THE SAME AS IT WOULD
AMOUNT TO INTRUSION TO THE POWER OF THE COURT TO
DETERMINE W/N IT IS FOR PUBLIC USE)
Provincial board cannot disapprove on the ground of lack of necessity. [Monday]

If the purpose is socialized housing, follow the order of priority in UDHA,
Estate v. City of Manila, 422 SCRA 551 (2004)
MONDAY….(GENERALLY, ALL ORDINANCES PASSED BY COMPONENT CITIES

AND MUNICIPALITIES ARE SUBJECT FOR REVIEW BY THE SANGGUNIANG
PANGLUNGSOD TO DETERMINE W/N THE SAME ARE IN ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW OR OTHERWISE ULTRA VIRES..).. NOW, THE PROVINCIAL
CANNOT DISAPPROVED THE SAME ON THE GROUND OF LACK OF
NECESITY OR ULTRA VIRES AS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE
EMPOWERS THE LGUS OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN WITHOUT
LIMITATION!
CITY OF MANILA: WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS THAT THE CITY OF MANILA

EXPROPRIATED A PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR SOCIALIZE HOUSING.. IT WAS
IMPUGNED FOR NOT FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF PRIORITY PROVIDED BY
UDHA LAW.. HELD, IF THE PURPOSE IS SOCIALIZED HOUSING, ORDER OF
PRIORITY IN UDHA MUST BE FOLLOWED
Section 9: Eminent Domain
Police Power and Eminent Domain:
1 . If the property is taken in the exercise of eminent domain, the owner is

entitled to compensation, but in police power, he is not .
2. In eminent domain, property is taken for public use, but in police

power, it is destroyed in the interest of public health, safety, morals or public
welfare .
Carlos Superdrug v. DSWD, 526 SCRA 130 (2007)
Theoretically, the treatment of the discount as a deduction reduces the net

income of the private establishments concerned. The discounts given would
have entered the coffers and formed part of the gross sales of the private
establishments, were it not for R.A. No. 9257. The permanent reduction in
their total revenues is a forced subsidy corresponding to the taking of
91 | P a g e
private property for public use or benefit. A tax deduction does not offer full
reimbursement of the senior citizen discount. As such, it would not meet the
definition of just compensation. [Note: The law was sustained as a valid
exercise of police power, however.]
2011 Bar Exam:
86. When the State requires private cemeteries to reserve 10% of their lots for
burial of the poor, it exercises its
A. eminent domain power. BECAUSE YOU DO NOT DESTROY THE PROPERTY

HERE BUT IT MUST BE WITH JUST COMPENSATION
B. zoning power.
C. police power.
D. taxing power.
1993, 5: In expropriation proceedings:
1. What legal interest should be used in the computation of interest on just

compensation? 12% FOREBEARANCE OF MONEY
2. Can the judge validly withhold issuance of the writ of possession until full
payment of the final value of the expropriated property? NO! THE FULL
VALUE SHALL BE PAID ON THE FINAL DECISION
PLEASE NOTE THE REQUISITES BEFORE THE LGU CAN ENTER THE PROPERTY
After filing of complaint,
With notice to owner
Deposit with authorized government depository
Amount equivalent to assess value for taxation purposes [LGC – 15%
1990, 2: The City of Cebu passed an ordinance proclaiming the expropriation of a

10 hectare property of C Company which is already a developed commercial
center. The city proposed to operate the commercial center in order to
finance a housing project for city employees in the vacant portion of the said
property. The ordinance fixed the price of the land and the value of the
improvements to be paid C Company on the basis of the prevailing land
value and cost of construction.
As counsel for c company, give 2 constitutional objections to the validity of the

ordinance.
DETERMINATION OF THE SAME BELONGS TO THE COURTS…
92 | P a g e
THE PURPOSE IS NOT ALREADY FOR PUBLIC USE
The ordinance is void because:
Void, because it constitutes taking of property without just compensation
Void, because the determination of what constitutes just compensation is a

judicial function DETERMINATION OF THE SAME BELONGS TO THE
COURTS… THE OTHER REASON IS THAT IT IS NOT ALREADY FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSE
Valid, because the purpose of the expropriation is to convert the property for
public use
Valid, because the ordinance authorized payment of just compensation
2004, No. 9: The City of San Rafael passed an ordinance authorizing the city
Mayor, assisted by the police, to remove all advertising signs displaced or
exposed to public view in the main city street, for being offensive to sight or
otherwise a nuisance. AM, whose advertising agency owns and rents out
many of the billboards ordered removed by the City Mayor, claims that the
City should pay for the destroyed billboards at their current market value
since the City has appropriated them for the public purpose of city
beautification. The Mayor refuses to pay, so AM is suing the City and the
Mayor for damages arising from the taking of his property without due
process nor just compensation.
Will AM’s suit prosper?
a. yes, because the city is depriving X of property without due process of law and
should pay damage
b. yes, because the city is exercising its power of eminent domain and taking
private property without just compensation
c. no, because the city is exercising its police power of abating a nuisance
BECAUSE IT DID NOT APPROPRIATE THE PROPERTY BUT DESTROYED
THE SAME FOR PURPOSES OF PUBLIC SAFETY OR FOR BEING A
NUISANCE. NOTE THAT in police power, THE PROPERTY IS destroyed in the
interest of public health, safety, morals or public welfare .
d. no, because the right to property is not absolute and may be restricted by law
1989, No. 16: A law provides that in the event of expropriation, the amount to be
paid to a landowner as compensation shall be either the sworn valuation
93 | P a g e
made by the owner or the official assessment thereof, whichever is lower.

Can the landowner successfully challenge the law in court? Discuss briefly
your answer.
YES. 1. DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTE JUST COMPENSATION IS

VESTED TO THE COURTS
2. SINCE THIS INVOLVES TAKING OF A PROPERTY, A PERSON CANNOT BE

DEPRIVED OF THE SAME WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW… THE OWNER
MUST BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE AS TO THE VALUE OF HIS
PROPERTY
1996, 4: The City of Pasig initiated expropriation proceedings on a one hectare

lot which is part of a 10-hectare parcel of land devoted to the growing of
vegetables. The purpose of the expropriation is to sue the land as a
relocation site for 200 families squatting along the Pasig river.
1. Can the owner of the property oppose the expropriation on the ground that
only 200 out of the more than 10,000 squatter families in Pasig will benefit
from the expropriation? NO! SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND NUMBER OF
BENEFICIARIES IS NOT THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR SO LONG AS THERE
IS Indirect advantage or benefit to the public,, SO LONG AS IT IS FOR
PUBLIC USE…
2. Can DAR require the city to first secure and authority before converting the
use of the land from agricultural to housing? NO! BECAUSE IT WILL
AMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION AS TO W/N A THE PURPOSE IS FOR
PUBLIC USE WHICH IS WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF THE JUDICIARY…
1987, No. 16: Pasay City filed an expropriation proceedings against several
landowners for the construction of an aqueduct for flood control on a
barangay. Clearly, only the residents of that barangay would be benefited by
the project. Is the expropriation proper? YES! CONSTRUCTION OF
AQUEDUCT FOR FLOOD CONTROL IS PUBLIC USE.. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN
DIFFERENT HAD IT BEEN FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION!
1992, No. 11: The PCO, a government agency, wishes to establish a direct
computer and fax linkup with trading centers in the US. The advanced
technology of a private company, PCT, is necessary for that purpose but
negotiations between the parties have failed. The Republic, in behalf of the
PCO, files suit to compel the telecommunications company to execute a
contract with PCO for PCOs access and use of the company’s facilities.
Decide. If the case will not prosper, what alternative will you propose to the
Republic?
THE SUIT MUST FAIL.. YOU CANNOT COMPEL ANOTHER TO ENTER INTO
94 | P a g e
CONTRACT WITH YOU BECAUSE IT WILL VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLE

GOVERNING CONTRACTS.. THERE MUST BE CONSENT BETWEEN PARTIES…
HOWEVER, YOU CAN FILE A EXPOPRIATION PROCEEDINGS BY TAKING BY
HAVING DIRECT COMPUTER AND FAX LINKUP SYSTEM WITHOUT
TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION.. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS
IMPAIRMENT OF USE OF PROPERTY
2008, No. 4: The Congress passed a law authorizing the authorizing the NHAto
expropirate or acquire private property for the redevelopment of slum areas,
as well as to lease or resell the property to private developers to carry out
the redevelopment plan. Pursuant to the law, the NHA acquired all the
properties within a targeted badly blighted areas in San Nicolas, manila,
except a well-maintained drug and convenience store that poses no blight or
health problem itself. Thereafter, NHA sold the properties it has thus far
acquired to a private realty company for redevelopment. Thus, the NHA
initiated expropriation proceedings against the store owner who protested
that his property could not be taken because it is not residential or slum
housing. He also contended that his property is being condemned for a
private purpose, not a public one, noting the NHA’s sale of the entire area
except his property to a private party. If you were the judge, how would you
decide the case?ANSWER NEXT SLIDE!!!
The act of the NHA of entering into a contract with a real estate developer for the
construction of low cost housing on the expropriated lots cannot be taken to
mean as a deviation from the stated public purpose of their taking.
Jurisprudence has it that the expropriation of private land for slum clearance
and urban development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is
later sold to homeowners, commercial firms, service companies and other
private concerns. Moreover, the Constitution itself allows the State to
undertake, for the common good, and in cooperation with the private sector,
a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make at
affordable cost decent housing to homeless citizens. It follows that the low
cost housing of the NHA on the expropriated lots is consistent with the
public use requirement
Reyes vs. NHA, 395 SCRA 495 (2003)
The act of the NHA of entering into a contract with a real estate developer for
the construction of low cost housing on the expropriated lots cannot be
taken to mean as a deviation from the stated public purpose of their taking.
Jurisprudence has it that the expropriation of private land for slum clearance
and urban development is for a public purpose even if the developed area is
later sold to homeowners, commercial firms, service companies and other
private concerns. Moreover, the Constitution itself allows the State to
95 | P a g e
undertake, for the common good, and in cooperation with the private sector,
a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make at
affordable cost decent housing to homeless citizens. It follows that the low
cost housing of the NHA on the expropriated lots is consistent with the
public use requirement. STRANGE DECISION PER DEAN
III, 2009
The Municipality of Bulalakaw, Leyte, passed Ordinance No. 1234, authorizing

the expropriation of two parcels of land situated in the poblacion as the site
of a freedom park, and appropriating the funds needed therefor. Upon
review, the |Sangguniang Panlalawigan of Leyte disapproved the ordinance
because the municipality has an existing freedom park which, though
smaller in size, is still suitable for the purpose, and to pursue expropriation
would be needless expenditure of the people's money. Is the disapproval of
the ordinance correct? Explain your answer. (2%)
THE SANGGUNIANG PANLALAWIGAN CANNOT REVIEW NOR REJECT THE

EXPROPRIATION ORDINANCE OF A LOCALITY ON THE GROUND OF
NECESSITY.. LGUS ARE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
CODE TO EXPROPRIATE WITHOUT LIMITATION BY THE PROVINCIAL
BOARD ( READ MONDAY CASE)
2009, XVII
Filipinas Computer Corporation (FCC), a local manufacturer of computers and

computer parts, owns a sprawling plant in a 5,000-square meter lot in Pasig
City. To remedy the city's acute housing shortage, compounded by a
burgeoning population, the Sangguniang Panglungsod authorized the City
Mayor to negotiate for the purchase of the lot. The Sanggunian intends to
subdivide the property into small residential lots to be distributed at cost to
qualified city residents. But FCC refused to sell the lot. Hard pressed to find
a suitable property to house its homeless residents, the City filed a
complaint for eminent domain against FCC.
If FCC hires you as lawyer, what defense or defenses would you set up in order
to resist the expropriation of the property? Explain. (5%) FIRST, THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY PASIG CITY IS NOT VALID AS THERE WAS NO
ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAYOR TO FILE EXPROPRIATION
PROCEEDING.. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CITY MAYOR IS ONLY
AUTHORIZED TO NEGOTIATE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LOT.. NOT
ENOUGH AUTHORITY. SECONDLY, SINCE THE PURPOSE IS SOCIALIZED
HOUSING, THE CITY GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE FOLLOWED THE
ORDER OF PRIORITY OF UHDA. IT SHOULD HAVE FIRST EXPROPRIATED
OTHER TYPES OF PROPERTY BEFORE PRIVATE PROPERTIES
96 | P a g e
If the Court grants the City's prayer for expropriation, but the City delays payment
of the amount determined by the court as just compensation, can FCC
recover the property from Pasig City? Explain. (2%) DELAY IN PAYMENT OF
THE AMOUNT OF JUST COMPENSATION IS NOT A GROUND FOR
RECOVERY OF PROPERTY.. YOU ARE ONLY ENTITLED WITH INTEREST
FROM THE TIME OF TAKING!
Suppose the expropriation succeeds, but the City decides to abandon its plan to
subdivide the property for residential purposes having found a much bigger
lot, can FCC legally demand that it be allowed to repurchase the property
from the City of Pasig? Why or why not? (2%)
ALL EXPROPRATIONS ARE CONSIDERED CONDITION IN THAT THE MOMENT

THE GOVERNMENT ABANDONED THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT
WAS EXPROPRIATED, RECOVERY MAY BE HAD BY THE OWNER PROVIDED
BY PAYING THE VALUE OF JUST COMPENSATION RECEIVED WHEN IT
WAS EXPROPRIATED!
2010, XIII
True or False.
A valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre-requisite to expropriation

initiated by a local government unit. (0.5%)
TRUE!!! valid and definite offer to buy a property is a pre-requisite to

expropriation initiated by a local government unit BECAUSE OF NECESSITY..
BECAUSE IF THE OWNER WOULD BE WILLING, THERE IS NO NEED FOR
THE INSTITUTION OF EXPROPRIATION PROCEEDINGS!!!
Section 10: Impairment of Contracts
No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be enacted.
WHEN DOES A LAW IMPAIRS ?
A law impairs the obligations of contracts when it changes the terms of the
contract:
1 . In time or mode of performance; MORATORIUM FOR PAYMENT OF

DEBTS (CHANGES THE TIME OR MODE OF PERFORMANCE)
2. Imposes new conditions; (EXAMPLE, THE LGU PROCURED A

NON-AIRCONDITIONED DUMPTRUCK, LATER THE LAW WAS PASSED
REQUIRING ALL UNITS TO BE AICONDITIONED! THE LAW CANNOT BE
MADE TO APPLY AS IT IMPOSES NEW CONDITIONS!
97 | P a g e
3. Dispenses with those expressed; EX. THE CONTRACT ENTERED INTO

STIPULATES 10% INTEREST. . NOW THE LATER LAW PROVIDES FOR THE
ANNULMENT OF ANY INTEREST.. THAT LAW CANNOT BE APPLIED AS IT
DISPENSES WITH THOSE EXPRESSED (REVOKES CONDITIONS)
4. Authorizes for its satisfaction something different . THIS HAPPENS

WHEN A LAW PROVIDES FOR THE SATISFACTION OF A DEBT BY SERVICE
INSTEAD OF PAYMENT OF CASH….
Basic Principles
Police power, eminent domain and taxation are superior to non-impairment

[Republic v. Pagadian Timber, 565 SCRA 260 (2008)/IFMA; Republic v.
RMDC, 426 SCRA 517 (2004) exploration/mining permit] REPUBLIC-
MINING PERMITS CAN BE IMPAIRED BY EO OR LAW BECAUSE
APPARENTLY THESE ARE ONLY PRIVILEGES AND PRIVILEGES CAN BE
WITHDRAWN BY THE STATE.. AND POLICE POWER IS SUPERIOR TO
NON-IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
Freedom of religion is superior (IGLESIA ELIZALDE CASE: CLOSE SHOP

AGREEMENT CANNOT PREVAIL THE RIGHT OF RELIGION INVOKED BY
A WORKER..)
Can be invoked only against statutes, ordinances, but not against (JUDICIAL)
quasi-judicial acts [BPI Case – rehabilitation)- THIS CASE INVOLVED SEC
ORDERING THE SECURITIES OF LOANS IN A BANK UNDER
REHABILITATION TO BE PAID DACION EN PAGO… IT WAS IMPUGNED
FOR BEING VIOLATIVE TO NON IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE.. HELD.. YOU
CANNOT INVOKED THE SAME AGAINST QUASI JUDICIAL ACTS, THE
SEC..
Usual answers/cases
There is no contract to speak of [Gonzalo, Picop (TLA ), Lim v. Pacquing]

(TIMBER) LICENCES AND PERMITS ARE ONLY PRIVILEGES GIVEN BY
THE STATE.. IN FACT IT CAN BE WITHDRAWN BY THE STATE
Police power, etc.. is superior [Caleon v. Agus (sub-leasing), La Insular, Beltran

[United BF Homeowners v. Mayor] USUALLY SUBLEASING CONTRACT
MAY BE ENTERED BY PARTIES WHEREBY THE LESSEE MAY SUBLEASE
THE PROPERTY.. THE A LAW CAME AVOIDING OR TERMINATING ANY
SUBLEASING AGREEMENT… CAN IT BE DONE WITH RETROACTIVE
EFFECT? YES POLICE POWER IS SUPERIOR OVER NON IMPAIRMENT
CLAUSE
BELTRAN-LAW WAS PASSED ABOLISHING PRIVATE BLOOD BANKS. THIS WAS
98 | P a g e
IMPUGNED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WIL IMPAIR THE CONTRATS BY PBB

WITH HOSPITALS.. HELD: POLICE POWER IS SUPERIOR OVER NON
IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE
Contract was not impaired [Siska (notice or rescission), Hontanosas]-USUALLY

GOVT EMPLOYEES OBTAINS LOAN BY EXECUTING SPA AUTHORIZING
LENDERS TO GET THEIR SALARY AS PAYMENT THEREOF… HENCE,
CSC WAS ALARMED PROMPTING IT TO ISSUE CIRCULAR DECLARING
SUCH SPECIAL POWER OF AUTHORITY NULL AND VOID!!! HELD… THE
CIRCULAR IS VALID AS THEIR CONTRACT WAS NOT IMPAIRED…
REMEMBER THAT THE CONTRACT IS THE PAYMENT OF LOAN.. IT WAS
NOT IMPAIRED AS ANY OF THE REQUISITES IS NOT PRESENT.. THE
OBLIGATION OF THE EMPLOYEE CAN STILL BE PAID BUT NOT
THROUGH THIS MANNER AS IT PREJUDICED THE WORK
PERFORMANCE OF THE EMPLOYEE
SISKA- I ENTER A CONTRACT WITH YOU FOR A SALE OF LOT. .. THE LAW
CAME PROVIDING THAT A NOTICE OF RECISSION MUST BE HAD
BEFORE A CONTRACT MAY BE RESCINDED.. HELD.. THE CONTRACT
WAS NOT IMPAIRED.. THE LAW DOES NOT IMPAIR THE SUBSTANCE
OF THE CONTRACT.. IT IS ONLY A MANNER OF ENFORCING THE
CONTRACT… IT CAN BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT
Law is not retroactive [Banat/Serrano]
REMEMBER THAT ALL LAWS HAVE PROSPECTIVE EFFECT.. UNLESS

EXPRESSLY MADE TO APPLY RETROACTIVELY!!!!!
Serrano v. Gallant, 582 SCRA 254 (2009)
Sec. 10, of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 8042, states:
Sec. 10. Money Claims. - x x x In case of termination of overseas employment

without just, valid or authorized cause as defined by law or contract, the
workers shall be entitled to the full reimbursement of his placement fee with
interest of twelve percent (12%) per annum, plus his salaries for the
unexpired portion of his employment contract or for three (3) months for
every year of the unexpired term, whichever is less. “
HELD: FIRST THE LAW IS NOT MADE TO APPLY RETROACTIVELY
SECONDLY, EVEN ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT IT HAS RETROACTIVE

EFFECT, POLICE POWER IS SUPERIOR TO NON IMPAIRMENT CLAUSE!!!
99 | P a g e
Bar Q: No. 18, 2001:: Pedro bought a parcel of land from Smart Corp., a realty
firm engaged in developing and selling lots to the public. One of the
restrictions in the deed of sale which was annotated in the title is that the lot
shall be used by the buyer exclusively for residential purposes. A main
highway having been constructed across the subdivision, the area became
commercial in nature. The municipality later passed a zoning ordinance
declaring the area as commercial. Pedro constructed a commercial bank
building on his lot. Smart Corp went to court to stop him because he is
violating the restriction imposed on the contract and title. The corporation
contends that the zoning ordinance cannot nullify the contractual obligation
assumed by the buyer. Decide.
The ordinance is void because it impaired a contract
The ordinance is valid because the contract has been consummated and no
longer exists between Smart Corp and Pedro
The ordinance is valid because, being an exercise of police power by the

municipality, it is superior to the non-impairment clause of the
Constitution- REMEMBER THAT A ZONING ORDINANCE IS ALWAYS
CONSIDERED A POLICE POWER
The ordinance is valid because it did not impair the terms of the contract
between Smart Corp and Pedro
Sec. 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.
IT EXPANDED THE COVERAGE BY INCLUDING QUASI JUDICIAL AND

ADEQUATE ASSISTANCE!!!!!
Sec. 12. Custodial Investigation
Any person under custodial 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,
100 | P a g e
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. (EXCLUSIONARY RULE)
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to the rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families. (THE ONLY NON SELF-EXECUTING
PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION)
2011 Bar Exam:
20. After X, a rape suspect, was apprised of his right to silence and to counsel,
he told the investigators that he was waiving his right to have his own counsel or
to be provided one. He made his waiver in the presence of a retired Judge
who was assigned to assist and explain to him the consequences of such
waiver. Is the waiver valid?
A. No, the waiver was not reduced in writing.
B. Yes, the mere fact that the lawyer was a retired judge does not cast doubt on
his competence and independence.
C. Yes, the waiver was made voluntarily, expressly, and with assistance of
counsel.
D. No, a retired Judge is not a competent and independent counsel.
Topics:
1. When right attaches
2. Counsel of Choice
3. Waiver
4. Exclusionary Rule
When right to counsel attaches ? WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR STARTS TO ASK

QUESTIONS WHICH TENDS TO INCRIMINATE YOU
The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation, i.e . ,

when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information
and/or confessions or admissions from the accused. At such point or state,
the persons being interrogated must be assisted by counsel to avoid the
pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or confessions
101 | P a g e
from the lips of the person undergoing interrogations for the commission of
an offense. ( PEOPLE VS. DIMAANO )
In which instance should a suspect be warned of his right to remain silent and to
counsel?
a. investigation by the Legal Officer of the Civil Service Commission of an

employee who falsified his eligibility papers-ADMIN INVESTIGATION AND
NOT CUSTODIAL
b. investigation done by a Bantay-Bayan member of a suspected robber- A

BANTAY BAYAN MEMBER IS AGENT OF THE STATE LIKE A POLICE
OFFICER
c. investigation by a company lawyer of a detained employee suspected of
theft- A COMPANY LAWYER IS A PRIVATE PERSON
d. investigation by a TV crew of a recently arrested rapist inside his cell- THE

INTERVIEWER IS A PRIVATE PERSON
In which instance is the presence of counsel required:
a. signing by a suspect of a marked money taken from him after a buy bust
operation
b. service and execution against him of a search warrant
c. appearance in a police line up to enable the victim to identify the culprit
d. signing of a receipt of items taken from him as a consequence of a search

by virtue of a warrant
1. If the police obtains confession without counsel orally, and later reduces it
into writing with the assistance of counsel, is the written confession
admissible? [Bandula, Quidato, Mojello] NO! THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL
ATTACHES WHEN THE INVESTIGATOR STARTS TO ASK QUESTIONS
WHICH TENDS TO INCRIMINATE THE PERSON!!! AT THE START OF THE
INVESTIGATION!!!
2. Are voluntary admissions or res gestae statements covered? [Dy, but

Arondain] HERE, A PERSON IN BORACAY VOLUNTARILY WENT TO THE
POLICE STATION AND ADMITTED TO HAVE SHOT A TOURIST- HELD- THIS
IS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF RES GESTAE STATEMENTS-YOU ARE NOT
102 | P a g e
ENTTILED TO COUNSEL
3. Is a person placed in a police line up entitled to counsel?[Pavillare, Hatton, but

Macam] HERE, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO COUNSEL BECAUSE YOU, THE
PERSON, PLACED IN THE LINE UP IS NOT THE ONE UNDER
INVESTIGATION FOR PURPOSES OF IDENTIFICATION!! YOU ARE NOT THE
ONE BEING INVESTIGATED, IT IS THE WITNESS WHO IS BEING
INVESTIGATED!. HOWEVER, AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN SUBJECTED TO
INVESTIGATION AND PLACED IN A POLICE LINED UP, YOU ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO COUNSEL
4. Is an interview given to a TV or radio reporter covered by the right to counsel?

[Espejo, Taboga, Endino] NO! ADMISSION GIVEN TO A RADIO TV
REPORTER (A PRIVATE PERSON) IS ADMISSIBLE.. YOU ARE NOT
ENTITLED TO RIGHT TO COUNSEL
5. Are Filipinos detained in a foreign country but later on tried in the Philippines
entitled to the right if investigated abroad? [Gomez]
THIS INVOLVED A PERSON CHARGED OF DANGEROUS DRUGS VIOLATIONS..

HE WAS ARRESTED AND INVESTIGATED IN HONKONG BY FILIPINO
INVESTIGATORS WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF A COUNSEL- HELD- YOU
ARE ENTITLED TO A LAWYER THERE.. HENCE IT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE
6. When a suspect is made to sign receipts of articles taken from him, is he

entitled to counsel?[Linsagna, Li Wai ching, Gutang] YES! YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. THIS THE VERY EASY AND CLEVER WAY FOR
THE POLICE TO INCRIMINATE YOU OR TO HAVE YOU ADMITTED TO A
CRIME… FOR INSTANCE, THE POLICE SEARCH YOU WITH OR WITHOUT A
WARRANT, AND THEY FOUND SHABU FROM YOU.. IF YOU ARE MADE TO
SIGN WITHOUT A COUNSEL, IT IS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THAT IS ONE
WAY OF OBTAINING CONFESSION FROM YOU … BUT ONLY THE RECEIPT
WILL BE IN ADMISSIBLE.. THEIR TESTIMONY CAN BE ADMITTED AGAINST
YOU
7. What about if he is made to sign a marked money taken from him in a buybust
operation? YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. IT IS ADMISSIBLE…
BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT BEING CHARGED WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
MONEY BUT WITH ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUGS..
8. Can pictures of a reenactment taken without counsel be admitted in evidence?

[Olvis] NO! YOU ARE ENTITLED RIGHT TO COUNSEL WHEN THERE IS
REENACTMENT! HENCE, ANY PICTURES TAKEN WITHOUT COUNSEL, IT IS
INADMISSIBLE
103 | P a g e
9. In an administrative investigation, is a person entitled to counsel? Lumiqued,

Sebastian/postal, Remolina/CSC, Ting Lan Uy/NPC, Salonga/Metrobank- A
FACT FINDING COMMITTEE CONDUCTED AN INVESTIGATION AGAINST
THE DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR OR ANY ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATION…
HELD.. IT CAN BE ADMITTED BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT BEING
INVESTIGATED FOR THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME.. YOU ARE BEING
INVESTIGATED FOR PURPOSES OF DISMISSING YOU OR FOR
DISCIPLINARY MEASURES.. HENCE, IT CAN BE ADMITTED IN COURT, IN
LABOR OR IN ANY TRIBUNAL.. IT CAN BE USED ANYWHERE
10. Are you entitled to counsel when you are only invited or interviewed? [Tan,
Sequino] YES! THERE IS NO INVESTIGATION BETWEEN INVITATION OR
INTERVIEW!!! YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. OTHERWISE ANY
ADMISSION ELICITED FROM YOU WITHOUT COUNSEL, SHALL BE
INADMISSIBLE! SO LONG AS YOU ARE UNDER THE POLICE CUSTODY, YOU
ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL
11. Investigation by Barangay Tanod? [Malngan] By bantay bayan? [Lauga, 2010]

INVESTIGATION BY A BRGY. TANOD IS COVERED BECAUSE THEY ARE
AGENTS OF THE STATE.. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL
Summary: Custodial Investigation
1. Suspect must be in custody, either in jail or deprived of your freedom in a

significant way
2. Under investigation, questioning initiated by officers having custody in

relation to an offense [NC Construction, Malngan] (COMPANY LAWYER IS
NOT COVERED.. HE IS NOT AN OFFICER HAVING CUSTODY OF A PERSON)
NOTE! ONCE THESE REQUISITES CONCUR, YOU ARE DEEMED TO BE IN

CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SU
People v. Bokingo, 655 SCRA 313 (2011)
Accused was charged with murder. During the preliminary investigation, he

admitted killing the victim, which admission was taken down by the
prosecutor’s stenographer. Is the admission admissible?
NO!!!! NOTE THAT IN THE PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION FOR PURPOSES OF

DETERMINING W/N THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE, WHILE THE FISCAL IS A
PUBLIC OFFICER WHO CONDUCTS THE SAME, HE IS NOT THE PERSON IN
CUSTODY OF THE PERSON CHARGED.. HENCE, THE PERSON IS ENTITLED
104 | P a g e
TO COUNSEL… ANY ADMISSION MADE THEREIN WITHOUT COUNSEL IS

INADMISSIBLE
Jesalva v. People, 640 SCRA 253 (2011)
After accused learned that he was a suspect in a murder case, he went to

the police station, accompanied by his cousin who was a prosecutor. He
told the police that the victim jumped from his vehicle. Can the admission,
without the assistance of a lawyer, be used as circumstantial evidence that
he was with the victim the night she was stabbed?
VOLUNTARY STATEMENTS MADE IN THE POLICE STATIONS ARE ADMISSIBLE

EVEN WITHOUT A LAWYER BECAUSE THEY ARE PART OF RES GESTAE.. IT
IS NOT COVERED TO THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL…DY CASE PREVIOUS
SLIDE.. NOTE THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT ADMISSIONS OR
STATEMENTS BE MADE IN WRITING APPLIES ONLY IN CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION.. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE STATEMENTS MADE WAS
VOLUNTARY AND PART OF RES GESTAE!
Abad Sample: A person walks into a police station and declares that he has
committed a crime before the police could take him into custody. May
his declaration be admitted against him?
No since he has not been forewarned of his rights to silence and to counsel
Yes, since he made his declaration before he could be taken into custody and
investigated MOST APPROPRIATE ANSWER!!!!
No, since he has entered the police station and came within its jurisdiction
Yes since he freely gave his declaration to the police
2002, No. 8-Dante Galang was arrested and investigated by the police without
counsel. In the course thereof, he admitted ownership of the shabu taken
inside his handbag. The NBI made him sign a receipt for the plastic bag and
its shabu contents. Is the receipt admissible? [Also 1993/4]
NO! THE RECEIPT IS INADMISSIBLE… RECEIPT IS COVERED.. YOU ARE

ENTITLED TO COUNSEL.. THIS THE VERY EASY AND CLEVER WAY FOR
THE POLICE TO INCRIMINATE YOU OR TO HAVE YOU ADMITTED TO A
CRIME
1997, No. 10: C and D were placed in a police line-up as robbery suspects. The
complainant was able to identify them as the robbers.
Was their identification without the assistance of counsel valid?[Also 1993,

105 | P a g e
No. 9] YES! THEY ARE ENTITLED TO COUNSEL… VERIFY THIS WITH DEAN!!
1990, No. 9. Police operatives searched the house of X for firearms by virtue
of a search warrant. May X successfully challenge the search on the ground
that the peace officers did not inform him of his right to remain silent and
his right to counsel?
NO! RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT AND HIS

RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS REQUIRED ONLY IF A PERSON IS IN COSTUDIAL
INVESTIGATION!! SEARCH WARRANT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION!!!!!
No. 14, 1993: The S/S Masoy of Panamanian registry, while moored at the South
Harbor, was found to have contraband goods on board. The customs Team
found out that the vessel did not have the required ship’s permit for shipping
documents. The vessel and its cargo wee 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 resident agent executed sworn
statements before the customs legal officer admitting that the contraband
cargo were found aboard the vessel. The shipping lines object to the
admission fo the statements contending that the two were not assisted by
counsel? Are the statements admissible?
YES! THE STATEMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE.. THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE

PROCEEDINGS OR INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED BY CUSTOMS OFFICER
(NOT BY A POLICE) IN A SIEZURE AND DETENTION PROCEEDINGS.... THE
STATEMENTS MADE CAN BE USED ANYWHERE
Abad Sample: The police nabbed two robbery suspects whom they convinced
during investigation to go with them to the scene of the crime to reenact
how they committed it. Is the reenactment admissible in evidence?
No, since it amounts to a waiver of right to silence without the advice of counsel
NOTE THAT REENACTMENT AMOUNTS TO ADMISSION…. HENCE
RIGHT TO COUNSEL IS A MUST
Yes, since the reenactment was voluntary
No, since it is irrelevant evidence
106 | P a g e
Yes, since reenactment was unaccompanied by any statement from the

suspects
2. Counsel of Choice
Only lawyers are qualified- Ordono (NOT PARISH PRIEST!): Rules on choice:
1. Suspect can choose his lawyer,
2. If police chooses someone, and he expressly agrees to the lawyer given to

him, he is deemed counsel of choice of the suspect. [Parojinog, Pamon]
3. Likewise, if police chooses someone and you agree to be investigated without
objection, counsel is deemed the choice of accused.
Lumanog v. People, 630 SCRA 42 (2010)
Accused, a suspect in the killing of Col. Abadilla, was assisted by a lawyer

provided to him by police investigators. He confessed with the lawyer’s
assistance. Was the lawyer a counsel of choice by the accused?
YES!!! if police chooses someone and you agree to be investigated without

objection, counsel is deemed the choice of accused.
2005, Bo. 8: Mariano was arrested by the NBI as a suspect in the shopping mall
bombings. Advised of his rights, Mariano asked for the assistance of his
relative, Atty. Santos. The NBI noticed that Atty. Santos was inexperienced,
incompetent and inattentive. Deeming him unsuited to protect the rights of
Mariano, the NBI dismissed Atty. Santos. Appointed in his place was Atty.
Barroso, a bar topnothcer who was in the premises visiting a relative. Atty.
Barroso ably assisted Mariano when the latter gave a statement. However,
Mariano assailed the investigation claiming that he was deprived of counsel
of his choice.
Was the NBI correct in dismissing Atty. Santos and appointing Atty. Barroso in
his stead? Is Mariano’s statement, made with the assistance of Atty.
Barroso, admissible in evidence?
yes, because the right to choose counsel belongs to the investigator
yes, because by failing to object to the lawyer assigned to him, that lawyer is
considered as his choice NOTE if police chooses someone and you
agree to be investigated without objection, counsel is deemed the choice
of accused.
yes, because the lawyer assigned to him was a Bar Topnocher
107 | P a g e
no, because after the suspect has exercise his right to choose a lawyer, the
police cannot replace him with another
Counsel must be competent(MEMBER OF THE BAR) and independent(YOU ARE

NOT WORKING FOR THE POLICE), effective and vigilant. Who are not
deemed independent?
1. Prosecutors- [Matus Viduya, RA 7438 B PROSECUTORS ARE PRESUMED TO

BE PSYCHOLOGICALLY WANT TO CONVICT PEOPLE!! PROHIBITED!
2. Those conducting preliminary investigations [7438] ALL LAWYERS OF THE

OMBUDSMAN, WHILE THEY ARE NOT PROSECUTORS, THEY CONDUCT
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION!!! COMELEC LAWYERS ALSO CONDUCT
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS- PROHIBITED UNDER 7438
3. City, Municipal and Provincial attorneys [Espanola, Culala] IT IS BECAUSE

THESE PEOPLE ASSIST THE MAYORS OR THE LCES IN THE PEACE AND
ORDER IN THEIR RESPECTIVE LOCALITY.. THEY ARE NOT EXPECTED TO
BE NEUTRAL (MAY BE PRESUMED TO BE WORKING FOR THE POLICE)
4. Mayors and Barangay Captains who are lawyers (ALSO

GOVERNORS)[Tomaquin/Velarde]
5. Policemen who are lawyers [Obero] POLICEMENT ARE NOT INDEPENDENT..

NOT OBJECTIVE!!!!!
PTC MP
Who has the burden of proving that accused was assisted by an effective and
vigilant counsel?
The right to counsel has been written into our Constitution in order to
prevent the use of duress and other undue influence in extracting
confessions from a suspect in a crime. The lawyer’s role cannot be reduced
to being that of a mere witness to the signing of a pre-prepared confession,
even if it indicated compliance with the constitutional rights of the accused.
The accused is entitled to effective, vigilant and independent counsel.
Where the prosecution failed to discharge the State’s burden of proving with
clear and convincing evidence that the accused had enjoyed effective and
vigilant counsel before he extrajudicially admitted his guilt, the extrajudicial
confession cannot be given any probative value.
SO THE BURDEN REST ON THE PROSECUTOR TO PROVE THAT THE COUNSEL

OF THE SUSPEK IS VIGILANT AND EFFECTIVE!!!!!!
1996, No 3: A, who was arrested by the police in a murder case, was not
108 | P a g e
represented by counsel during the question and answer stage. However,

before he was asked to sign his statements to the police investigator, the
latter provided A with counsel, who happened to be at the police station.
After conferring with A, the counsel told the police investigator that A was
ready to sign the statements.
Can the statements of A be presented in court as his confession? Explain.

[Lucero and Ruos]
NO! THE STATEMENT OF A CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS HIS CONFESSION
FIRST, THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL ATTACHES AT THE START OF THE

INVESTIGATION…
THE COUNSEL WAS NOT EFFECTIVE AND VIGILANT AS HE CAME ONLY LATER
PART OF THE INVESTIGATION
EFFECTIVE AND VIGILIANT– A LAWYER THOUGH PRESENT DURING THE

CONDUCT OF THE CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION WAS DOING SOMETHING,
OPENING THE DOOR, LOOKIJNG AT THE WINDOW, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE
VIGILANT AND EFFECTIVE!!!!
1993, No. 17: In his extrajudicial confession executed before the police
authorities, Jose Walangtakot admitted killing his girlfriend in a fit of
jealousy. This admission was made after the following answer and question
to wit:
T: Ikaw ay may karapatan pa rin kumuha ng serbesyo ng isang abogado poara

kmakatulong mo sa inmbestigasyong ito at kung wala kang makuha, ikaw
ay aming bibigyan ng libreng abogado, ano ngayon and iyong masasabi?
S: Nandiyan naman po si Fiscal kaya hindi kn na knakailangan ang abogado?
Is the confession admissible
NO! THE CONFESSION IS INADMISSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE

COUNSEL OF CHOICE WAS NOT 7438 TO ASSIST SUSPECTS IN
CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATIONS!!!
III. Waiver: Requisites (THIS IS WAIVER OF RIGHT TO COUNSEL)
1. Must be in writing
2. Must be made in the presence of counsel (NOTE THAT IT NEED NOT BE

SIGNED BY THE COUNSEL)
3. After a valid waiver, confession itself must be signed in the presence of the
109 | P a g e
parent, brother, sister, spouse, mayor, judge, supervisor or priest… [RA 7438]
PSBS MJSP
TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO COERCION!!
4. [It must be voluntary.] IT MUST NOT BE A PRODUCT OF TORTURE
WHAT WILL HAPPEN HERE IS THAT AFTER THE SUSPECT HAS INDICATED HIS
WAIVER, THE WAIVER MUST BE SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE
COUNSEL.. AFTER THAT, THE COUNSEL MAY NOW LEAVE THE PERSON
AND INVESTIGATION AND CONFESSION WITHOUT A LAWYER MAY NOW
PROCEED.. NOTE HOWEVER THAT THE SIGNING OF THE CONFESSION
MUST BE MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PERSON UNDER RA 7438…
THIS IS TO AVOID COERCION!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IV. Exclusionary Rule – Confessions which are covered-
1. Uncounselled confession
2. Obtained through force torture, violence and other means that vitiates the will
(NOTE THAT EVEN IF THE CONFESSION IS MADE WITH ASSISTANCE OF
COUNSEL, IT WILL STILL BE INADMISSIBLE IF IT IS PROCURED THROUGH
MEANS WHICH VITIATES CONSENT OR TORTURE… OR WHEN THE
SUSPECT IS PROMISED THAT HE WILL BE GIVEN LENIENCY OR
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE… CONFESSIONS OBTAINED AFTER OR THE
PERSON IS DRUNK.. CONFESSIONS OBTAINED THROUGH HYPNOTISM OR
WHEN HE MADE IT HE WAS HYPNOTIZED BECAUSE THE PERSON IS
REALLY NOT ACTING IN HIS WILL. THOUGH THESE ARE NOT THROUGH
FORCE, IT VITIATES ONE’S WILL
3. Oral confession [7438] (ALL CONFESSIONS HAVE TO BE IN WRITING TO BE

ADMISSIBLE) IF IT IS UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION, IT HAS TO BE IN
WRITING) NOTE, ORAL CONFESSION NOT UNDER CUSTODIAL
INVESTIGATION IS ADMISSIBLE AS PART OF RES GESTAE)
4. Those obtained after a valid waiver (MEANING WITH ASSISTANCE OF

COUNSEL WHEN HE MADE THE WRITTEN WAIVER) but not signed in the
presence of brother, sister, parent, spouse or etc.. THIS IS FOR BEING
VIOLATIVE TO RA 7438
Scope of indmissiblity- OR CANNOT BE USED OR ADMITTED AGAINST)
1. Against confessant
2. Against third persons (THIS HAPPENS WHEN THE CONFESSANT

IMPLICATES OTHER PERSONS FOR THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME)-IT
CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THAT PERSON
110 | P a g e
3. Applies to objects taken (AS A CONSEQUENCE OF INADMISSIBLE OR

ILLEGAL CONFESSION) FOR INSTANCE, AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE
SAME, I CONFESSED THAT THERE IS A SHABU AT MY APARTMENT, OR
THE MURDER WEAPON I PLACED IN THE BACKYARD.. THAT CANNOT BE
ADMITTED AS EVIDENCE AS IT WILL NOW BE CONSIDERED AS FRUITS OF
THE POISONOUS TREE!!! AS OBTAINED AFTER INVALID CONFESSION!!
4. For any purpose in any proceedings (RA 7438)
IT CANNOT BE USED IN LABOR, CIVIL, ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS…

NOTE HOWEVER THAT CONFESSIONS OBTAINED UNDER
ADMINSTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS EVEN WITHOUT A LAWYER, IT CAN BE
USED IN ANY PROCEEDINGS… THIS IS EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF THOSE
OBTAINED UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION!!!
No. 9, 2001: Rafael, Carlos and Joseph were accused of murder before the RTC
of Manila. Accused Joseph turned state witness against his co-accused
Rafael and Carlos, and was accordingly discharged from the information.
Among the evidence presented by the prosecution was an extrajudicial
confession made by Joseph during the custodial investigation, implicating
Rafael and Carlos who, he said, together with him committed the crime. The
extrajudicial confession was executed without the assistance of counsel.
Accused Rafael and Carlos vehemently objected on the ground that said
extrajudicial confession is inadmissible in evidence against them.
Which is correct?
(a) The confession of Joseph is admissible against Rafael and Carlos
(b) The confession of Joseph is admissible against himself
© If Joseph repeats his story in open court, his oral testimony will be
admissible against Rafael and Carlos THIS WILL BE CORRECT IN VIEW OF
THE FACT ONCE THE TESTIMONY IS BEING REPEATED DURING THE
TRIAL, IT WILL BE ADMISSIBLE SINCE IT IS NOT CONFESSION THAT IS
BEING PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE. MOREOVER, THE WITNESS WILL BE
SUBJECT TO CROSSEXAMINATION!
(d) Such oral testimony will have no more value in any proceeding for being
fruit of a poisonous tree
A team of CAFGU members conducting a patrol came upon Z riding on his

carabao with an unloaded M-16 across his lap. They promptly arrested
him and brought him to an Army detachment. After a long interrogation
during which he was not assisted by counsel, Z revealed that he is an
NPA commander and he has 1,000 rounds of ammunitions for the rifle
111 | P a g e
hidden on a clump of grass near the place where his carabao was
grazing. A CAFGU unit was immediately dispatched to the area and they
retrieved the bullets.
Which statement is correct? [5%]
A. both the M16 and the bullets are admissible in evidence
B. both the M16 and the bullets are inadmissible
C. only the M16 is admissible BECAUSE IT WAS SEEN IN PLAIN VIEW AND THE
OTHERS ARE FRUITS OF POISONOUS TREE
D. only the bullets are admissible
Sec. 13. Right to Bail
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. The right to bail shall not be impaired even
when the privilege of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not
be required.
74. An information for murder was filed against X. After examining the case
records forwarded to him by the prosecution, the trial judge granted bail to X
based on the prosecution's manifestation that it was not objecting to the grant of
bail. Is the trial judge correct?
A. Yes, the trial judge may evaluate the strength or weakness of the evidence
based on the case records forwarded to him.
B. No, the trial judge should have held a hearing to ascertain the quality of the
evidence of guilt that the prosecution had against X.
C. No, the trial judge should have conducted a hearing to ascertain first whether
or not X was validly arrested.
D. Yes, the trial judge may reasonably rely on the prosecution's manifestation
that he had no objection to the grant of bail.
In which instance is bail a matter of right?
(a) after final judgment where sentence is only 30 days YOU CANNOT POST
BAIL BECAUSE THE JUDGMENT HAS BECOME FINAL
(b) during trial for a crime punishable with reclusion temporal

© during trial for a crime punishable with life imprisonment NOT ALLOWED
112 | P a g e
UNLESS THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT IS NOT STRONG
(d) where the case is on appeal involving a sentence of 12 years and one
day to 14 years THIS IS A MATTER OF DISCRETION ALREADY
Section 13: Right to Bail
When is bail a matter of right ? MEANING THE JUDGE CANNOT REFUSE YOU TO
POST BAIL
1. Before (DURING TRIAL) or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC;

(BEFORE CONVICTION-FOR THE REASON THAT CASES FALLING UNDER
THE JURISDICTION OF THESE COURTS DO NOT EXCEED 6 YEARS)…
(AFTER CONVICTION- IT IS STILL A MATTER OF RIGHT BUT WHEN OR
AFTER THE DECISION HAS BECOME FINAL)
2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion
perpetua or death [ SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94 ]; and
(MEANING THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY COUNTS OF THE CRIMES FOR
WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN THE RTC THE PENALTY OF IS LESS
THAN 20 YEARS OR LESS THAN RECLUSION PERPETUA, YOU ARE
ENTITLED TO BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT… SO LONG AS NONE OF THEM
EXCEEDS THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL
3. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable with reclusion

perpetua or death when the evidence of guilt is not strong. (Constitution,
Art. IV, Sec. 13] [But see Pp. v. Sandiganbaya, 2007, if probability of flight is
strong.]
When is bail a matter of right ? MEANING THE JUDGE CANNOT REFUSE YOU TO
POST BAIL
1. Before (DURING TRIAL) or after conviction by the MTC, MTCC, MCTC (BUT
BEFORE FINAL JUDGMENT); (BEFORE CONVICTION-FOR THE REASON
THAT CASES FALLING UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THESE COURTS DO
NOT EXCEED 6 YEARS)… (AFTER CONVICTION- IT IS STILL A MATTER OF
RIGHT BUT WHEN OR AFTER THE DECISION HAS BECOME FINAL)
2. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than reclusion
perpetua or death [ SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94 ]; and
(MEANING THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY COUNTS OF THE CRIMES FOR
WHICH YOU HAVE BEEN CHARGED IN THE RTC THE PENALTY OF IS LESS
113 | P a g e
THAN 20 YEARS OR LESS THAN RECLUSION PERPETUA, YOU ARE

ENTITLED TO BAIL AS A MATTER OF RIGHT… SO LONG AS NONE OF THEM
EXCEEDS THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION TEMPORAL
3. Before conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable with reclusion

perpetua or death when the evidence of guilt is not strong. (Constitution,
Art. IV, Sec. 13] [But see Pp. v. Sandiganbaya, 2007, if probability of flight is
strong.]
When is bail not allowed ? F
1. After final judgment by any court; EVEN 1 DAY IMPRISONMENT BY FINAL

JUDGEMENT-BAIL NOT ALLOWED. YOU CANNOT BUY YOUR LIBERTY
2. Before conviction for an offense punishable by death or reclusion perpetua
where the evidence of guilt is strong; [Constitution, Art . IV, Sec. 13]
3. After conviction for a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua or death while
the case is on appeal. [People Vs. Valeriano] THIS IS TOO OBVIOUS SINCE
THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT HERE HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS STRONG IN
VIEW OF THE CONVICTION BY THE LOWER COURT
4. After conviction for an offense with the penalty exceeding six years but but
not more than 20 years, if; RTC JURISDICTION,- THIS HAPPENS WHEN YOU
ARE CONVICTED OF 12 YEARS BUT IT HAPPENS THAT YOU ARE
RECIDIVIST.. YOU WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO POST BAIL
A. accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, habitual delinquent or has
committed a crime aggravated by reiteracion; RQHARE
B. accused is found to have previously escaped from legal confinement
When is bail not allowed ?
ROHARE ACU
C. accused committed the offense while on probation, parole or
conditional pardon;
114 | P a g e
D. circumstances of accused or his case indicate the probability of

flight; SUBJECTIVE TO THE JUDGE
E. there is undue risk that during the pendency of the appeal, accused
may commit another crime. [SC Administrative Circular No. 12-94.
SUBJECTIVE TO THE JUDGE
When is bail a matter of discretion ?
After conviction by the RTC for an offense punishable by less than

reclusion perpetua or death if any of the circumstance mentioned in [SC
Administrative Circular No. 12-94]. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court are
present. (PENDING APPEAL) AND THERE IS NO FINAL JUDGMENT
THIS HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE CONVICTED OF AN offense with the penalty
exceeding six years but but not more than 20 years, AND THE NON OF THE
CIRCUMSTANCES (ROHARE ACU) IN THE PRECEDING SLIDE IS
PRESENT!!!!! TAKE NOTE THEN THAT THE BAIL HERE IS A MATTER
CONVICTION
Is there a right to bail in extradition?
1. Government v. Purganan (2002)– No. It is not a criminal proceedings.
2. Government v. Olalia (2007) – Yes. It (THE RIGHT TO BAIL) is not limited to

criminal proceedings. IT APPLIES TO EXTRADITION!!.. NOTE THAT
EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS DETERMINES ONLY W/N YOU SHOULD BE
THROWN OUT OF THE COUNTRY OR GIVEN OTHER TO OTHER COUNTRY
PROVIDED THAT YOU ARE NOT A FLIGHT RISK!!!!
But prove that you are not “flight-risk.”
Bar questions:
2006, IV (2): State whether the following are constitutional: (2) A law denying
persons charged with crimes punishable by reclusion perpetua to death the
right to bail. UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! RIGHT OF BAIL MAY BE ONLY DENIED
115 | P a g e
IN CASES WHERE THE PENALTY OF RECLUSION PERPETUA OR DEATH

WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS STRONG… THE EVIDENCE MUST BE STRONG
HERE!!! TAKE NOTE VERY TRICKY!!!
2005, VII: State with reasons whether bail is a matter of right or a matter of
discretion in the following cases: [In which instance is bail not allowed?]
THE REFER THE ANSWER IN THE PRECEDING SLIDE!!!
(a) the imposable penalty for the crime is reclusion perpetua and the accused is
a minor. BECAUSE IT WILLNO LONGER BE RECLUSION PERPETUAL IN
VIEW OF THE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY- THE PENALTY
IS REDUCED TO 1 OR 2 DEGREE
(b) The imposable penalty for the crime charged is life imprisonment and the
accused is a minor. THIS IS BECAUSE IN SPECIAL LAW, WE DO NOT APPLY
THE MITIGATING OR AGGRAVING CIRCUMSTANCES.. SO YOU CANNOT
SAY THAT IT IS ONE DEGREE LOWER THAN LIFE IMPRISONMENT… TAKE
NOTE!!! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS 1 DEGREE LOWER OF LIFE
SENTENCE
© After conviction for homicide on a charge of murder and sentenced to suffer
an indeterminate penalty of from 8 years and 1 day of prision mayor, as
minimum, to 12 years and 4 months of reclusion temporal, as maximum.
BAIL IS MATTER OF DISCRETION SINCE THERE IS NO ATTENDANT
CIRCUMSTANCE HERE!!!
(d) after conviction by the RTC for a crime punishable with prision mayor where
accused was previously granted absolute pardon in a previous conviction…
TAKE NOTE THAT THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCE IS ABSOLUTE
PARDON AND NOT CONDITIONAL ONE.. IT IS AS IF THERE IS NO
CIRCUMSTANCE IF ITS IS ABSOLUTE PARDON….. THE ACCUSED OR
PESON MUST BE UNDER CONDITIONAL PARDON TO RENDER IT NON
BAILABLE!!!
Other rules:
1. The judge cannot determine the strength of evidence base on the records
alone. He must hold a summary hearing (Mamolo v. Narisma) NOTE THAT
THE JUDGE MUST HOLD HEARING EVEN IF THE PROSECUTION DOES NOT
OBJECT TO THE APPLICATION FOR BAIL IN CASES WHERE THE PENALTY
IS RECLUSION PERPETUA OR DEATH!!! the JUDGE MUST HOLD A hearing
to ascertain the quality of the evidence of guilt that the prosecution
116 | P a g e
2. Where bail is a matter of right, the judge cannot hold a hearing to determine
whether he should be allowed bail or not. [People v. Donato] IT IS BECAUSE
IT IS A MATTER OF RIGHT… THE JUDGE MAY HOLD A HEARING ONLY FOR
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING THE AMOUNT AND NOT W/N TO GRANT OR
DENY IT… THE CONTEMPLATED HEARING MUST BE HAD ONLY FOR
PURPOSES OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THE EVIDENCE
PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION IS STRONG!!!!!
3. In a hearing for bail, the court cannot take into account the presence of
aggravating or mitigating circumstance, except minority [Peole v. Bravo] IT
IS BECAUSE IF IT IS ALLOWED TO ACCOUNT THE PRESENCE OF THAT
CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WILL RESULT TO FULL BLOWN TRIAL AND THE
PURPOSE OF THE LAW ON HEARING WOULD BE DEFEATED AND
RENDERED NUGATORY!!!! THE MITIGAING CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY
IS ALLOWED BECAUSE MERE PRESENTATION OF BIRTH CERTIFICATE
WOULD SUFFICE.. IT IS EASY TO DETERMINE MINORITY!! NOTE HOWEVER,
THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF MINORITY IS NOT APPLICABLE TO
OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER A SPECIAL WHERE THE PENALTY IS LIFE
IMPRISONMENT OR MORE FOR THE REASON ALREADY DISCUSSED
EARLIER BY YOURS TRULY, THE AUTHORITY@!!!!!
4. Bail is not available to military men facing court martial proceedings for
violation of the Articles of War. [Comendador v. De Villa] THE
CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GUARANTEE BAIL TO MEN FACING COURT
MARTIAL PROCEEDING FOR VIOLATION OF ARTICLES OF WAR
6. Bail can be waived expressly in writing[Donato] or impliedly [Manes] by not

pursuing one’s petition for bail
DONATO- DONATO SIGNED A WAIVER TO RIGHT OF BAIL ON THE CONDITION

THAT HIS WIFE WILL BE RELEASED.. AFTER THE RELEASE OF THELATTER,
DONATO APPLIED FOR BAIL AND INVOKED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO
BAIL.. HELD: RIGHT TO BAIL MAY BE EXPRESSLY WAIVED IN WRITING!!! WHAT
MAY NOT BE WAIVED ARE THOS MATTERS WHERE ONLY THE STATE HAS
INTEREST.. HERE IN BAIL, THE ACCUSED HAS ALSO INTEREST
MANES-HE FILED FOR A BAIL.. BUT HE DID NOT PURSUE IT UNTIL HIS
CONVICTION OF THE CRIME.. HE IMPUGNED THE SAME HELD; RIGHT TO BAIL
MAY BE IMPLIEDLY WAIVED BY NOT PURSUING ONE’S PETITION FOR BAIL
1993, No. 9
Johann was charged with rape. After the prosecution presented several
witnesses, Johann through counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed a
motion therefor, which was denied outright by the judge.
117 | P a g e
Johann claims that he is entitled to bail as a matter of right, thus the judge
should not have denied his motion to fix bail outright. Is he correct?
THE CORRECT PROCEDURE IS THE PROSECUTION HAS TO PRESENT

EVIDENCES TO ESTABLISH THAT THE GUILT IS STRONG AND ALLOW THE
ACCUSED TO PRESENT EVIDENCE TO PRESENT THE OTHERWISE.. ONLY
THEN HE CAN MAKE DECISION.. HENCE THE OUTRIGHT DENIAL OF
JUDGE WAS NOT CORRECT!!
1989, No. 15
May an alien invoke the constitutional right to bail during the pendency of
deportation proceedings?
NOTE THAT IN EXTRADITION, RIGHT TO BAIL IS AVAILABLE BUT HE MUST

PROVE THAT HE IS NOT FLIGHT RISK!!
HOWEVER IN DEPORTATION PROCEEDINGS IS DIFFERENT AS IT IS NOT A

MATTER OF RIGHT.. IT IS DISCRETIONARY!!!
2008, No. 7:
JC, a major in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is facing prosecution before
the RTC of Quezon City of the murder of his neighbor whom he suspected to
have molested his 15 year old daughter.
is JC entitled to bail? Why or why not?
IT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED…. IF THE EVIDENCE IS STRONG, HE IS NOT

ENTITLED TO BAIL.. IF OTHERWISE, HE MUST BE ALLOWED!!
Where an accused Abu Sayaff member is charged with homicide, and it is

certain as the night follows the day that he will fled to the jungles of Basilan
if he is granted bail:
(a) the judge can deny bail outright
(b) the judge must first find out if evidence of guilt is strong
© the judge must receive evidence to find out if he will take flight
(d) the judge must grant bail THIS IS A MATTER OF RIGHT BECAUSE THE
PENALTY OF HOMICIDE IS ONLY RECLUSION TEMPORAL.. YOU HAVE NO
BUSINESS HERE TO DETERMINE W/N HE SHOULD BE GRANTED BAIL..
THERE MAY BE HEARING BUT ONLY FOR PURPOSES OF DETERMINING
THE AMOUNT OF BAIL
118 | P a g e
Trial Rights of Accused
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 face
to face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after
arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused:
Provided, that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is
unjustifiable.
Section 14: Trial Rights of the Accused

DPH CIS IPMC
1. Right to due process THIS IS THE MOTHER OF ALL RIGHTS!
2. Presumption of innocence
3. To be heard
4. To counsel
5. To be informed
6. To speedy trial
7. To impartial trial
8. To public trial
9. To meet witnesses
10. To compulsory process
Due Process:
Due process here is procedural, not substantive. It’s elements are:

(CJOJ)
1. A court or tribunal cloth with judicial power to hear and decide the
case;
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the person of the accused and

over the offense;
119 | P a g e
3. Accused was given an opportunity to be heard; and
4. Judgment was rendered upon lawful hearing. [ Pagasian]
Olaguer – Trial by judicial process
OLAGUER WAS TRIED AND CONVICTED BY A MILITARY COMMISSION

ESTABLISHED BY FORMER PRESIDENT MARCOS.. IT WAS HELD THAT
THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS.. DUE
PROCESS UNDER THIS SECTION MEANS THE TRIAL BY JUDICIAL
PROCESS.. NOT A MILITARY ONE OVER CIVILIANS!! CIVILIANS MAY ONLY
BE TRIED BY CIVIL COURTS AND NOT BY MILITARY COUTS EXCEPT THE
FORMER IS NO LONGER FUNCTIONING!!!!!!
2. Presumption of innocence
Reversed presumption is allowed in
malversation, A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE CHARGED WITH THE FUNCTION OF

COLLECTING MONEY IS PRESUMED TO HAVE APPROPRIATED THE
COLLECTED MONEY IF SHE FAILS TO REMIT THE SAME ON TIME..
anti-fencing,
rules of evidence,
Illegal Fishing,
Intellectual Property Law,
Plunder.
Reasons: (MARFIP)
1. It is ONLY prima facie (MEANING IT IS SUBJECT TO REBUTTAL.. OTHERWISE

STATED, IF HE CAN PROVE THE OTHERWISE, HE CAN BE ACQUITTED)
2. There is a logical connection between the fact proved and the fact presumed.
IN ANTI FENCING, THE FACT PROVED THAT YOU ARE IN POSSESSION OF

STOLEN GOODS IS A LOGICAL CONNECTION THAT YOU ARE THE AUTHOR
OF THE THEFT OR THEFT!!
120 | P a g e
No. 5, 2004: OZ lost 5 head of cattle which he reported to the police. He

requested several neighbors, including RR, for help in looking for missing
animals. After an extensive search, the police found 2 head in RR’s farm.
RR could not explain to the police how they got hidden in a remote area of
his farm.
Insisting on his innocence, RR consulted a lawyer who told him he has a right
to be presumed innocent under the Bill of Rights. But there is another
presumption—of theft arising from his unexplained possession of stolen
cattle—under the penal law.
Are the 2 presumptions capable of reconciliation in ths case? If so, how can
they be reconciled? If not, which should prevail?
YES IT IS CAPABLE OF RECONCILIATION… THE REVERSED PRESUMPTION IS

ONLY
PRIMA FACIE WHICH IS REBUTTABLE AND
THERE IS LOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE FACT PROVED AND THE

FACT PRESUMED!!!
Abad Sample: The right to be presumed innocent is not violated by a law that
establishes a presumption of guilt based on a certain fact proved
provided that:
What is proved and presumed are reasonably connected

The nature of the crime committed permits a reverse presumption
The accused has ample opportunity to overcome the adverse presumption
The law is not retroactive
3. To be heard: Pertains to the right to present evidence (RIGHT TO PRESENT

WITNESSESS) NOT MUCH HERE
4. Right to counsel
Elements of Right to Counsel:
1. The court is duty – bound to inform accused of his right before the
arraigned;
2. The court must ask him if he desires the service of counsel;
3. If he does, and is unable to get one, the court must assign him a
counsel de oficio;
4. If accused wishes to get a private counsel, the court must give him
121 | P a g e
time to obtain one. [PP VS. HOLGADO] USUALLY HE IS GIVEN 1 MONTH

TO OBTAIN A LAWYER.. THE JUDGE CANN OT JUST ASSIGN PAO LAWYER
TO THE ACCUSED EVEN IF HE SIGNIFIES HIS INTENT TO OBTAIN ONE… HE
MUST BE GIVEN TIME …
1. What is the effect if accused is convicted and it turned out that his lawyer is
fake? [Delgado, Santocildes, Tulin
THE CONVICTION HAS TO BE OVERTURNED BECAUSE HIS RIGHT TO COUNSEL

IS VIOLATED.. THIS APPLIES ALSO TO CIVIL CASES WHERE THE COUNSEL
TURNED OUT TO BE FAKE, THE PARTY REPRESENTED IS ENTITLED TO A NEW
TRIAL
2. Can a conviction be nullified if one’s lawyer is incompetent? [Liwanag, except

Callangan]
GENERALLY NO! BECAUSE ALL LAWYERS ARE PRESUMED TO BE COMPETENT

BECAUSE THEY PASSED THE BAR.. THE EXCEPTION IS IF THE INCOMPETENCE
OF THE LAWYER AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS THE PERSON
REPRESENTED, THE CONVICTION HAS TO BE REVERSED!!… EX. IS WHEN A
LAWYER NEVER APPEARED AGAIN AFTER HIS CLIENT HAS BEEN
ARRAINGED.. AND THE LATTER WAS CONVICTED BY VIRTUE THEREOF… THE
CONVICTION HAS TO BE NULLIFIED. NEW TRIAL MUST BE HAD.
3. Can a person defend himself without a lawyer? [Rules of Court/Sesbreno] IN

MTC WE HAVE NO PROBLEM.. IN THE RTC, YOU MUST MAKE IN WRITING
A REQUEST THAT YOU BE ALLOWED TO DEFEND YOURSELF WITHOUT A
LAWYER.. IF THE JUDGE IS CONVINCED THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO DEFEND
YOURSELF, THEN YOU CAN PROCEED TO DEFEND YOURSELF EVEN IF
YOU ARE NOT A LAWYER!! WRITTEN REQUEST IS A MUST!!!
4. What is the extent of the right to retain? [Chiongbian]
THE RIGHT TO RETAIN MUST BE BALANCE AND CONSISTENT WITH THE

RIGHT TO PROSECUTE OF THE STATE.. THE EXTENT OF THE RIGHT TO
RETAIN OR CHOOSE A LAWYER IS UNLIMITED… IT MUST BE CONSISTENT
WITH THE RIGHT OF THE STATE TO PROSECUTE… OTHERWISE, THE TRIAL
WILL BE DELAYED.
5. To be informed- to enable him to defend himself
THIS IS USUALLY DETERMINED OR BASED ON W/N THE INFORMATION WAS

PROPERLY CRAFTED..
122 | P a g e
-sale and possession- IF YOU ARE CHARGED OF SALE OF SHABU, AND

EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND ESTABLISHED WAS ONLY POSSESSION
THEREOF, THE ACCUSED MUST BE ACQUITTED BECAUSE HE WAS
DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO DEFEND HIMSELF FOR ILLEGAL POSITION…
HE DEFENDED HIMSELF ONLY FOR SALE AS CHARGED!!
-physical injuries- IF THE CHARGE INCLUDES LESSER OFFENSE, YOU CAN BE

CONVICTED OF LESSER OFFENSE.. FOR INSTANCE, YOU ARE CHARGED
WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES, BUT THE PROSECUTION WAS ONLY
ABLE TO PROVE AND ESTABLISHED SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES, YOU
CAN BE CONVICTED OF THE LATTER… SUPPOSED IF IT IS REVERSED, YOU
ARE CHARGED WITH SLIGHT PHYSICAL BUT EVIDENCE PROVED WAS
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY.., YOU CAN BE ONLY CONVICTED OF SLIGHT
PHYSICAL.. HENCE, YOU CAN BE CONVICTED OF A LESSER OFFENSE
PROVIDED THAT IT IS EMBRACED IN THE INFORMATION.. THE LESSER
OFFENSE MUST BE NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE CRIME CHARGED..
HENCE YOU CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF HOMICIDE WHEN YOU ARE ONLY
CHARGED OF ROBBERY!!
-Antido- A PERSON WAS CHARGED OF 1 COUNT OF RAPE BUT THE EVIDENCE

PRESENTED SHOWED THAT HE RAPED THE VICTIM 3 TIMES… THE
CONVICTED WITH 3 COUNTS.. HELD: IGNORANCE OF THE LAW… IF YOU
ARE CHARGED WITH 1 COUNT, YOU CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF 3
COUNTS BECAUSE THE ACCUSED IS DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO BE
INFORMED!!
-allegation of retardation- IF YOU WANT TO AGGRAVATE THE CRIME BECAUSE

THE VICTIM WAS RETARDATE OR MINOR, YOU MUST ALLEGED THAT IN
INFORMATION.. THE CONVICTION OF THE ACCUSED CANNOT BE
AGGRAVATED BY THE SAME IF NOT ALLEGED IN INFORMATION…
SUFFICIENCY OF THE INFORMATION IS A MUST!!!
6. To speedy trial
Factors:
1. Extent of the delay- HOW LONG… REFERS TO TIME OF DELAY
2. Reasons for the delay- IT MUST BE JUSTIFIED.. HEALTH REASONS,.. LOOK

AT THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY!!!
3. Invocation of the right- IT MUST BE INVOKED ON TIME.. OTHERWISE THE

RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL IS WAIVED!!!
4. Prejudice to the accused- IF THE ACCUSED IS NOT ON BAIL, IT WILL

PREJUDICE HIM AS HE WILL BE DETAINED FOR A LONGER PERIOD.. NO
PREJUDICE IF HE IS ON BAIL…
123 | P a g e
Right is only violated if delay is capricious or whimsical.
DELAY IS NOT A MERE MATHEMATICAL.. REASON BEHIND IT MUST BE

CONSIDERED AS CAPRICIOUS OR WHIMSICAL
7. Right to impartial trial (SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT BE
BIASED!!)
Trial by publicity: What is trial by publicity? What right is violated? What is the
test? [Sanchez. Teehankee, Webb, Estrada] ALL THESE CONVICTIONS WERE
IMPUGHNED ON THE GROUND OF IMPARTIAL TRIAL… THE DECISIONS OF
THESE CASES WERE ATTEMPTED TO NULLIFY ON THE GROUND OF TRIAL
BY PUBLICITY
PUBLICITY BY TRIAL REFERS TO A TRIAL WHERE TOO MUCH OR EXTENSIVE

MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE TRIAL IN SUCH A WAY THAT THE
PARTICIPANTS THEREOF OR THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE PRE-JUDGMENT TO
THE CASE .. THIS DOES NOT APPLY IN IMPEACHEMENT
TEST: HAS THE JUDGE BECOME ACTUALLY BIASED OR IMPARTIAL BY

REASON OF MEDIA COVERAGE OR TRIAL BY PUBLICITY? NOTE, ACTUAL
BIAS! IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED THAT THE PUBLICITY RESULTED TO
ACTUAL BIAS… NOT POSSIBLE BIAS!!!!
1996, No. 2: At the trial of a rape case where the victim-complainant was a well
known personality while the accused was a popular movie star, a TV station
was allowed by the trial judge to televised the entire proceedings like the OJ
Simpson trial. The accused objected to the TV coverage and petitioned the
Supreme Court to prohibit the said coverage.
As the Supreme Court, how would you rule on the petition?
IT SHOULD BE RULED IN THIS MANNER… THE PUBLIC TRIAL WITH MEDIA

COVERAGE INVOLVES RIGHT OF FREEDOM OF PRESS, THE RIGHT TO REPOR
OR NOT TO REPORT, RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE INFORMED (BECAUSE
TRIAL IS A MATTER OF PUBLIC CONCERN).. THE RIGHT OF THE COURT TO
CONTROL THE PROCEEDINGS, AND ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE! HOWEVER,
SC RULED IN FAVOR TO THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO FAIR AND
IMPARTIALTRIAL.. SO NO COVERAGE.. BUT THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
MOVED FOR RECON CONTENDING THAT THE TRIAL IS A PUBLIC MATTER..
HENCE, THE COURT RULED BACKWARD…FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES, IT

ALLOWED 1 CAMERA TO BE INSTALLED TO RECORD THE PROCEEDINGS TO
BE LATER ARCHIVED IN THE NATIONAL HISTORIC MUSEUM.. ONLY AFTER
THE TRIAL HAS BEEN CULMINATED SHALL IT BE ALLOWED FOR PUBLIC
124 | P a g e
VIEW.. MEANING.. NO MEDIA COVERAGE DURING TRIAL!!! ONLY RECORDING~!
Estrada Cases:
1. Re:Request (2001) – freedom of the press, right to information, and right to

fair trial
2. Re: Request (recon) – only for historical purposes EXPLANATION IN THE

PRECEDING SLIDE!!
Re: Petition for Radio and TV..., 652 SCRA 1 (2011)
Following the November 23, 2009 Maguindanao Massacre, charges for 57

counts of murder were filed against 197 accused. Various entities filed a
petition before the Supreme Court praying that live television and radio
coverage of the trial in these criminal cases be allowed, recording devices
(e.g., still cameras, tape recorders) be permitted inside the courtroom to
assist the working journalists. In effect, petitioners seek the lifting of the
absolute ban on live television and radio coverage of court proceedings
imposed by the 1991 ruling in Re: Live TV and Radio Coverage of the
Hearing of President Corazon C. Aquino’s Libel Cae. Should the Court allow
live media coverage of the trial?
Held: It is about time to craft a win-win situation that shall not compromise
rights in the criminal administration of justice, sacrifice press freedom and
allied rights, and interfere with the integrity, dignity and solemnity of judicial
proceedings. Compliance with regulations, not curtailment of a right,
provides a workable solution. The peculiarity of the subject criminal cases is
that the proceedings already necessarily entail the presence of hundreds of
families. It cannot be gainsaid that the families of the 57 victims and of the
197 accused have as much interest, beyond mere curiosity, to attend or
monitor the proceedings as those of the impleaded parties or trial
participants. It bears noting at this juncture that the prosecution and the
defense have listed more than 200 witnesses each.
The Court allows pro hac vice the live broadcasting by radio and television of the
Maguindanao Massacre cases, subject to the following guidelines: (a)
Media entities must file a written application with the trial court; no selective
or partial coverage shall be allowed. (b) A single fixed compact camera
shall be installed inside the courtroom to provide a single wide-angle
full-view of the sala of the trial court, operated by an employee of the
125 | P a g e
Supreme Court; no panning and zooming shall be allowed. (c) The

transmittal of the audio-visual recording from inside the courtroom to the
media entities shall be conducted in such a way that the least physical
disturbance shall be ensured. (d) The broadcasting of the proceedings for a
particular day must be continuous and in its entirety. (e) To provide a faithful
and complete broadcast of the proceedings, no commercial break or any
other gap shall be allowed until the day’s proceedings are adjourned. (f) To
avoid overriding or superimposing the audio output from the on-going
proceedings, the proceedings shall be broadcast without any voice-overs,
except brief annotations of scenes depicted therein. (h) No repeat airing of
the audio-visual recording shall be allowed until after the finality of
judgment, except brief footages and still images derived from or
cartographic sketches of scenes.
PRO HAC VICE RESOLUTION-.. THIS IS TO CASE BASIS.. THIS DECISION IS FOR
THIS CASE ONLY!!! SO YOU THE PREVAILING JURISPRDENCE IS NO LIVE
COVERAGE OF TRIAL… HENCE, YOU NEED TO PETITION BEFORE
SUPREME COURT IF YOU WANT TO HAVE LIVE COVERAGE OF A CERTAIN
TRIAL IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THIS CASE HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY SC
PRO HAC VICE
8. Public Trial – Intended to prevent abuse of judicial power. In certain cases,

however, the public may be excluded. THIS APPLIES TO RAPE CASES
WHERE SELECTED PERSONS ARE ONLY ALLOWED
9. Right meet Witnesses – the right to cross examine witnesses against him.
[People v. Nadera]
THIS IS THE RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSESS.. TO CONFRONT

THEM
10. Right to compulsory process
IT IS NOW BROADENED AS IT INCLUDE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES
Section 14: Trial Rights of the Accused
Requisites for Trial in Absencia: ANF
1. Accused has been arraigned;

126 | P a g e
2. He was notified of the proceedings; and
3. His failure to appear is unjustified.
Bar Question 2011:
73. During promulgation of sentence, the presence of the accused is mandatory

but he may appear by counsel or representative when
A. he is charged with a light offense.

B. he was able to cross-examine the prosecution’s witnesses.
C. he waives his right to be present.
D. he is convicted of a bailable offense.
Bar Question 2011:
57. Accused X pleaded not guilty to the charge of homicide against him. Since
he was admitted to bail, they sent him notices to attend the hearings of his
case. But he did not show up, despite notice, in four successive hearings
without offering any justification. The prosecution moved to present
evidence in absentia but the court denied the motion on the ground that the
accused has a right to be present at his trial. Is the court correct?
A. No, the court is mandated to hold trial in absentia when the accused had been
arraigned, had notice, and his absence was unjustified. ONCE THESE
REQUISITES ARE PRESENT, THE COURT MUST HOLD TRIAL IN ABSENTI
A….
B. Yes, it remains discretionary on the court whether to conduct trial in absentia
even if the accused had been arraigned and had notice and did not justify
his absence.
C. Yes, it is within the court's discretion to determine how many postponements

it will grant the accused before trying him in absentia.
D. No, the court may reject trial in absentia only on grounds of fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence.
Sec. 15. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended
127 | P a g e
except in cases of invasion or rebellion when public safety requires it.
-A writ of habeas corpus is an order issued by a court directed to a

person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body of the
prisoner at a designated time and place (PRODUCE HIM IN COURT), and to
explain the cause of detention (JUSTIFY THE DETENTION OR DOES HE
HAVE THE WARRANT OF ARREST TO JUSTIFY HIS DETENTION).
OTHERWISE STATED… THE PERSON DETAINING ANOTHER MUST EXPLAIN

THE CAUSE OF THE DETENTION!!!! OTHERWISE, THE PERSON DETAINED
MUST BE RELEASED!
-Only the privilege is suspended, not the writ itself- MEANING IF THE
PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS SUSPENDED AND YOU FILE
FOR PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, THE
COURT MUST ISSUE THE SAME AS THE NIGHT FOLLOWS THE DAY AS
MATTER OF COURSE.. IT IS BECAUSE THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT ITSELF
IS NOT SUSPENDED BUT ONLY THE PRIVILEGE..
MEANING ONCE THE PRIVILEGE IS SUSPENDED, AND YOU FILED FOR THE
ISSUANCE OF THE SAME IT IS FOUND ON THE RETURN THAT THE
PERSON DETAINED IS CHARGED WITH REBELLION OR OTHER CRIMES IN
FURTHERANCE THEREOF, THE COURT WILL NOT MAKE INQUIRY…
MEANING, THE COURT WILL STOP THE INQUIRY IN THE SENSE THAT YOU
CANNOT OBTAIN THE PRIVILEGE OF GETTING RELEASED!!!! ONCE YOU
ARE CHARGED WITH REBELLION, YOU CANNOT BE RELEASED AS THE
PRIVILEGE OF GETTING RELEASE IS SUSPENDED… REMEMBER, WHAT IS
BEING SUSPENDED IS THE PRIVILEGE!!! NOT THE ISSUANCE OF THE
WRIT!!!!
-Effects of suspension?
-effect on right to bail? THE RIGHT TO BAIL IS NOT SUSPENDED IF THE

PRIVILEGE IS SUSPENDED
-May be availed of in cases of illegal deprivation of liberty: detention w/o

charge, or sentenced that has been SERVE
THIS HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE DETAINED FOR THE COMMSISION OF THE
CRIME AND YOU ARE NOT CHARGED WITHIN A PRESCRIBE PERIOD 36
HOURS, YOU MUST PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS.. YOU WILL BE RELEASED FOR THE DETENTION HAS BECOM
ILLEGAL AFTER THE LAPSE OF 36 HOURS WITHOUT BEING CHARGE..
EVEN IF YOU ARE ARRESTED IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO!!! ILLEGAL
128 | P a g e
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY IS WHAT WE REFERRING HERE!!
sentenced that has been SERVE- THIS HAS REFERENCE TO THOSE WHO WERE
CONVICTED OF ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS FOR 12 YEARS ..
LATER THE REVILLA LAW WAS PASSED REDUCING THE PENALTY THEROF
TO 6 YEARS.. HELD.. INSO FAR AS THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY SERVED
SENTENCE MORE THAN 6 YEARS, THEY MAY BE RELEASED BY FILING
THE PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN VIEW
OF THE SETTLED RULE THAT CRIMINAL STATUTES SHALL BE GIVEN
RETROACTIVE EFFECT INSOFAR AS THE IT IS FAVORABLE TO THE
ACCUSED!!!.. THE PRIVIILEGE MAY BE HAD ALSO WHERE THE A PERSON
IS DETAINED BY CREDITOR FOR NONPAYMENT OF DEBTS OR THOSE
WHO WERE NOT RELEASED BY HOSPITAL FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE
BILLS.. THAT IS ILLEGAL DETENTION
-But see Moncupa and Andan.
MONCUPA-IT ENLARGED THE COVERAGE!! HE WAS DETAINED BY THE

MILITARY… SO BEFORE THE WRIT COULD BE ISSUED, THE MILITARY
RELEASED HIM THEREBY CONTENDING THAT THE PETITION HAS
BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC.. HOWEVER THE RELEASE WAS UPON A
CONDITION THAT MONCUPA WOULD NOT TALK TO MEDIA AND CHANGE
HIS RESIDENCE: HELD; CONSIDERING THAT THE RELASE WAS WITH
CONDITION AND THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED UPON HIS RELEASE, THE
PETITION MUST PROCEED.. THE RESTRICTIONS IS EQUIVALENT TO
RESTRAINT OF HIS LIBERTY.. WHILE IT IS NOT A DEPRIVATION OF
LIBERTY, IT IS CONSTITUTE DEPRIVATION OF THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL.. IT
IS EQUIVALENT TO RESTRICTION OF PERSON’S LIBERTY!
REMEMBER ..ALSO THE CASE WHERE A PERSON IS WAS ARRESTED AND

MANILA AND BROUGHT TO DAVAO… BEFORE THE PETITION COULD BE
ACTED UPON, THE PERSON WHO ARRESTED THE PERSON RELEASED THE
PERSON.. THE FORMER CONTENDED THAT THE PETITION HAS BECOME
MOOT IN VIEW OF THE RELEASE IN DAVAO CITY.. SO IT MUST BE
DISMISSED.. HELD: NO THE PETITION MUST PROCEED BECAUSE WHEN
YOU BRING THE PERSON IN ANOTHER PLACE WITHOUT MONEY OR ANY
MEANS, IT AMOUNTS TO DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY.. IT RULED THAT
UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT YOU BRING THE PERSON IN MANILA, THE
PETITION SHALL NOT BECOME MOOT AND ACADEMIC!!! THAT IS
ANOTHER FORM OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY
In re: Aquino v. Esperon, (2007) [conditions of confinement]
A MILITARY OFFICER WAS DETAINED... HIS WIFE AND RELATIVES WAS NOT
ALLOWED TO VISIT HIM.. HE WAS HELD INCOMMUNICADO... THE WIFE
FILED A PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WHC ON THE GROUND OF THE
129 | P a g e
CONDITIONS OF HER HUSBANDS CONFINEMENT.. HELD: CONDITIONS OF

CONFINEMENT IS NOT A GROUND FOR PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. NOTE THAT THE PURPOSE OF ISSUANCE OF
WRIT IS TO OBTAIN IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!!!
Ampatuan v. Macaraig, (2010) [“restrictive custody”] nominal restraint, not

actual
AMPATUAN WAS ARRESTED IN MANILA FOR THE MURDER OF A COMELEC

OFFICIALS.. HE WAS PLACED UNDER RESTRICTIVE CUSTODY WHEREIN
HE WAS PLACED UNDER RESTRICTIVE CUSTODY… HE WAS NOT ALLOWED
TO GO OUT WITHIN THE A SPECIFIED AREA.. HE FILED FOR PIWHC.. HELD:
RESTRICTIVE CUSTODY IS A ONLY NOMINAL RESTRAINT.. NOT ACTUAL!!!!
DEAN FINDS THE JUSTIFICATION STRANGE!!!NOT ACTUAL RESTRAINT OF
LIBERTY!!
-Ilagan and Aberca
ILAGAN: PERSONS WAS ARRESTED AND DETAINED BY THE MILITARY

WITHOUT ANY CHARGE.. THE COURT ORDERED FOR THEIR RELEASE..
AFTER THEY RECEIVED THE ORDER, THEY FILED A MOTION FOR RECON..
PENDING THE DISPOSITION OF THE MOR, THE MILITARY FILED A CASE
AGAINST THE PERSON FOR REBELLION HELD: ONCE A CASE IS ALREADY
FILED AGAINST THE PERSON, THE PETITION HAS BECOME MOOT AND
ACADEMIC.. THEIR RELEASE MAY NOT NOW BE HAD IN VIEW OF THE
CASE FILED .. DANGEROUS DOCTRINE PER DEAN!!! DETENTION WILL BE
LEGAL
OTHERWISE STATED, THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST RENDERS THE

PETITION FOR THE ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS MOOT AND
ACADEMIC BECAUSE THEIR DETENTION WILL NOW BE VALID IN VIEW OF
THE WOA…
ABERCA-.. PRESIDENT MARCOS SUSPENDED THE PRIVILEGE OF WHC… SO

SINCE DIOKNO CANNOT SUCCESSFULLY OBTAIN THE RELEASE OF
CERTAIN PERSONS, HE FILED CIVIL CASE FOR DAMAGE AGAINST
MILTARY OFFICIALS FOR ILLEGAL DETENTION, STEALING PROPERTIES
OF DETAINEES… THE MILITARY COUNTERED THAT DIOKNO IS
CIRCUMVENTING THE CONSTITUION.. HELD: THE SC SAID THAT ONCE
THE PWHC IS SUSPENDED, ONLY THE PRIVILEGE OR RIGHT OF GETTING
IMMEDIATE RELEASE IS SUSPENDED.. CIVIL CASE OF CLAIM FOR
DAMAGES IS NOT SUSPENDED
130 | P a g e
1991, No. 1. What is the constitutional Writ of Amparo and what is the basis for
such remedy under the Constitution?
Writ of Amparo - The petition for a writ of amparo is a remedy available to any
person whose right to life, liberty and security is violated or threatened with
violation by an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or
of a private individual or entity. The writ shall cover extralegal killings and
enforced disappearances or threats thereof.
WRIT OF AMPARO WAS CREATED BY VIRTUE OF THE RULE MAKING POWER

OF THE SUPREME COURT!!
[REMEDY AVAILABLE AGAINST UNLAWFUL DEPRIVATION OF LIFE LIBERTY

AND SECURITY]
TAKE NOTE THE DISTINCTION WITH HABEAS CORPUS
WRIT OF AMPARO IS A REMEDY AGAINST LIFE LIBERTY AND SECURITY WHILE

THE LATTER IS LIMITED TO LIBERTY
IT APPLIES TO NOT ONLY TO ACTUAL VIOLATION BUT ALSO THREATENED

VIOLATIONS WHILE THE LATTER IS ONLY FOR ACTUAL DEPRIVATION
LIBERTY OR ACTUAL RESTRAINT OF LIBERTY!!
IT MAY BE INSTITUTED AGAINST PUBLIC OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE OR OF A

PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY WHILE THE LATTER MAY BE INVOKED
AGAINST THE STATE
THEY ARE MORE APPLICABLE TO EXTRAJUDICIAL KILLINGS AND ENFORCED

DISAPPERANCES!!
OTHERWISE STATED, THE GENERALLY FORMER IS MORE EXPANSIVE THAN

THE LATTER..
THAT SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS)
Jurisdiction:
1. RTC –where the threat, act or omission occurred
2. SC, CA and Sandiganbayan- (NOTE THAT SANDIGANBAYAN HAS NO

JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS)
MTC-MAY IS GIVEN SPECIAL JURISDICTION OVER PETITIONS FOR HABEAS

CORPUS WHERE NO RTC JUDGES ARE AVAILABLE BUT NOT HABEAS
DATA AND AMPARO
131 | P a g e
NOTE, GENERALLY WRIT ISSUED BY RTC IS ONLY ENFORCEABLE WITHIN THE

JUDICIAL REGION… SEARCH WARRANT IS ALSO ENFORCIABLE WITHIN
THE JUDICIAL REGION BUT WARRANT OF ARREST IS ENFORCEABLE
EVERYWHERE!!
In either case, the writ shall be enforceable everywhere.
Canlas v. Napico Homeowners, 554 SCRA 208 [2008] [demolition of dwelling]
CANLAS- DEMOLITIONS OF DWELLING IS NOT A GROUND FOR THE

ISSSUANCE OF WRIT OF AMPARO.. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LIFE,
LIBERTY AND SECURITY!!
Reyes v. CA (2009) – right to travel- FR. REYES WAS ISUED WITH HOLD
DEPARTURE ORDER.. HELD: RIGHT TO TRAVEL HAS NOTHING TO DO
WITH LIFE LIBERTY AND SECURITY!!
Roxas v. GMA (2010) – [return of property unlawfully seized] Command

responsibility – HELD: RETURN OF PROPERTY SIEZED HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH LIFE LIBERTY AND SECURITY.. YOU MAY FILE FOR REPLEVIN!!
PROPERTY IS NOT INCLUDED!!
Possible reliefs OF WRIT OF AMPARO: MEMO!! PIP
1. Protection order - in a government agency or accredited private institution
2. Inspection order – permitting entry, inspection and photographing of

property or area.
3. Production order – production of documents, photos and objects
WRIT IN HABEAS DATA- RELIEF IS TO ORDER THE PERSON OR ENTITY

GATHERING DATA TO STOP THE GATHERING OR DESTROY THE DATA OR
RECORDS THAT HAVE BEEN GATHERED! TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF A
PERSON
Questions:
Will the filing of a criminal case render the petition for a writ of amparo and a writ
of habeas data moot and academic? IT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED! IN
THE LATTER, THE FILING OF CRIMINAL CASE WILL RENDER THE
DETENTION MOOT AS THE SAME IS CLOTHED ALREADY WITH
WARRANT OF ARREST WHILE THE FORMER WILL NOT RENDER IT
MOOT FOR THE REASON THAT WHILE IT MAY RENDER DEPRIVATION
OF LIBERTY LEGAL, IT DOES NOT RENDER MOOT OR LEGALIZE AS TO
ACTUAL OR THREATENED VIOLATIONS OF LIFE AND SECURITY!!!
Does the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus also suspend
the remedies of petition for a writ amparo or a writ of habeas data?
132 | P a g e
NOTE THAT ONLY THE PRESIDENT CAN DECLARE THE PRIVILEGE OF WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.. BUT THERE IS NO AGENCY OR ENTITY AUTHORIZED TO
SUSPEND AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA.. IT IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE
CONSTITUTION!! IN THE END MAY LIKELY THE SUPREME COURT WHO MAY
SUSPEND THE LATTER BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONE WHO PROMULGATED
AND CREATED THE SAME… SO IN OTHERWORDS, IF THERE IS SUSPENSION
OF PWHC, YOU CAN STILL FILE AMPARO AND HABEAS DATA…. IN AMPARO,
WHILE THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY, DURING THE SUSPENSION OF PWHC,
MAY BE RENDERED MOOT, YOU CAN STILL PURSUE THE SAME SINCE LIFE
AND SECURITY IS COVERED BY THE SAME………… SAME WITH HABEAS DATA!!!
THEY ARE NOT AFFECTED BY SUSPENSION OF PWHC
2010, X: A, the wife of an alleged victim of enforced disappearance, applied for

the issuance of a Writ of Amparo before a Regional Trial Court in Tarlac.
Upon motion of A, the court issued inspection and production orders
addressed to the AFP Chief of Staff to allow entry at Camp Aquino and
permit the copying of relevant documents, including the list of detainees, if
any. Accompanied by court-designated Commission on Human Rights
(CHR) lawyers, A took photographs of a suspected isolation cell where her
husband was allegedly seen being held for three days and tortured before he
finally disappeared. The CHR lawyers requested one Lt. Valdez for a
photocopy of the master plan of Camp Aquino and to confirm in writing that
he had custody of the master plan. Lt. Valdez objected on the ground that it
may violate his right against self-incrimination. Decide with reasons. (4%)
REQUIRING THE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS BY VIRTUE OF A WRIT OF

AMPARO IS SIMILAR TO MODES OF DISCOVERY OR RULES OF DISCOVERY
IN THE REVISED RULES OF PROCEDURE!!.. SEARCH WARRANT IS NOT
NECESSARY.. AFTER ALL, THE PROSCRIPTIONS RELATIVE ILLEGAL
SEIZURE PROVIDED FOR BY THE CONSTITUTIONS APPLIES ONLY TO
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AGAINST THE STATE.. IN THE CASE AT BAR, WHO
IS BEING REQUIRED TO PRODUCE IS THE STATE.. SO IT CANNOT BE
CONSIDERED AS VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST ILLEGAL SEIZURE…
Assume that the President of the Philippines suspended the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus due to rebellion. On the same day, X, a suspected
member of the New People’s Army, was arrested by the military. State
which of following is WRONG.
a. X can challenge the suspension of the privilege before the Supreme Court
b. X can be detained indefinitely without being charged in court for as long

as the suspension of the privilege of the writ is in effect YOU CAN ONLY BE
133 | P a g e
DETAINED FOR 72 HOURS.. IF AFTER THAT PERIOD NO CHARGE IS

LEVELLED, YOU MUST BE RELEASED!!
c. X can file a civil case for damages against the arresting officers on the
ground that his arrest was illegal (ILAGAN CASE)
d. X is entitled to bail if he is not charged with an offense punishable with

reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment.
Which of the following does NOT render a petition for the issuance of a writ of
habeas corpus academic?
(a) the issuance of a warrant of arrest against him
(b) his execution of an extra-judicial confession with assistance of

Counsel admitting guilt IT IS THE FILING OF THE CASE THAT WILL
RENDER PETITION MOOT.. IT IS NOT THE CONFESSION THAT RENDERS
THE DETENTION LEGAL!!
(c) the release of the person
(d) the escape of the person
Which case CANNOT prosper if the privilege of the
writ is suspended?
(a) damages arising from illegal searches
(b) a suit to obtain one’s speedy release from detention – BECAUSE THE
PURPOSE OF WRIT OF HABEAS CURPOS IS TO OBTAIN YOUR IMMEDIATE
RELEASE!!
© a criminal case for violation of RA 7438 on interrogation without
counsel
(d) an administrative case against the police for grave misconduct arising
from torture
Boac v. Cadapan, 649 SCRA 618 (2011)
Can the doctrine of command responsibility be applied in writ of amparo

petitions?
Held: Command responsibility may be loosely applied in amparo cases in order

to determine the author who, at the first instance, is accountable for, and has
the duty to address, the disappearance and harassments complained of, so
as to enable the Court to devise remedial measures that may be appropriate
under the premises to protect rights covered by the writ of amparo. As
intimated earlier (ROXAS CASE), however, the determination should not be
pursued to fix criminal liability on respondents preparatory to criminal
134 | P a g e
prosecution, or as a prelude to administrative disciplinary proceedings under

existing administrative issuances, if there be any.
Boac v. Cadapan, 649 SCRA 618 (2011)
Is there a need to file a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution to

enforce a decision in a petition for a writ of amparo?
Held: There is no need to file a motion for execution for an amparo or habeas
corpus decision. Since the right to life, liberty and security of a person is at
stake, the proceedings should not be delayed and execution of any decision
thereon must be expedited as soon as possible since any form of delay,
even for a day, may jeopardize the very rights that these writs seek to
immediately protect. The argument that the Rules of Court supplement the
Rule on the Writ of Amparo is misplaced. The Rules of Court only find
suppletory application in an amparo proceeding if the Rules strengthen,
rather than weaken, the procedural efficacy of the writ. As it is, the Rule
dispenses with dilatory motions in view of the urgency in securing the life,
liberty or security of the aggrieved party. Suffice it to state that a motion for
execution is inconsistent with the extraordinary and expeditious remedy
being offered by an amparo proceeding.
ONCE IT IS FINAL, THERE NO NEED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT
Speedy Disposition of Cases
Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases
before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
How is it distinguished from speedy trial?
SPEEDY DISPOSITION IS BROADER THAN SPEEDY TRIAL
THE FORMER INCLUDES PRE-TRIAL, POSTRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN

PERIODS OF APPEALS OR PERIODS FROM THE TIME OF TRIAL UP TO
TIME OF DECISION WHILE THE LATTER REFERS TO TRIAL ONLY OR THE
STAGE OF PRESENTATION OF EVIDENCES, WITNESSESS..
THE FORMER APPLIES TO ALL CASES(ADMIN, CIVIL, CRIMINAL) WHILE

SPEEDY TRIAL APPLIES ONLY TO CRIMINAL CASES
THE FORMER APPLIES TO ALL JUDICIAL, QUASI-JUDICIAL OR

ADMINSTRATIVE BODIES.. THE LATTER APPLIES ONLY TO COURTS
2. What are the factors to determine violation?
-right may be invoked only when the delay is capricious, vexatious and
oppressive
135 | P a g e
-Reasonable causes of delay-
1. voluminous records
2. complex issues
3. frequent reorganization in an office (reorganization in OMB)
3. Is the right waived by inaction?
REMEMBER THAT THE RIGHT OF SPEEDY TRIAL MAY BE WAIVED BY FAILURE

TO INVOKE.. BUT IN SPEEDY DISPOSITION, MAY BE WAIVED OR NOT..
JURISPRUDENCES ARE CONFLICTING!!
Right Against Self-Incrimination
Sec. 17. No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
1. When is a question incriminating- IT IS INCRIMINATING WHEN THE

QUESTIONS LEVELLED TENDS TO SUBJECT YOU TO A PENALTY.. IF IT
TENDS TO SUBJECT YOU TO A PUNISHMENT FOR A CRIME.. BUT IT DOES
NOT COVER QUESTIONS WHICH ARE EMBARRASSING
2. The right in various proceedings
a. Criminal (Chavez v. CA)- prohibition of inquiry (MEANING, YOU CAN

REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNES STAND)
b. Civil (Bagadiong v. Gonzales) –an option to refuse to answer an

incriminating question (MEANING, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE WITNESS
STAND AND INVOKE ONLY THE RIGHT WHEN QUESTIONS ASKED IS
INCRIMINATING!!)
c. Administrative case (Pascual v. Board, Cabal v. Kapunan
GENERALLY, an option to refuse to answer an incriminating question IS

APPLIED IN ADMIN CASES., HOWEVER IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, THEY
APPLIED PROHIBITION OF INQUIRY;
PASCUAL CASE- A PHYSICIAN WAS FACING REVOCATION OF HIS MEDICAL

LICENSE FOR THE MALPRACTICE, THE RESPONDENT PHYSICIAN
REFUSED TO TAKE THE WITNES STAND BEFORE THE PRC.. HELD.. WHILE
THIS IS NOT A CRIMINAL CASE, THIS CAN BE LIKENED TO THE SAME
SINCE THE PENALTY OF WHICH COULD RESULT TO REVOCATION OF
LICENSE TO PRACTICE MEDICINE.. YOU CANNOT BE FORCED TO TAKE
THE WINESS STAND
CABAL- THIS INVOLVED THE FORFIETURE OF IL GOTTEN WEALTH.. HELD..

YOU CANNOT BE FORCED TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND SINCE THE
OUTCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS MIGHT RESULT TO LOSS OF
PROPERTY..
136 | P a g e
BUT IN OTHER ADMIN CASE, YOU NEED TO APPLY THE APPROACH OF CIVIL
CASE..
d. Legislative investigation [In re:Sabio]

YOU CANNOT REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND BUT ONLY REFUSE
TO ANSWER INCRIMINITANG QUESTIONS
SIMILAR TO THE APPROACH OF CIVIL CASES
26. The right of the State to prosecute crimes by available evidence must yield to
the right of
A. the accused against self-incrimination.

B. another State to extradite a fugitive from justice.
C. the State to deport undesirable aliens.
D. the complainant to drop the case against the accused.
Bar questions:
1990, No. 4: The privilege against self-incrimination must be timely invoked,

otherwise it is deemed waived:
1. In a civil case, the plaintiff called the defendant a hostile witness and
announced that the defendant would be asked incriminating questions.
When should the defendant invoke the right? ONLY WHEN QUESTION
BECOME INCRIMINATING!!
2. In a criminal case, the prosecution called the accused t the witness stand as
the first witness. When should the accused invoke the privilege against
self-incrimination? AT THE TIME HE IS CALLED!
3. In an administrative case for malpractice and the cancellation of a license to

practice medicine filed against C, the complainant called C to the witness
stand. When should C invoke the privilege against self incrimination? [1988,
No. 3. Board of Dentistry] SAME WITH APPROACH OF CRIMINAL CASE..
ONLY WHEN QUESTION BECOME INCRIMINATING!! HE NEED NOT WAIT
THE QUESTIONS TO BECOME INCRIMINATING…
3. Scope of the Right
It covers only testimonial self incrimination, not mechanical and physical acts.
Thus: 1) it exempts the witness from testifying against himself (2) it
exempts him from producing documents and articles demanded of him
(EXAMPLE.. THE FISCAL CANNOT SUBPEONA THE DOCUMENTS OR
137 | P a g e
COMPELL YOU TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS), except
a) Baseco –Corporation/Officers
PCCG REQUIRED A CORPORATION TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS.. THE

LATTER INVOKED THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION!! HELD: THE
CORPORATION CANNOT INVOKE THE RIGHT OF SELF INCRIMINATION IN VIEW
OF THE FACT THAT IT IS ONLY A CREATURE OF THE STATE.. THE EXISTENCE
OF WHICH IS OWED TO THE STATE.. SO IT CANNOT INVOKE SUCH RIGHT
AGAINST THE STATE… THE STATE CAN EVEN DISOLVE IT..
AS TO THE CORPORATE OFFICERS, IT WILL NOT BE SELF INCRIMINATION

AGAINST THEM… GRANTING THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED
IS INCRIMINATING, IT WILL NOT INCRIMINATE THEMSELVES BUT THE
CORPORATION THEY REPRESENT.. HENCE.. IT IS NOT SELF INCRIMINATION..
THEY MAY BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS
NOTE: THE GUARANTEE IS SELF INCRIMINATION.. MEANING DO NOT

COMPELL ME TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AGAINST MYSELF!
b) Almonte – (THE RIGHT OF SELF INCRIMINATION DOES NOT APPLY TO)

Public officers WHO ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE public documents- THIS
IS PREMISED ON THE FACT THAT PUBLIC HAS THE RIGHT TO
INFORMATION ON MATTERS OF PUBLIC CONCERN.. THE ONLY
EXCEPTION TO THIS RIGHT IF IT MAY BE COVERED BY EXECUTIVE
PRIVILEGE!! NOT COVERED BY THE RIGHT OF SELF INCRIMINATION!!!
EXAMPLE IS THE ONE STATED IN THE BAR WHERE THE MILITARY OFFICER
WAS ORDERED TO SUBMIT THE PLAN AND MAP OF THE CAMP ACQUINO..
HE CANNOT REFUSE THE SAME AS HE IS A PUBLIC OFFICER REQUIRED
TO PRODUCE PUBLIC DOCUMENTS … IT CANNOT BE A GROUNT OF SELF
INCRIMINATION
Specific Instances:
US v. Tan Teng (gonorrhea) A PERSON WAS ACCUSED OF RAPING A GIRL AND

WHOM HE INFLICTED WITH GONORRHEA.. HE FORCED TO REMOVED HIS
CLOTHES AND REMOVE SUBSTANCE FROM HIS BODY TO DETERMINE
W/N HE HAD GONORRHEA.. HE INVOKED THE RIGHT HELD: THAT IS
NON-TESTIMONIAL.. YOU CANNOT INVOKED THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION!!!
Villaflor v. Summers (pregnancy) A WOMAN WAS ACCUSED OF ADULTERY AND

SHE WAS REQUIRED TO UNDERGOE A TEST TO DETERMINE W/N SHE IS
PREGNANT.HELD: THAT IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT.. YOU CANNOT
138 | P a g e
INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION!!! SHE WAS NOT

SUBJECTED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS!!
Gamboa (paraffin) – THIS IS A MECHANICAL ACT.. NOT A TESTIMONIAL ACT
Tranca (ultra violet radiation) MECHANICAL ACT .. NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT!!!!
Rodero (hair strands)- THE CHILD VICTIM WAS ABLE TO PULL THE HAIR OF
THE RAPIST.. THE LATTER WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE SOME OF HIS HAIR
FOR EXAMINATION AND COMPARISION HELD: THIS IS NON
TESTIMONIAL.. MEANING, IT CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE AGAINST YOU!
Codilla (line up)- PERSON PLACED IN POLICE LINE UP IS NOT TESTIMONIAL
Yatar (DNA) (BLOOD SAMPLE OBTAIN FROM HIM IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT:
SO THE GENERAL RULE IS, IF IT IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT, YOU CANNOT

INVOKE THE RIGHT OF SELF INCRIMINATION.. THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED
CAN BE USED AGAINST YOU
Exceptions: EVEN IF SEEMINGLY NOT TESTIMONIAL BUT COVERED BY THE

RIGHT
1. Handwriting –Beltran v. Samson (requires the use of intelligence and

attention)
A PERSON CHARGED OF FALSIFICATION CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO TAKE

DICTATION OR MAKE WRITING FOR PURPOSES OF IDENTIFICATION AND
COMPARISON-HELD- WHILE IT IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT, IT IS COVERED
BY THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION FOR IT REQUIRES THE USE
OF INTELLIGENCE AND ATTENTION!!!!
2. Reenactment-Olvis (communicative in nature)
A PERSON WAS REQUIRED TO UNDERGOE REENACTMENT OF THE

COMISSION OF THE CRIME HELD: WHILE IT IS NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT, IT
IS COMMUNICATIVE IN NATURE
Bar Questions
1992, No. 3: Congress: Congress is considering a law agaisnt drunken driving.

Under the legislation, police authorities may ask an driver to take a
“breathalyzer test” wherein the driver exhales several times into a device
which can determine whether he has been driving under the influence of
alcohol. The result of the tst will be used in any legal proceeding against
139 | P a g e
him. Does it violate the right? NO! THE INSTRUMENT FOR WHICH THE
DRIVER IS REQUIRED TO TAKE AND EXHALE IS NON TESTIMONIAL ACT.
2000, No. 11: Borja was arrested as a suspect in a killing. After his arrest, he
was brought to the police precinct where his pants, shirt and boots were
forcibly taken and he was weighed, measured, photographed, fingerprinted
and subjected to paraffin testing. At his trial, Borja objected to the
admission of the above items on the ground that his right against self
–incrimination was violated. Rule on the objection. THE OBJECTION MUST
FAIL AS WEIGHING, MEASURING, PHOTOGRAPHING, FINGERPRINTING
AND PARAFFIN TESTING ARE NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT.. HENCE IT CAN BE
USED AGANST BORJA!!!
2006, No. VII: Select the best answer and explain. An accused right against
self-incrimination is violated in the following cases:
A. When he is ordered by the trial court to undergo a paraffin test to prove he is

guilty of murder; NOT VIOLATIVE SINCE IT IS NON TESTIMONIAL ACT
B. When he is compelled to produce his bankbooks to be used as evidence

against his father charged with plunder. THE PERSON WILLL NOT BE
COMPELLED TO PRODUCED PURSUANT TO BANK SECRECY LAW
C. When he is ordered to produce a sample of his handwriting to be used as

evidence that he is the author of a letter wherein he agreed to kill the victim;
WHILE IT IS NOT A TESTIMONIAL ACT, IT REQUIRES THE USE OF
INTELLIGENCE AND ATTENTION!
D. When the president of a corporation is subpoenaed to produce certain
documents as proof he is guilty of illegal recruitment. NOT COVERED
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SELF INCRIMINATION!!! CORPORATION AND ITS
OFFICERS CANNOT INVOKE THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION!!!
2008, 5: Having received tips that the accused was selling narcotics, two police
officers forced open the door of his room. Finding him sitting partly dressed
on the side of the bed, the officers spied two capsules on the night stand
beside the bed. When asked, "Are these yours?", the accused seized the
capsules and put them in his mouth. A struggle ensued, in the course of
which the officers pounced on the accused but failed to extract the
capsules. The officers handcuffed the accused, took him to a hospital where
at their direction, a doctor forced an emetic solution through a tube into
accused's stomach against his will. This process induced vomiting. In the
vomited matter were found two capsules which proved to contain heroin. In
the criminal case, the chief evidence against the accused was the two
capsules.
a) As counsel for the accused, what constitutional rights will you invoke in
140 | P a g e
his defense? (4%) THIS IS COVERED BY THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF

INCRIMINATION AS AMERICAN JURISPRUDENCE WOULD STATE…
COMPELLING A PESON IS FORCE TAKE SOMETHING IN HIS BODY IS SOME
KIND OF A TORTURE… THIS IS INCRIMINATING!!!
b) How should the court decide the case? (3%)
Which provision of RA No. 9165 violates the right

against self-incrimination?
(a) requiring candidates to a public office to undergo drug-testing THIS WAS

NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE IT ADDS QUALIFIACTION IN VIOLATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION
(b) requiring secondary and tertiary students to undergo drug-testing

ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS
© requiring public and private employees to undergo random drug-testing

ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS
(d) requiring persons accused of crimes to undergo drug-testing THIS IS NOT

ALLOWED.. THIS IS NOT ALREADY RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS
BECAUSE ONCE THE ACCUSED IS FOUND POSITIVE, IT WILL AGGRAVATE
HIS PENALTY THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED AS AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE : NOTE THAT ONLY THOSE PERSON CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES OTHER THAN SALE AND POSSESSIN OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
ARE COVERED BY THE RIGHT
MEANING, THOSE WHO ARE CHARGED WITH SALE AND POSSESSION OF CAN
BE REQUIRED TO TAKE DRUG TEST!!! AND THESE PERSONS CANNOT
INVOKE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION!!!.. THIS HAS BEEN
ALLOWED AND A PRACTICE NOW… IN OTHERWORDS, IT CAN BE USED
AGAINST YOU!!!
SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board, GR No. 157870, Nov. 3, 2008
NOTE: THE GENERAL TEST INORDER TO PROPERLY INVOKE THE RIGHT

AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION IS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS TESTIMONIAL
ACT
HOWEVER IN DRUG CASES (URINATING), THE SUPREME COURT USES THE
TEST : W/N THE DRUG TESTING IS RANDOM AND SUSPICIONLESS
NOTE:
141 | P a g e
Students- “random and suspicionless” right to enroll not absolute .. THIS IS

THE TEST IN DRUG CASES
(Laserna) – charged before the Prosecution
Which statement is CORRECT?
(a) an accused in a criminal case can be compelled to take the witness
stand if assured that no incriminating question will be asked HE CAN

REFUSE IF CALLED TO THE WITNESS STAND
(b) the defendant in a civil case cannot be compelled to take the witness
stand .. HE CANNOT REFUSE TO TAKE THE WITNESS STAND
© a defendant in a civil case can be asked if he borrowed P1M from

plaintiff THIS IS NOT INCRIMINATING!!!! IT IS INCRIMINATING ONLY IF IT
SUBJECTS YOU TO A CRIME!!!
(d) the right against self-incrimination is narrower in criminal than in
civil cases .. NO!! IT IS MORE EXPANSIVE
In which instance can one invoke the right against self-incrimination?
a. compelling a person to provide blood sample NOT TESTIMONIAL ACT
b. compelling a public officer to produce public records THE PEOPLE HAS THE
RIGHT TO INFORMATION WHEN THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE
PUBLIC RECORDS
c. compelling a person to participate in a police lineup NONE TESTIMONIAL ACT
d. compelling a person to reenact his participation in a crime
YES THERE IS VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF INCRIMINATION

HERE AS IT IS COMMUNICATIVE IN NATURE
Which of the following is covered by the right against self-incrimination?
A. compelling him to undergo ultra-violet examination
B. compelling him to undergo a paraffin test
compelling him to produce his personal correspondence- TESTIMONIAL ACT

COVER BY THE RIGHT INCLUDEDS producing documents and articles
demanded of him.. HENCE.. HE CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO PRODUCE
DOCUMENTS DEMANDED OF HIM EXCEPT PUBLIC PUBLIC
142 | P a g e
CORPORATIONS AND PUBLIC OFFICERS.. THEY CAN BE COMPELLED

TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
D. compelling him to bare portions of his body
Use immunity v. Transactional immunity VIP

IMMUNITY- IS THE WEAPON OF THE STATE AGAINST RIGHT AGAINST
SELF INCRIMINATION!! IT IS BECAUSE ONCE YOU INVOKE SUCH RIGHT,
THE STATE CANNOT COMPELL YOU TO DISCLOSE OR PRODUCE
SOMETHING WHICH TENDS TO SUBJECT YOU TO A CRIME OR
PUBISHMENT.. SO THE ONLY WAY FOR THE STATE TO COMPELL YOU TO
DISCLOSE OR PRODUCE DOCUMENT IS TO GIVE YOU IMMUNITY IN THE
SENSE THAT THE PERSON WILL NOT BE INCRIMINATED BY HIS
TESTIMONY OR DOCUMENTS PRODUCED.. HENCE, THE PURPOSE OF
IMMUNITY STATUTE IS TO DEFEAT YOU RIGHT AGAINST SELF
INCRIMINATION!!!
Use- prohibits the use of the witness compelled testimony in connection with the
criminal prosecution of the witness.
EXAMPLE: SINGNSON AS WITNESS TESTIFIED AGAINST ESTRADA FOR

JUETING OPERATIONS.. IF GRANTED WITH USE IMMUNITY, SINGSON CAN
STILL BE PROSECUTED FOR JUETENG PROVIDED THAT HIS TESTIMONY
AGAINST ESTRADA IS NOT ADMITTED AGAINST HIM.. SINGSON MAY BE
PROSECUTED FOR EVIDENCES OTHER THAN HIS COMPELLED TESTIMONY
AGAINST ESTRADA..
IF GRANTED WITH TRANSCATIONAL IMMUNITY, SINGSON CANNOT BE

PROSECUTED FOR ANY GAMBLING OR JUETING BECAUSE HIS COMPELLED
TESTIMONY RELATES TO JUETING….
2. Transactional –immunity to the witness from prosecution for any offense to

which his compelled testimony relates.
THIS IS MORE BROADER.. YOU CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR ANY OFFENSE

TO WHICH YOUR COMPELLED TESTIMONY RELATES!!
Bar Question, 2011
4. When a witness is granted transactional immunity in exchange for his

testimony on how his immediate superior induced him to destroy public
records to cover up the latter's act of malversation of public funds, the
witness may NOT be prosecuted for
A. direct contempt.
B. infidelity in the custody of public records. HE CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR

ANY OFFENSE TO WHICH HIS COMPELLED TESTIMONY RELATES
143 | P a g e
C. falsification of public documents.
D. false testimony.
Bar Question, 1998, V: Summary: Suppose Congress passes a law requiring that
an employee can be compelled to testify even if it tends to incriminate him,
provided his testimony cannot be used in evidence against him. (USE
IMMUNITY)
Supposed further that A, a member of the PRC Board was required to answer
questions pertaining to a leakage in the medical examination. Can he refuse
to answer on the ground of self-incrimination? NO! SHE CANNOT REFUSE
BECAUSE SHE CAN NO LONGER BE PROSECUTED FOR THE OFFENSE IN
VIEW OF THE USE IMMUNITY
Sec. 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.
A. Freedom of conscience
YOU CANNOT BE IMPRISONED FOR BELEIVING IN COMMUNISM… BUT IF YOU

ACT IN ACCORDANCE OF THE YOU BELIEF OR IDEOLOGY OF COMMUNISM,
AND YOU ARE CAUGHT WITH HIGH POWERED FIREARMS, YOU ARE NOT NOW
PROTECTED BY THESE SECTION
B. Involuntary Servitude
Aclaration v. Gatmaitan:
Estrada Case: THERE WAS A LAW RA 1329 PROVIDING THAT ALL

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS FACING ADMINISTRATIVE
CHARGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO RETIRE OR RESIGN.. NOTE THAT
ESTRADA WAS CONSIDERED BY THE SC TO HAVE RESIGNED
VOLUNTARILY OF HIS PRESIDENCY.. SAGUISAG NOTED THAT
ESTRADA COULD NOT HAVE RESIGNED FROM HIS POST SINCE HE
WAS FACING IMPEACHMENT CASE AT THE TIME HE RESIGN.. SO HE
WAS PROHIBITED FROM RESIGNING!! HELD: SC HELD THAT IF WE
INTERPRET RA1319 LITERALLY, WE MIGHT END UP VIOLATING THE
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE PROVISON OF THE CONSTITUTION
BECAUSE YOU ARE FORCING PEOPLE TO WORK AGAINST THEIR
WILL!!! SO THE RULE NOW IS THAT EVEN IF YOU ARE FACING
ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO RESIGN OR
RETIRE PROVIDED THAT HIS BENEFITS SHALL BE WITHOLD PENDING
THE DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE!!!
1993, No. 16: GATMAITAN CASE!!!

144 | P a g e
Joy, an RTC stenographer, retired at the age of 65. She left unfinished the
transcription of her notes in a criminal case which was on appeal. The Court
of Appeals ordered Joy to transcribe her notes. She refused to comply with
the order reasoning that she is no longer in the service. The CA declared
Joy in contempt of court and she was incarcerated. Joy filed a petition for
habeas corpus arguing that her incarceration is tantamount to illegal
detention and tp require her to work sans compensation would be
involuntary servitude. Decide.
HELD.. YOU CANNOT INVOKE THE INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE CLAUSE INTHIS

CONTEXT FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THE POWER OF THE SUPREME
COURT TO ADMINISTER JUSTICE IS SUPERIOR TO THE INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE CLAUSE..
OBITER CASE SINCE THE CASE WAS SETTLED DURING THE PENDENCY OF
THE SAME
Which of the following is prohibited by the “involuntary servitude” clause of the

Constitution?
a. An order of the Secretary of Labor for strikers to return to work IT IS NOT

VIOLATIVE BECAUSE IT IS VOLUNTARY ON YOUR PART BECAUSE IF
YOU DO NOT WANT TO RETURN, YOU ARE DEEMED TO HAVE
RESIGNED!
b. An law prohibiting public officers and employees from retiring during the
pendency of an administrative case against them .
A law providing for hard labor as a sentence for soldiers guilty of desertion ..
THIS IS PROVIDED FOR BY LAW
d. An order of the Court of Appeals compelling a stenographer to transcribe her

notes under pain of contempt THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IS SUPERIOR TO INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE CLAUSE
Bar Question, 2011
63. Involuntary servitude may be required as
A. part of rehabilitation of one duly charged with a crime.
B. substitute penalty for one who has been duly tried for a crime.
145 | P a g e
C. punishment for a crime where one has been duly convicted. REASON IS
CODAL..No involuntary servitude in any form shall exist except as a
punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
AS OF TO DATE, THERE IS NO LAW PROVIDING FOR INVOLUNTARY
SERVICE AS PENALTY .. HOWEVER, THERE IS A law providing for hard labor
as a sentence for soldiers guilty of desertion .. THIS IS PROVIDED FOR BY
LAW… IT IS NOT VIOLATIVE TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDED THERE IS
CONVICTION~~ IT IS ONLY IN THE MILITARY
D. condition precedent to one's valid arraignment.
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.
NOTE THAT DEATH PENALTY MAYBE RE-IMPOSED, BUT THREE CONDITIONS

MUST BE MET:
THERE MUST BE A LAW PROVIDING THE SAME
ONLY FOR COMPELLING REASONS
INVOLVING HEINOUSE CRIMES
Cruel and inhumane punishment: HOW DO WE DEFINE IT

1. Those which public sentiment would regard as cruel and obsolete to law. It
has something to do with the form, not severity. OBSOLETE-MEANING
THOSE NO LONGER USED IN ANOTHER COUNTRY!!!
2. Those which are disproportionate to the offense as to shock the moral sense.
MEANING, IT MUST BE DISPROPORTIONATE AND IT MUST SHOCK THE
MORAL SENSE
NOTE: THAT DEATH PENALTY WAS IMPUGNED AS CRUEL AND INHUMAN, BUT
WAS UPHELD BY THE SC IN VIEW OF THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS TO
RESTORE OR REIMPOSE THE SAME
146 | P a g e
NOTE ALSO THAT LETHAL INJECTION WAS CHALLENGED FOR BEING CRUEL
AND INHUMANE… SC HELD THAT IT CANNOT BE CRUEL AND INHUMANE
SINCE IT IS USED BY SEVERAL COUNTRIES.. HENCE, NOT OBSOLETE!! WHILE
LETHAL INJECTION MAY INFLICT PAIN, THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT
GUARANTEE THAT THERE WILL BE NO PAIN.. WHAT IS UNCONSTITIUTIONAL
IS THE PENALTY THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO INFLICT PAIN… HERE, THE
PAIN IS ONLY INCIDENTAL OF THE PENALTY.. IN FACT ALL PENALTY
INFLICTS PAIN!! WHAT IS PROSCRIBED IS PAIN THAT IS INHERENT TO THE
METHOD.. MEANING THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS REALLY INFLICT PAIN..
Agbanlog –1993, malversation of 21,000 – 11-16 years. HE WAS CONVICTD

FOR MALVERSATION OF 21,000 AND SENTENCED TO 11- 16 YEARS OF
IMPRISONMENT IN 1993.. HELD: IT RULED THAT IT IS NOT CRUEL OR
UNUSUAL.. THE PENALTY IS NOT DISPROPORTIONATE AS TO SHOCK THE
MORAL SENSE IN VIEW.. YOU CANNOT COMPLAIN BEFORE US, YOU GO
TO CONGRESS AND HAVE IT AMENDED…
Lim – estafa through BP 22, P360 –T – Perpetua
HELD: IF YOU THINK IT IS DISPROPORTIONATE, YOU GO TO CONGRESS AND

HAVE IT AMENDED!!
Serrano – full back wages [excessive fine]
SERRANO DECISION. SC STATED THAT BACKWAGES SHALL BE FROM THE

TIME OF THE DISMISSAL UNTIL SUCH TIME THE COURT DECIDES THE CASE
WITH FINALITY!!! IF THE CASE DRAG UP TO 20 YEARS, BACKWAGES SHALL
COVER THE AMOUNT COVERING THE PENDENCY OF THECASE!!! IT WAS
IMPUGNED ON THE GROUND SAID BACKWAGES ARE EXCESSIVE FINES..
HELD: BACK WAGES ARE NOT FINES!!! FINES ARE THOSE WHICH ACCRUE IN
FAVOR OF THE STATE… HERE, THE BACKWAGES ARE DUE TO THE PERSON
ENTTILED TO IT OR TO THE EMPLOYEE.. HENCE, FULL BACKWAGES CANNOT
BE CONSIDERED AS VIOLATIVE TO THE CONSTITUTION!!
Bar Question, 2011
78. The Constitution prohibits cruel and inhuman punishments which involve
A. torture or lingering suffering.

B. primitive and gross penalties. THIS CAN BE CONSIDERED AS OBSOLETE!!
C. unusual penal methods.
D. degrading and queer penalties. CONSTITUTION ALSO PROHIBITS

DEGRADING PUNISHMENT
NOTE MOST ANSWERS ARE GOOD.. BUT TORTURE IS THE MOST CLEAR
147 | P a g e
ANSWER
2010 Bar Exam:
XI
Which statement best completes the following phrase: (1%)
“Freedom from torture is a right
A. subject to derogation when national security is threatened.”
B. confined only during custodial investigation.”
C. which is non-derogable both during peacetime and in a situation of armed

conflict.”
D. both (a) and (b)
E. none of the above.
Section 20. No person shall be imprisoned for debt or non-payment of a poll tax.
Non-imprisonment for debt
(DEBT HERE REFERS ONLY TO CONTRACTUAL DEBT… WALAY MAPRISO SA

UTANG!!!!.. HENCE, IF IT IS NOT A CONTRACTUAL DEBT, YOU CANNOT INVOKE
THE PROVISION!!!
B. Non-payment of poll tax
Debt- applies only to contractual debt, express or implied
1. Lozano v. Martinez – BP 22 (BP 22, YOU ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR ISSUING
A BOUCING CHECK WHICH POISONS BLOODSTREAM OF THE ECONOMY..
NOT BECAUSE OF NONPAYMENT OF DEBT..)
2. People v. Nitafan – Trust Receipt law (REFERS TO ESTAFA, YOU ARE BEING
PUNISHED FOR YOUR DECEIT, OR FAILURE TO DELIVER THE PROCEEDS
OF THE GOODS.. AND NOT FOR NONPAYMENT OF DEBTS).. WHAT IS
BEING PUNISHED HERE IS THE ACT OF ABUSING THE CONFIDENCE OF
OTHERS!!! IT IS REALLY NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CREDITOR.
OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!
3. People v. Merillo – Salary of Workers- THERE IS A LABOR LAW PROVIDING

THE COMPLIANCE OF EMPLOYERS TO PROVIDE SALARY IN ACCORDANCE
WITH MINIMUM WAGE LAW.. VIOLATION THEREOF EMPLOYERS WILL GO
TO JAIL… THIS WAS IMPUGNED FOR BEING VIOLATIVE OF THIS SECTION
HELD: THE SAME WAS HELD TO BE CONSTITUTIONAL AS VALID EXERCISE
OF POLICE POWER OF THE STATE..
148 | P a g e
MOREOVER, THIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONTRACTUAL DEBT IN THE

SENSE THAT I BORROWED MONEY FROM YOU AND I FAILED TO PAY..
HENCE, NONPAYMENT OF SALARY OF WORKER IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE WAGE BOARD CAN BE PUNISHED WITHOUT VIOLATING THE
PROVISION!! Sentencing an employer to imprisonment for non-payment of
minimum wage IS VALID!!
Which is violative of the constitutional provision against non-payment of debt?
Ordering the incarceration of defendants for contempt for non-payment of rental

THIS IS COVERED BY THE NON PAYMENT OF DEBT CLAUSE… WHILE
THIS MAY BE A CONTRACTUAL DEBT, THIS GOES AGAINST THE CIVIL
PROCEDURE BECAUSE IF THERE IS A JUDGMENT, YOU FILE FOR
MOTION FOR EXECUTION… CONTEMPT IN JUDGEMENT IS HAD ONLY
JUDGMENT ORDERING OTHER PERSON TO BE RESTORED TOHIS
POSITION!! VIOLATIVE
Sentencing an employer to imprisonment for non-payment of minimum wage
NOT VIOLATIVE
Compelling a convict to serve subsidiary imprisonment for non-payment of civil

liability.. DEAN SAYS THIS IS WRONG!! SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
FOR NON PAYMENT OF CIVIL LIABILITY CANNOT BE DONE BECAUSE
THE RPC DOES NOT ALLOW IT. HOWEVER NONPAYMENT OF FINE IS
NOT VIOLATIVE TO THIS SECTION BECAUSE FINE BECAUSE FINE
ACTUALLY DOES NOT ARISE EX CONTRACT . IT IS NOT A
CONTRACUAL DEBT.IT ARISES EX DELICTO OR OUT OF CRIME AND IT
GOES TO THE STATE… VIOLATIVE
Convicting an accused of estafa for converting money received in trust or on
commission NOT VIOLATIVE
Double Jeopardy MEMO!!!!
Sec. 21, No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment 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.
149 | P a g e
Two Kinds:
1. For the same offense
2. For the same act
Sec. 1. Double Jeopardy (SAME OFFENSE)
Requisites for Double Jeopardy:
1. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense.
DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS TO SAME OFFENSE AND AS TO SAME ACT HAVE THE

SAME ELEMENTS EXCEPT NO. 3 OF WHICH IT IS NOT REQUIRED IN THE
LATTER
1999, No. VII:
A. Discuss the right of every accused against double jeopardy. No person shall
be twice put in jeopardy of punishment 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.
B. What are the requisites for double jeopardy?
Requisites for Double Jeopardy:
1. The first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second;
2. The first jeopardy must have been validly terminated; and
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense.
Applicable to criminal cases only: Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 603 SCRA 348

(2009)-Plunder and Forfeiture of Ill-Gotten Wealth
GARCIA- THE GOVT FILED A PLUNDER CASE AGAINST HIM.. LATER IT FILED A
FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM BEFORE THE SANDIGANBYAN.
HELD: FORFEITURE OF ILL GOTTEN WEALTH IS NOT A CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS!! THEREFORE THE 2 CASES CAN PROCEED TOGETHER
WITHOUT VIOLATING DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! DOUBLE JEOPARDY APPLIES
ONLY IN CRIMINAL CASES
I. First Jeopardy has Attached
NOTE THAT THE 3 SUB REQUISITES MUST CONCURE INORDER THAT THE
FIRST JEOPARDY HAS ATTACHED!! NAMELY:
150 | P a g e
VALID COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION

FILED BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT AND
ACCUSED WAS ARRAIGNED.
1. Valid complaint or information (VALID ONE IS ONE SUFFICIENT TO
a. Information charging no offense/element missing [Pu yi Kun]
b. information not signed by offended party (Manaba)
c. Info not filed/signed by proper authority (Cudua)
[Lasoy v. Senerosa]
2. Filed before a competent court
a. No jurisdiction over offense [Binay]
b. Filed in wrong venue [Us v. Arceo]
c. See next slide
3. Accused was arraigned
1. Valid complaint or information (VALID COMPLAINT OR INFORMATION IS ONE

SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT A PERSON) IF SOMETHING IS DEFECTIVE IN THE
INFO OR COMPLAINT, THEN YOU CANNOT CONVICT THE ACCUSED AND
CONSEQUENTLY WE CAN SAY THAT THE FIRST SUB-REQUISITE IS ABSENT!!
a. Information charging no offense/element missing [Pu yi Kun] (IN THE

INFORMATION OF THEFT, IT WAS NOT ALLEGED OR (ONE ELEMENT OF THEFT
WAS MISSING) THAT THE TAKING OF PROPERTY WAS WITHOUT THE
CONSENT.. THAT WILL RENDER THE INFORMATION DEFECTIVE AND NOT
SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE PERSON AND IT CHARGES NO OFFENSE AT ALL
BECAUSE ONE ELEMENT IS MISSING. SO THE ACCUSED CANNOT INVOKE
DOUBLE JEOPARDY HERE WHEN THE SECOND INFO WAS FILED FOR THE
REASON THAT THE FIRST INFO WAS DEFECTIVE AND INSUFFICIENT FOR
VALID CONVICTION.. OTHERWISE STATED.. THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED TO
BE INFORMED OF THE CAUSE AND NATURE OF THE CRIME FOR WHICH HE IS
BEING CHARGE IS VIOLATED.. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
b. information not signed by offended party (Manaba) (NOTE THAT PRIVATE

CRIMES CAN ONLY BE INITIATED BY THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANTS (THE
INFORMATION FOR ADULTERY WAS FILED WITHOUT THE SIGNATURE OF THE
WIFE) OR INFORMATION OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITHOUT THE
SIGNATURE OF THE PRIVATE COMPLAINANT (PRIVATE CRIMES).. SO IT THE
SAME WAS DISMISSED.. WHEN THEY FILED THE SECOND INFORMATION WITH
THE SIGNATURE OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, THE ACCUSED INVOKED DOUBLE
JEOPARDY. HELD: NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. CONSIDERING THAT THE FIRST
151 | P a g e
INFORMATION WAS NOT INITIATED AND SIGNED BY THE OFFENDED PARTY,

THERE CAN BE NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THAT COULD NOT HAVE RESULTED
TO VALID CONVICTION!! THEREFORE, THE NEW INFO FILED, THIS TIME
SIGNED BY THE OFFENDED PARTY, WILL BE OKAY!!!
c. Info not filed/signed by proper authority (Cudua)
[Lasoy v. Senerosa]
EX.. WE KNOW THAT TAGUM CITY IS UNDER THE PROVINCE OF DAVAO DEL
NORTE.. THE LATTER HAS A PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR (ENAD) AND FORMER
ALSO HAS ITS CITY PROSECUTOR (GALAGALA).. THE OFFENSE OF ILLEGAL
POSSESSION OF FIREARMS OCCURRED IN TAGUM CITY BUT THE ONE WHO
FILED/SIGNEDTHE INFORMATION WAS THE PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR
(ENAD) CONSIDERING THE PROVINCE ALSO HANDLES ITS COMPONENT CITY.
LATER ON THE ONE FILED BY PROSECUTOR ENAD WAS DISMISSED. WHEN
THE SECOND INFORMATION WAS FILED NOW BY PROSECUTOR GALAGALA,
THE ACCUSED VILLACORTE MOVED FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAME
INVOKING DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. HELD.. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
CONSIDERING THAT THE FIRST INFORMATION WAS NOT FILED/SIGNED BY
THE PROPERTY AUTHORITY (WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN BY PROSECUTOR
ENAD).. SO IT COULD NOT HAVE RESULTED TO A VALID CONVICTION!! SO HE
CAN BE CHARGED AGAIN!!
(LASOY CASE) A was charged with illegal possession of 4 kilos of shabu.

Apparently with A’s connivance, someone erased the word “kilos” and
changed it to “grams.” Accused pleaded guilty and due to the small amount
the RTC judge sentenced him to less than 6 years in prison and placed him
on probation. When the anomaly was discovered, the Fiscal filed a new
information against A. A claimed double jeopardy. Is accused correct?
a. No, because there was no valid complaint or information
b. No, because the court had no jurisdiction over the offense the information
having been falsified
c. No, because there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge
d. Yes, because there was a valid complaint or information sufficient to

convict A FALSIFIED IS A VALID INFORMATION!! NOTE THAT THE
INFORMATION WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED AND IN FACT
HE WAS DULY CONVICTED!! ONCE HE HAS BEEN DULY CONVICTED, YOU
CANNOT OPEN THE CASE ANYMORE BECAUSE THE FIRST JEOPARDY
HAS ALREADY ATTACHED!!!
2. Filed before a competent court (MEANING IT MUST BE A COURT WITH
152 | P a g e
JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE)
a. No jurisdiction over offense [Binay] NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE CHARGED

WITH CRIMINAL OFFENSE BY REASON OF YOUR PUBLIC OFFICE (AS MAYOR),
THE JURISDICTION IS VESTED IN THE SANDIGAN BAYAN!! THE PROBLEM IS
THAT THE OMBUDSMAN FILED A CASE AGAINST BINAY BEFORE THE RTC
(WITHOUT JURISDICTION).. UPON REALIZING THE ERROR, THE OMB FILED A
CASE BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN.. SO THE CLEVER LAWYERS OF BINAY
HAD THE LATTER PLEADED GUILTY BEFORE THE RTC KNOWING THE SAME
TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION.. WITH THAT, THEY MOVED FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF THE ONE FILED IN THE SANDIGANBAYAN INVOKING DOUBLE
JEOPARDY!. HELD-CONSIDERING THAT THE RTC HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER
THE OFFENSE, BINAY WAS NOT PLACED IN JEOPARDY!! THE CASE BEFORE
THE RTC MUST BE DISMISED AND LET THE ONE FILED BEFORE THE
SANDIGANBYAN PROCEED!!
b. Filed in wrong venue (VENUE IS JURISDICTIONAL) [Us v. Arceo] THIS

CASE INVOLVED BIGAMY… THE FIRST MARRIAGE WAS HAD IN COTABATO
AND THE SECOND MARRIAGE WAS HAD IN TAGUM CITY! THE BIGAMY CASE
WAS FILED IN COTABATO (ERRONEOUS).. IT WAS DISMISSED FOR IMPROPER
VENUE.. WHEN IT WAS FILED IN TAGUM, THE HUSBAND INVOKED DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.. HELD.. NO! THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! CONSIDERING
THAT THE FIRST INFO WAS FILED BEFORE AN IMPROPER VENUE, THE
ACCUSED WAS NOT PLACED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
c. See next slide Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales, 629 SCRA 423 (2010)
Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales, 629 SCRA 423 (2010)
Accused was charged with parricide before the RTC. After a reinvestigation,
the prosecutor filed a motion to withdrew information, to give was to the
filing of an information against the accused for Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Parricide. The motion to withdraw was not acted upon by the
court in view of an appeal with the DOJ, and later with the Office of the
President, by the heirs of the victim questioning the downgrading of the
charge Reckeless Imprudence. Meanwhile, accused pleaded guilty to
reckless imprudence and was sentenced to a maximum of 2 years and 10
months by the MeTC. Due to the dismissal by the Office of the President of
the appeal of the heirs, the RTC also granted the motion to withdrew the
information for parricide. The dismissal turned out to defective because the
judge did not make an independent evaluation but relied merely on the
motion of the fiscal and the findings of the DOJ. Considering that accused
had been convicted by the MeTC (TAKE NOTE THAT THE DISMISSAL OF
153 | P a g e
THE CASE BEFORE THE RTC WAS DEFECTIVE), can the case be reinstated
in the RTC without placing the accused in double jeopardy?
HELD: NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THE METC ACTUALLY HAS NO JURISDICTION

OVER THE OFFENSE BECAUSE THE CASE IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE
RTC AND REMEMBER THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONCE JURISDICTION IS
ACQUIRED, IT CONTINUES UNTIL IT IS VALIDLY TERMINATED…
MOREOVER, THE CASE OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO
PARRICIDE IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN THE CASE OF PARRICIDE.
HENCE, THE METC ACTED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE CASE MAY
BE REFILED AND REINSTATED IN THE RTC WITHOUT PLACING THE
ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! TRICKY EXAMPLE!!
LITTLE SUMMARY: BEFORE FIRST DOUBLE JEOPARDY HAS ATTACHED,

THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT
THERE MUST BE A VALID COMPLAINT
THAT IT MUST BE FILED BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT
Accused was arraigned
NOTE: WHY IS IT THAT WITHOUT NO. 1 OR NO 2 SUBREQUISITE, THERE IS NO

DOUBLE JEOPARDY? YOU ARE NOT IN DANGER OF BEING CONVICTED
BECAUSE THEY ARE NULL IN VOID ANYWAY.. SO YOU CANNOT SAY THAT
YOU ARE PLACED IN DANGER OF GETTING CONVICTED!!
3. Accused was arraigned
3. Accused has been arraigned
1. Antone v. Beronilla, 637 SCRA 615 (2010)
Accused was charged with bigamy. He filed a motion to quash the

information on the ground that his first marriage was declared null and void
after he contracted the second marriage, which the trial court granted. His
wife filed a certiorari before the Court of Appeals. The CA dismissed it on
the ground that it will violate the rule on double jeopardy. Is the CA correct?
NO! THE FIRST JEOPARDY HAS NOT YET ATTACHED IN VIEW OF THE
GRANTING MOTION TO QUASH.. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ACCUSED HAS
NOT BEEN ARRAIGNED!! IF THE INFORMATION IS DISMISSED BY REASON
THE GRANTING OF MOTION TO QUASH, THE FISCAL CAN FILE A CASE
AGAIN AND AGAIN!!!
Vincoy [Fiscal’s Office of Pasay

154 | P a g e
THE FIRST COMPLAINT FOR ESTAFA WAS FILED WITH FISCAL’S OFFICE OF
PASAY.. THEN A CASE FOR THE SAME ESTAFA WAS FILED AGAINST THE
ACCUSED WITH FISCALS OFFICE OF PASIG.. WAS THERE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY? HELD: NO! EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE FACT THE
FIRST COMPLAINT WAS FILED ONLY BEFORE THE FISCAL’S OFFICE..
THERE WAS NEVER AN ARRAIGNMENT THERE.. ARRAIGNMENT COMES
ONLY BEFORE A COURT… YOU CAN BE CHARGED BEFORE THE FISCAL’S
OFFICE 10 TIMES WITHOUT PLACING IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
Exceptions:
1. Balisacan – not valid plea/self-defense
THE PERSON WAS CHARGED WITH HOMICIDE.. THE ACCUSED PLEADED

GUILTY ON THE CONDITION THAT HE BE GIVEN MITIGATING
CIRCUMSTANCES.. THIS WAS ALLOWED BY THE COURT. DURING TRIAL,
HE PRESENTED EVIDENCE (SELF DEFENSE).. THE JUDGE ACQUITTED HIM…
THE FISCAL APPEALED BEFORE THE SC.. IS THERE DOUBLE JEOPARDY?
HELD- NO! THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!! SOMETHING’S WRONG
WITH THE PROCEEDINGS.. SC EMPHASIZED THAT WHEN THE ACCUSED
PLEADS GUILTY AND DURING TRIAL HE PRESENTS EVIDENCE WHICH
TENDS TO EXCULPATE HIM, THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE HAD HIM
REARRAIGNED AND SHOULD HAVE ASKED HIM TO PLEAD NOT GUILTY!
THE ARRAIGNMENT WAS NULL AND VOID (THE FIRST ONE).. HENCE, THE
CASE MAY BE REOPENED WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED IN DOUBLE
JEOPARDY!! THERE WAS NO VALID PLEA!!.. HIS EVIDENCE PRESENTED IS
INCONSISTENT WITH HIS PLEA OF GUILTY.. THERE WAS NO VALID
ARRAIGNMENT
2. grave abuse:Dimatulac v. Villon, 297 SCRA 679 (1998) – rushing arraignment

despite pendency of appeal with DOJ
THE RESOLUTION OF THE FISCAL WAS HOMICIDE AND INFORMATION FOR

HOMICIDE WAS FILED WITH THE COURT.. THE RELATIVE OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY APPEALED TO THE DOJ QUESTIONING THE
RESOLUTION FOR THE FILING OF HOMICIDE.. PENDING THE APPEAL, THE
JUDGE ARRAIGNED THE ACCUSED FOR HOMICIDE.. DOJ RULED THAT THE
A CASE OF MURDER BE FILED INSTEAD OF HOMICIDE… ACCUSED
OBJECTED TO MOVE ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY SINCE HE
HAS BEEN ALREADY ARRAIGNED: HELD- NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! THE
JUDGE COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION WHEN HE RUSHED
THE ARRAIGNMENT FOR HOMICIDE NOTWIDSTANDING THE PENDENCY
OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE DOJ!! HENCE, THE SC ALLOWED THE FILING
OF THE INFORMATION FOR MURDER WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED
155 | P a g e
IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!! GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF

THE JUDGED RESULTED TO INVALIDITY OF THE ARRAIGNMENT HAD BY
THE ACCUSED!!
Cerezo v. People, 650 SCRA 222 (2011)
Respondents were charged with libel before the RTC. On motion for
reinvestigation, the City Prosecutor reversed itself and found no probable
cause to charged them. Meanwhile, they were arraigned and pleaded not
guilty. The offended party appealed to the DOJ for a review of the resolution
of the City Prosecutor. Despite the pendency of the appeal, a motion to
withdrew information was filed by the prosecutor which was granted by the
court (TAKE NOTE THAT ACCUSED WAS SO CLEVER THAT THEY HAD
THEMSELVES ARRAIGNED FIRST BEFORE THE INFORMATION COULD BE
DISMISSED!). Later, when the DOJ reversed the resolution of dismissal and
ordered the prosecutor to refile the case, the judge granted the motion to
reinstate the information. Both orders of the judge were not based on his
independent consideration but relied merely on the finding of the DOJ. Can
the case be reinstated without placing the accused in double jeopardy?
YES! THE CASE CAN BE REINSTATED WITHOUT PLACING THE ACCUSED IN

DOUBLE JEOPARDY! THE JUDGE ACTUALLY COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE
OF DISCRETION WHEN HE ACTED THE MOTION TO DISMISS BASED ON
THE FINDING OF THE DOJ WITHOUT HIS INDEPENDENT CONSIDERATION..
HENCE, THE CASE CAN BE REINSTATED AS THE ARRAIGNMENT WAS
PATENTLY NULL AND VOID!! NOTE THAT WHEN A PROSECUTOR MOVES
FOR THE DISMISAL OF THE INFORMATION, THE JUDGE MUST RELY ON
HIS INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT OR ARGUMENT AND NOT MERELY
DEPEND ON THE ASSESSMENT OR RESOLTION OF THE PROSECUTOR..OR
THE DOJ… IT IS BECAUSE ONCE THE INFORMATION IS FILED WITH
COURT, THE CASE IS NOW THE PROPERTY OF COURT AND THE JUDGE
THEREOF MUST MAKE PERSONAL AND INDEPENDENT EVALUATION TO
ANY MOTION FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE SAME.. HE MUST RESOLVED
THE SAME BASED ON HIS INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT!! HENCE, GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE WHICH RESULTED
TO THE INVALIDITY OF THE ARRAIGNMENT HAD BEFORE HIS SALA!!!!
People v. Dumlao. 580 SCRA 409 (2009)
Dumlao and several other ranking officials of the Marcos regime were
charged before the Sandiganbayan of violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. After arraignment, he filed a motion to quash invoking the
ground that “the facts charged do not constitute an offense.” The
Sandiganbayan, based on the Pre-Trial Stipulation entered into by the
accused and the prosecution, however, dismissed the case on the ground of
insufficiency of evidence. Can the Supreme Court review the dismissal
156 | P a g e
without placing the accused in double jeopardy?
YES.. THE SC CAN… HOW CAN THE JUDGE DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE
GROUND OF INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE WHEN THERE WAS NO TRIAL!!
THAT IS GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION!!! THEREFORE, THE CAN BE
REFILED AGAIN… GAD CAN BE IN SEVERAL FORMS
(LASOY CASE) A was charged with illegal possession of 4 kilos of shabu.

Apparently with A’s connivance, someone erased the word “kilos” and
changed it to “grams.” Accused pleaded guilty and due to the small amount
the RTC judge sentenced him to less than 6 years in prison and placed him
on probation. When the anomaly was discovered, the Fiscal filed a new
information against A. A claimed double jeopardy. Is accused correct?
a. No, because there was no valid complaint or information
b. No, because the court had no jurisdiction over the offense the information
having been falsified
c. No, because there was grave abuse of discretion on the part of the judge
d. Yes, because there was a valid complaint or information sufficient to

convict A FALSIFIED IS A VALID INFORMATION!! NOTE THAT THE
INFORMATION WAS SUFFICIENT TO CONVICT THE ACCUSED AND IN FACT
HE WAS DULY CONVICTED!! ONCE HE HAS BEEN DULY CONVICTED, YOU
CANNOT OPEN THE CASE ANYMORE BECAUSE THE FIRST JEOPARDY
HAS ALREADY ATTACHED!!!
II. IST Jeopardy Terminated
Nitafan – 21 criminal cases
SEVERAL CASES WAS FILED AGAINST A PERSON FOR VIOLATION OF

CENTRAL BANK CIRCULAR.. JUDGE NOTICED THAT THERE ARE 21
CRIMINAL CASES FILED AGAINST THAT PERSON BEFORE HIS SALA… HE
ORDERED THE DISMISSAL OF THE OTHERS.. HELD: FOR AS LONG AS
CASES WERE PENDING, YOU CANNOT MOVE FOR THE DISMISSAL OF ONE
SINCE THERE WAS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THEM
HAS BEEN VALIDLY TERMINATED… WAIT THE CASE TO BE VALIDLY
TERMINATED BEFORE YOU CAN VALIDLY INVOKE DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
Jeopardy is terminated by:

ACQUITTAL, CONVICTION AND DISMISSAL,
A. Acquittal –Immediately final, ONCE IT THE SENTENCE OF AQUITTAL IS

READ, IT IS ALREADY FINAL..
157 | P a g e
Pp. V. CA – convicted of homicide but reversed by CA- Certiorari- HELD:

CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS A JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL BY THE
LOWER COURT, CERTIORARI CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED.
Paluay – Annulment of judgment : HELD: A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL CAN NO

LONGER BE SUBJECT OF ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
Reconsideration- Serrano – Notice of appeal- THE PERSON WAS ACQUITTED

OF RAPE.. A NOTICE OF APPEAL WAS FILED.. THE JUDGE WHO WAS
IGNORANT OF THE LAW, HE FORWARDED THE RECORDS TO THE SC FOR
REVIEW.. HELD: THE SC FINED TE JUDGE 20,000.00 FOR IGNORANCE OF
THE LAW..
Argel v. Pascua –acquitted, reversed 5 days after [revised] THE JUDGE

ACQUITTED THE ACCUSED FOR THE CRIME OF MURDER ON THE REASON
THAT NON OF THE WITNESSESS WERE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE ACCUSED
.. HOWEVER, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS STENOGRAPHIC
NOTES SHOWING THAT A WITNESS CLEARLY IDENTIFIED THEWITNESS..
SO THE JUDGE ISSUED A REVISED DECISION 5 DAYS AFTER THE
PROMULGATION.. HELD: A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS IMMIEDIATLY
FINAL!!!.. THE JUDGE WAS DISMISSED FOR GROSS IGNORANCE OF THE
LAW!!
People v. Sandiganbayan, 631 SCRA 128 (2010)
After trial wherein the Ombudsman prosecutor and the accused

presented witnesses and numerous documents, the Sandiganbayan
acquitted accused of violation of the Anti-Graft Act. The Ombudsman filed a
petition for certiorari to overturn the Sandiganbayan’s conclusion that “there
was no doubt that dredging work was performed” considering that when the
work was allegedly done, there was yet no approve specification and plans
as required by law. Can the Court review the decision without violating the
right of the accused against double jeopardy?
Held: No. The foregoing is essentially an issue involving an alleged error of

judgment, not an error of jurisdiction. Petitioner has not convincingly shown
that the prosecution has indeed been deprived of due process of law. There
is no showing that the trial court hampered the prosecution's presentation of
evidence in any way. On the contrary, the prosecution was given ample
opportunity to present its ten witnesses and all necessary documentary
evidence. The case was only submitted for decision after the parties had
duly rested their case. The trial court clearly stated in its decision which
pieces of evidence led it to its conclusion that the project was actually
undertaken, justifying payment to the contractor. Petitioner failed to show
that there was mistrial resulting in denial of due process. When the trial
court arrives at its decision only after all the evidence had been considered,
158 | P a g e
weighed and passed upon, then “any error committed in the evaluation of
evidence is merely an error of judgment that cannot be remedied by
certiorari. IN OTHER WORDS, JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL CANNOT BE
REVIEWED EVEN IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE JUDGE COMMITTED AN
ERROR!!!
Exceptions: THAT JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL MAY BE REVIEWED.. NOTE
THAT THIS CAN BE A GROUND FOR CERTIORARI
1. Deprivation of due process
2. Grave abuse of discretion
3. Galman and Bellaflor – recon/ De Grano
GALMAN- THIS CASE INVOLVED ACQUITTAL OF VER FOR THE DEATH OF

NINOY ACQUINO.. THE PROSECUTION FILED A MOTION FOR RECON BUT
DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL CANNOT
BE SUBJECT FOR REVIEW ANYMORE AS IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.. AFTER CORY ASSUMED PRESIDENCY, IT WAS DISCOVERED
THAT THE CASE WAS RAFFLED TO MARCOS TUTA JUDGE.. IT WAS ALSO
LEARNED THAT MONITORING DEVICE WAS HAD INSIDE THE COURTROOM
BY THE MILITARY.. SOME OF THE WITNESSESS DISAPPEARED… HELD:
THE COURT RULED THAT THE STATE WAS DEPRIVED OF DUE PROCESS..
SO RE-TRIAL WAS ALLOWED AND THE ACCUSED WERE CONVICTED
BELLAFLOR- THE JUDGE CONVICTED THE ACCUSED.. UPON MOTION FOR

RECON, THE JUDGE ACQUITTED THE ACCUSED.. BUT THE SAID DECISION
ONLY INDICATED “FINDING THE MOTION FOR RECON MERTITORIOUS,
THE ACCUSED IS HEREBY ACQUITTED”. HELD: THERE WAS AN GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE.. IT IS
NOTEWORTHY THAT IN RENDERING JUDGMENT REVERSING YOUR
PREVIOUS JUDGMENT UPON MOR, YOU MUST STATE THE LAW AND THE
FACTS… A JUDGMENT OF THE SAME WITHOU STATEMENT OF LAW AND
FACTS IS UNCONSTITTIONAL…
De Grano
People v. De Grano, 588 SCRA 550 (2009)
Six (6) people were charged with murder, but only four (4) were arraigned,
the rest being at-large. After trial, the RTC convicted the four (4). During the
promulgation, only one, Lacaba, was present. Despite the fact that the three
(3) had become fugitives from justice, through counsel, all four (4) filed a
motion for reconsideration. The judge, however, acted on the motion by
acquitting two (2) of the accused and downgrading the conviction of the two
159 | P a g e
(2) others, including Lacaba, to homicide. A petition for certiorari filed by the
prosecution with the Court of Appeals was dismissed on the ground of
double jeopardy. May the Supreme Court review the judgment of acquittal
without placing the accused in double jeopardy?
YES! NOTE THAT AFTER THE 3 ABSCONDED WITHOUT APPEARING THE

PROMULGATION OF CONVICTION, THEY ARE DEEMED TO HAVE LOST
THEIR STANDING.. IN OTHERWORDS, THEY WERE WITHOUT STANDING IN
FILING THE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.. SO IN SO FAR AS THE 3
WHO HAD ABSCONDED, THEIR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL OR
DOWNGRADING OF SENTENCE ARE NULL AND VOID.. IT WAS ISSUED
WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE!!!
HENE, THE ACQUITTAL MAY BE REVIEWED ON THE GROUND OF GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE!!
Lejano v. People, 639 SCRA 760 (2011)
After the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and acquitted accused
Webb and others, complainant Lauro G. Vizconde, filed a motion for
reconsideration, claiming that it “denied the prosecution due process of law;
seriously misappreciated the facts; unreasonably regarded Alfaro as lacking
credibility; issued a tainted and erroneous decision; decided the case in a
manner that resulted in the miscarriage of justice; or committed grave abuse
in its treatment of the evidence and prosecution witnesses.” Can the Court
reconsider its decision? NO MORE!! THE COURT CANNOT RECONSIDER ITS
DECISION..!! A JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL CANNOT BE REVIEWED…
DOUBLE JEOPARDY ALREADY SET IN.. IT IS DOUBTED W/N THE SC
WOULD REVERSE ITS DECISION ON THE GROUND OF VIOLATION OF DUE
PROCESS BY THEM OR GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY THEM….
Jacob v. Sandiganbayan, 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
Due to repeated postponements by Ombudsman prosecutors and their failure

to submit their reinvestigation report, Justice Nario of the Fourth
Sandiganbayan Division, during its session, issued a verbal order dismissing
the cases. The dismissal was duly recorded in the minutes of the hearing of
the said date which was attested to by the Clerk of Court and signed by the
parties. On motion of the prosecution, the Special Fourth Division reversed
the order 6 months later. Will the reversal of the order of dismissal which
was based on speedy trial violate the rights of the accused against double
jeopardy? WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS THAT THE JUDGE ORDERED THE
DISMISAL BECAUSE THE PROSECUTION DID NOT ARRIVE, A FEW
MINUTES LATER, THE WITNESS ARRIVED AND WAS PRESENTED.. AFTER
THAT HE REVERSED HIS VERBAL ORDER
HELD: NOTE THAT A DISMISSAL OF A CASE BASED ON THE VIOLATION OF
160 | P a g e
THE RIGHT OF THE ACCUSED BASED ON SPEEDY TRIAL WILL RESULT TO

DOUBLE JEOPARDY AS WE WILL LEARN LATER ON… HOWEVER,
EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED THAT TO HAVE A VALID JUDGEMENT OR
ORDER OF DISMISSAL, THE SAME MUST BE MADE IN WRITING AND
SIGNED BY THE JUDGE.. WHAT HAPPEN HERE WAS THAT THE JUDGE
REVERSED HIS ORDER (VERBAL) AFTER THE WITNESS HAD SHOWN UP
AND PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION.. SO THE PRINCIPLE HERE IS
THAT UNTIL THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN REDUCED INTO WRITING AND
SIGNED BY THE JUDGE (DISMISSAL ORDER), DOUBLE JEOPARDY HAS
NOT YET SET IT.. IN THE CASE AT BAR, THERE WAS NO VALID JUDGMENT
OR ORDER AS IT WAS NOT IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE..
CORRECT PROCEDURE FOR A VALID ORDER OR JUDGMENT IS IT MUST
BE IN WRITING AND SIGNED BY THE JUDGE (ONCE SIGNED, IT CANNOT BE
REOPENED ANYMORE, DOUBLE JEOPARDY COMES IN) AND IT IS READ.
ONCE IT IS READ, IT BECOMES IMMEDIATELY FINAL….
Ordinary errors: Laggui: No error, however flagrant, committed by the court

against the state can be reviewed by the Supreme Court (EVEN IF IT IS VERY
CLEAR AND VERY OBVIOUS) WITHOUT RESULTING TO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY..
HOW DO WE KNOW W/N THE ERROR IS ORDINARY OR GRAVE ABUSE?
ORDINARY ERRORS- THE JUDGE MISAPPRECIATION EVIDENCE OR HE

CANNOT UNDERSTAND OR MISUNDERSTOOD THE LAW THE LAW
FOR INSTANCE, ONE JURISPRUDENCE HAS IT THAT WHERE A JUDGE

CONVICTED THE ACCUSED FOR MURDER AND THE PENALTY PRESCRIBED BY
TO THAT IS DEATH.. BECAUSE THE JUDGE ARE NOT AKIN OF DEATH
PENALTY, HE ONLY SENTENCED THE ACCUSED OF RECLUSION PERPETUA!
NOW, HE IS BEING INTERVIEWED ABOUT HIS DECISION AND HE STATED IN
THE INTERVIEW THAT HE DID NOT IMPOSED THE DEATH PENALTY BECAUSE
HIS CONSCIENCE CANNOT BEAR PUTTING PEOPLE TO DEATH.. IN THAT CASE,
IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ORDINARY ERRORS.. BUT HAD HE PUT THAT
STATEMENTS IN THE DECISION OF CONVICTION, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION SINCE HE KNEW THE LETTER OF THE LAW
AND CONSEQUENTLY IT CAN BE REVERSED BY THE SC.. ON THE OTHER
HAND, HOWEVER, IF HE WAS INTERVIEWED AND HE VERBALLY SAID THAT HE
COMMITTED MISTAKE IN NOT IMPOSING WHAT PRESCRIBED BY LAW, IT
WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS ORDINARY ERROR.. HENCE IT CANNOT BE
REVIEWED BY THE SC, EVEN HOW FLAGRANT AND OBVIOUS..
B. Conviction – may be appealed by accused. But if he appeals, entire case is

open open for review. Pp. v. Rondero]
Phil. Rabbit: To decrease civil liability
161 | P a g e
On Certiorari to alter conviction to a more serious crime? Castro v. People
B. Conviction – (IT BECOMES FINAL 15 DAYS FROM PROMULGATION) may be

appealed by accused. But if he appeals, entire case is open for review. Pp.
v. Rondero]
RONDERO-THE POLICE OFFICER WAS CHARGED WITH RAPE WITH HOMICIDE..

AFTER TRIAL, HE WAS CONVICTED ONLY FOR HOMICIDE AND NOT WITH RAPE
SINCE NO EVIDENCE FOUND TO ESTABLISH THE LATTER… SO CONVICTED OF
HOMICIDE ONLY.. SO THE ACCUSED APPEALED BEFORE SC.. HELD: SC
HOWEVER FOUND HIM GUILTY OF RAPE WITH HOMICIDE… EMPHASIS
SHOULD BE PLACED THAT ONCE THE ACCUSED APPEAL HIS CONVICTION, HIS
ENTIRE CASE IS OPEN FOR REVIEW.. THAT IS RISKY..!!
Phil. Rabbit: To decrease civil liability
THE BUS DRIVER WAS CONVICTED OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE..AND

SENTENCED TO PAY BIG AMOUNT AS CIVIL LIABILITY… BUT THE DRIVER
ESCAPED AND CONSEQUENTLY HE HAD NO LONGER STANDING TO APPEAL..
NOTE THAT IN DAMAGES, IF THE ACCUSED IS INSOLVENT, THE EMPLOYER
WILL BE SUBSIDIARILY LIABLE.. NOW HERE, THE BUS COMPANY FILED AN
APPEAL ONLY IN SO FAR AS THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE CASE IS
CONCERNED… CAN THAT BE ALLOWED? HELD: THE BUS COMPANY CANNOT
APPEAL AS TO THE CIVIL LIABILITY BECAUSE ONLY THE ACCUSED IS ONLY
ALLOWED TO APPEAL.. THIS IS PREMISED ON THE RULE THAT IF THE CASE IS
APPEALED BY THE ACCUSED AND THE ENTIRE CASE WILL OPEN FOR REVIEW,
THERE IS A GREAT POSSIBILITY THAT THE CIVIL LIABILITY OF THE ACCUSED
MAY BE INCREASED! THEREFORE IT IS ONLY HE, THE ACCUSED DRIVER, CAN
APPEAL THE SAME.. SINCE HE ALREADY ESCAPED AND THEREFORE CANNOT
MAKE APPEAL, THE EMPLOYER SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED SINCE DOUBLE
JEOPARDY PRINCIPLE IN THIS CASE WILL SET IN..
On Certiorari to alter conviction to a more serious crime? Castro v. People
IN THIS INSTANCE, THE ACCUSED WAS CHARGED WITH FRUSTRATED

MURDER BUT WAS ONLY CONVICTED OF SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES.. SO
YOU APPEAL FOR PURPOSES OF HAVING THE CONVICTION RESTORED TO
THE CRIME ORIGINALLY CHARGED! HELD: THAT CANNOT BE ALLOWED.. to
alter conviction to a more serious crime CANNOT BE HAD AS DOUBLE
JEOPARDY IN THIS CASE HAS ALREADY SET IN..
What about to increase penalty only?
Pp. v. Leones, 3 counts of rape- 17 years.
162 | P a g e
THE ACCUSED HERE PLEADED GUILTY OF 3 COUNTS OF RAPE.. BUT INSTEAD

OF SENTENCING HIM OF 3 COUNTS OF DEATH PENALTY, HE ONLY
SENTENCED HIM FOR 17 YEARS.. SO THERE WAS A CLEAR AND OBVIOUS
ERROR HERE ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE.. CAN THE PROSECUTION APPEAL
TO INCREASE THE PENALTY ONLY? HELD : NO! ONLY THE ACCUSED CAN
APPEAL THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE
SAME MAY RESULT TO ENTIRE CASE SUBJECT FOR REVIEW… SAME RULING
IF YOU WANT TO ALTER THE CONVICTION TO A MORE SERIOIUS CRIME..
Pp. v. CA, 4 BP 22, fined by CA
THE ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED IN THE LOWER COURT AND SENTENCED TO

IMPRISONMENT.. UPON APPEAL, THE CA ONLY SENTENCED HIM TO A FINE..
IT WAS APPEALED BY THE PROSECUTION.. HELD.. IT CANNOT BE ALOWED..
YOU CANNOT APPEAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CHANGING THE NATURE OF
THE PENALTY.. PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY SET IN HERE
IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROSECUTION IS PROHIBITED FROM APPEALING A
JUDGMENT OF ACQUITAL AND CONVICTION!!
C. Dismissal – Tupaz v. Ulep
When is there consent to the dismissal?
RECAP: JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL IS IMMEDIATELY FINAL.. IT CANNOT BE

SUBJECT TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION, CERTIORARI, ANNULMENT OF
JUDGMENT.. BUT IN RARE CASES, MAY BE REVIEWED BY THE SC IF THERE IS
VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION AND NOT ORDINARY ERRORS OF JUDGMENT
AS TO JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION, IT SHALL BECOME FINAL AFTER THE

LAPSE OF 15 DAYS FROM PROMULGATION OF JUDGMENT.. ONLY THE
ACCUSED HIMSELF CAN APPEAL IT.. THE STATE CANNOT APPEAL IT FOR
PURPOSES OF
ALTERING THE CONVICTION OF TO A MORE SERIOUS CRIME;\
INCREASING THE PENALTY THEREOF
CHANGING THE NATURE OF THE PENALTY FROM FINE TO IMPRISONMENT
BUT TAKE NOTE ON THE RARE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED FOR BY THE

JURISPRUDENCE!!
C. Dismissal – Tupaz v. Ulep

163 | P a g e
IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW W/N THE DISMISSAL IS WITH CONSENT OR

NOT.. BECAUSE IF IT IS WITH CONSENT, PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
DOES NOT APPLY.. OF THERE IS NON, THERE WILL BE DOUBLE JEOPARDY
When is there consent to the dismissal? PDO WSID
1. Provisional dismissal (HERE, IT MUST BE DISTINGUISHED!! IN THE MTC, THE

PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL SHALL BECOME FINAL AFTER THE LAPSE OF 1
YEAR.. IN THE RTC, THE PROVISIONAL DISMISSAL SHALL BECOME FINAL
AFTER THE LAPSE OF 2 YEARS.. MEANING, DOUBLE JEOPARDY WILL SET IN
AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE 1 YEAR OR 2 YEARS, AS THE CASE MAY BE..!!! SO
THE FISCAL MUST RE-FILE THE CASE WITHIN THAT PERIODS
2. Dismissal with prejudice- Dismissal without prejudice means that the

dismissal shall be without prejudice of refiling… that which WITH PREJUDICE,
Cannot be refiled again
3. On motion of accused- BY MOTION TO QUASH OR TO DISMISS FILED BY THE

ACCUSED.. SO THERE WILL BE NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY HERE!!
4. When he agrees (WITH THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE)
Exceptions:
1. Speedy trial [Salcedo v. Mendoza](NOTE THAT EVEN IF THE DISMISSAL IS

PROVISIONAL, OR WITH PREJUDICE, OR ON MOTION OF THE ACCUSED, OR
WITH HIS AGREEMENT, THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BASED ON OR ON THE
GROUND OF1. THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED OR
INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE, THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY… IT WILL RESULT
TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! MEANING, IF I ASKED THE JUDGE FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF SPEEDY TRIAL AND THE
LATTER DISMISSES THE SAME ON THE GROUND, THE CASE CANNOT BE
REFILED ANYMORE AS DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THERE..!!
Exceptions:
1. Speedy trial [Salcedo v. Mendoza](NOTE THAT EVEN IF THE DISMISSAL IS

PROVISIONAL, OR WITH PREJUDICE, OR ON MOTION OF THE ACCUSED, OR
WITH HIS AGREEMENT, THE DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BASED ON OR ON THE
GROUND OF1. THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED OR
INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE, THERE IS DOUBLE JEOPARDY… IT WILL RESULT
TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! MEANING, IF I ASKED THE JUDGE FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE ON THE GROUND OF SPEEDY TRIAL AND THE
LATTER DISMISSES THE SAME ON THE GROUND, THE CASE CANNOT BE
REFILED ANYMORE AS DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THERE..!! IF IT IS
GROUNDED ON SPEEDY TRIAL, IT CANNOT BE REFILED AGAIN!!
164 | P a g e
2. Insufficiency of evidence [Demurrer – Ong v. People, MTC granted, RTC

reversed, CA granted]
REMEMBER THAT THE ACCUSED FILES A DEMURRER OF EVIDENCE (FOR

INSUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE) AND IT IS GRANTED, IT AMOUNTS TO
ACQUITTAL TO HIM… HENCE, IT CAN NO LONGER BE RE FILED ANYMORE
EVEN IF THE FISCAL DISCOVERS ANOTHER EVIDENCE!!
3. Discharge as state witness
IF THE STATE USES ONE OF THE SEVERAL ACCUSED WHO IS THE NOT THE
MOST GUILTY, DISCHARGES HIM AS STATE WITNESS AND EVENTUALLY
DISCHARGES HIM FROM THE INFORMATION AND THE LATTER COMPLIES
THE CONDITION ATTACHED THERETO AS STATE WITNESS, THE CASE
CANNOT BE REFILED AGAINST HIM ANYMORE EVEN IF THE ACCUSED IS
ACQUITTED IN THE CASE FOR WHICH HE IS BEING DISCHARGED AS STATE
WITNESS..
IN RELATION TO THIS, A JUDGE DISCHARGED THE ACCUSED AS STATE

WITNESS AND REMOVED HIM FROM THE INFORMATION AND EXECUTED AND
AFFIDAVIT… THE FISCAL MOVED FOR RECON.. DURING THE PENDENCY OF
WHICH, THE JUDGE WAS REPLACED BY ANOTHER ONE.. THE LATTER ACTING
UPON THE MOTION FOR RECON, REVERSED THE ORDER OF HIS
PREDECESSOR.. CAN IT BE ALLOWED? HELD: IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED.. ONCE
THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN DISCHARGED FROM THE INFORMATION AND AS A
WITNESS, HE CAN NO LONGER BE REINSTATED TO THE INFORMATION..
DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THERE!!! TRUST THE AUTHORITY!!!!
When is there no consent? REMEMBER THAT WHEN THE DISMISSAL IS

WITHOUT CONSENT, DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN THE EVEN THE CASE
AGAINST IS REFILED (HERE THE ACCUSED DOES NOT WAIVED HIS RIGHT
TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY!)
1. Silence/failure to object [Ilagan] HERE, THE FISCAL ASKED THE COURT

THAT THE CASE FILED BE DISMISSED…. THE ACCUSED WAS CAUGHT
SURPRISE AND DID NOT OBJECT TO THE SAME.. SO IT WAS DISMISSED..
LATER ON, THE FISCAL FILED THE SAME CASE OR ANOTHER OF MORE
SERIOUS CRIMEAGAINST THE ACCUSED WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT
THE DISMISSAL WAS WITH CONSENT( THAT HE AGREED TO THE
DISMISSAL-WITH CONSENT) BY REASON OF THE SILENCE OR FAILURE TO
OBJECT OF THE ACCUSED … IS THERE DOUBLE JEOPARDY? THE HENCE…
HELD: THE SILENCE OR FAILURE TO OBJECT BY THE ACCUSED OF THE
DISMISSAL IS EQUIVALENT TO NO CONSENT.. IT MUST BE NOTED THAT
UNDER THE REVISED RULES OF COURT, THE DISMISSAL TO BE CONSIDER
EDAS WITH CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED MUST BE “DISMISSAL WITH THE
165 | P a g e
EXPRESSED CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED”!!! MEANING, SILENCE OF THE

ACCUSED AMOUNTS TO NO EXPRESS CONSENT.. THEREFORE, THE CASE
CAN NO LONGER BE REFILED AGAINST THE ACCUSED AS DOUBLE
JEOPARDY SETS IN THERE!!
2. Reinvestigation [P. v. Vergara] but not motion for reconsideration [Bellaflor]
VERGARA- THE ACCUSED HERE WAS CHARGED IN COURT.. SO INFORMATION

WAS DULY FILED.. THEN THE ACCUSED FILED FOR REINVESTIGATION OF
THE COMPLAINT DETERMINE W/N THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE… THE
FISCAL FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO PROBABLE CAUSE PROMPTING THE
AGGRIEVED PARTY TO APPEAL THE RESOLUTION OF THE FISCAL.. THE
LATTER FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS THE INFORMATION PURSUANT TO
THE OUTCOM OF HIS REINVESTIGATION FINDING NO PROBABALE
CAUSE.. NOTE THAT THE ACCUSED HERE HAD ALREADY BEEN
ARRAIGNED.. SO AFTER THE CASE WAS DISMISSED, THE DOJ ORDERED
THE REFILING OF THE CASE….. THE ACCUSED INVOKED DOUBLE
JEOPARDY!! THE PROSECUTION CONTENDED THAT THE DISMISSAL WAS
WITH CONSENT SINCE IT IS THE ACCUSED WHO MOVED FOR THE
REINVESTIGATION HELD: REINVESTIGATION IS NOT EQUIVALENT TO
CONSENT..
Exceptions: [Loose] 1. Grave abuse
2. Violation of due process Serino v. Zosa State Prosecutor v. Murro
BELLAFLOR CASE- THE ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED BY THE COURT.. HE FILED

A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION.. THIS TIME THE JUDGE REVERSED HIS
DECISION.. HE CHALLENGED THE REVERSAL BEFORE THE SC ON THE
GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. HELD: THERE IS NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY
BECAUSE YOU FILED A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION WHICH IS
TANTAMOUNT TO A CONSENT!! REFER THIS TO DEAN
REMEMBER THAT IF THE DISMISSAL IS WITHOUT CONSENT, THERE IS

DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!
Exceptions: [Loose]
1. Grave abuse
2. Violation of due process
Serino v. Zosa
THE JUDGE WAS CALLING FOR A TRIAL .. HE TOLD THE ACCUSED TO RETURN
AT 10 AM FOR A COFFE BREAK.. HOWEVER AT 9AM HE DISMISSED THE CASE
WHEN HE FOUND THAT THE FISCAL AND THE ACCUSED WAS NOT PRESENT
166 | P a g e
WHEN HE RESUMED.. UPON REALIZING THE MISTAKE, THE JUDGE

REINSTATED THE CASE AGAINST THE ACCUSED.. THE LATTER OBJECTED ON
THE GROUND OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY.. HELD.. NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY SET IN..
THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF DUE OF PROCESS AND GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION ON THE PART OF THE JUDGE.. HE SET THE HEARING AT 10 AM
AND YET HE DISMISSED IT AT 9AM.. THE CASE CAN BE REINSTATED
State Prosecutor v. Murro
IMELDA MARCOS WAS CHARGED WITH CRIMES INVOLVING VIOLATIONS OF

CENTRAL BANK CIRCULARS.. JUDGE, WHILE HAVING HIS BREAKFAST, HEARD
OVER THE RADIO THAT THE CB CIRCULARS HAVE BEEN REPEALED
PROMPTING HIM TO DECLARE IN THE COURT AND ORDERED THE DISMISSAL
OF THE CASE BASED ON SUCH RADIO REPORT!!...HELD. GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION!!
NOTE: SHOULD THERE BE MOVE TO DISMISS A CASE FOR LACK OF

PROBABLE CAUSE, THE JUDGE MUST PERSONALLY EVALUATE AND ASSESS
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.. HE MUST RESOLVE IT BASED ON HIS
INDEPENDENT EVALUATION.. IF HE DISMISSED IT BASED ON THE ARGUMENT
OF THE PROSECTUION OR THE DOJ, IT WILL RESULT TO GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION!! IN THAT CASE, THE CASE MAY BE REFILED
C. 2nd Jeopardy is for Same Offense
TAKE NOT THE WORD “THE SAME” AS HAVING A VERY EXPANSIVE MEANING
Identical offenses (THIS HAPPENS WHEN THE FIRST CASE IS IDENTICAL WITH
THE SECOND CASE)
2nd is an attempt to commit the first
2nd is a frustration of the first (B AND C MEANS THAT THE CONSUMATED

HOMICIDE IS THE SAME WITH ATTEMPTED OR FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
FOR PURPOSES OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY!!) MEANING, I CANNOT FILE
ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE AND LATER CHANGE IT TO FRUSTRATED
HOMICIDE OR CONSUMMATED ONE)-WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE
“SAME OFFENSE”
1st necessarily includes the 2nd (THIS HAPPENS WHEN THE ELEMENTS OF BOTH
ARE ALMOST THE SAME)-EX. I CHARGE YOU WITH MURDER, AND THE
CASE WAS DISMISSED AT MY INSTANCE AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN
ARRAIGNED, NOW I FILED THIS TIME A CASE FOR HOMICIDE. MURDER
NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE CRIME OF HOMICIDE.. HENCE, DOUBLE
JEOPARDY SETS IN HERE.
1st necessarily included in the second (I CHARGE YOU WITH THEFT.. THE CASE
WAS DISMISSED AT MY INSTANCE AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN
167 | P a g e
ARRAIGNED.. THEN I FILED ROBERRY AGAINST YOU.. ROBERRY

NECESSARILY INCLUDES THE CRIME OF THEFT.. SAME PRINCIPLE..
SOME ELEMENTS IS MISSING (FORCE, VIOLENCE)
EXCEPTONS:
a. Supervening fact /Melo doctrine
b. Newly discovered fact
c. Plea to lesser offense without consent of offended party or fiscal
[Garcia Plunder Case]
EXCEPTONS:
a. Supervening fact /Melo doctrine EX. YOU STABBED.. YOU ARE CHARGED
AND ARRAIGNED FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES FOR STABBING ME .. AFTER
ARRAIGNMENT, I DIED AS A RESULT OF THE STABBING WOUNDS.. SO A
NEW CHARGE OF HOMICIDE IS LEVELLED AGAINST YOU.. HELD.. THAT
IS OK IN VIEW OF THE SUPERVENING FACT… WHILE PHYSICAL
INJURIES IS NECESSARILY INCLUDED IN HOMICDE, MY DEATH IS THE
SUPERVENING FACT.. THAT IS ALLOWED.. THE FACT OF DEATH
OCCURRED AFTER THE ACCUSED HAS BEEN ARRAIGNED.. THAT IS
SUPERVENING FACT.. ALLOWED BY THE AUTHORITY!!!
b. Newly discovered fact .. IST DAY YOU WERE STABBED.. 2ND DAY A CASE
WAS FILED FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES AGAINST ME.. 3RD DAY I DIED
WITHOUT THE FISCAL HAVING KNOWN OF MY DEATH.. ON THE 4TH DAY,
THE ACCUSED PLEADED GUILTY ON PHYISICAL INJURIES..SO HERE,
THE FISCAL IS ALLOWED TO AMEND THE INFORMATION IN VIEW OF
THE NEWLY DISCOVERED FACT.. THAT IS ALLOWED.. NO DOUBLE
JEOPARDY THERE IN VIEW OF THE NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE.. IT
MUST BE DISTINGUISHED WITH SUPERVENING FACT IN THAT IN THE
LATTER, THE FISCAL HAD KNOWLEDGE OF MY DEATH THERE.. HERE,
THE FISCAL HAS NO KNOWLEDGE..
c. Plea to lesser offense without consent of offended party or fiscal IT MUST

BE NOTED THAT IN A PLEA OF GUILTY, THE CONSENT OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY AND THE FISCAL MUST BE HAD IN ORDER FOR THE
SAME TO BE VALID.. ABSENT ANY OF THE 2, THE PLEA FOR LESSER
OFFENSE IS NULL AND VOID
c. Plea to lesser offense without consent of offended party or fiscal IT MUST BE

NOTED THAT IN A PLEA OF GUILTY, THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED
PARTY AND THE FISCAL MUST BE HAD IN ORDER FOR THE SAME TO BE
VALID.. ABSENT ANY OF THE 2, THE PLEA FOR LESSER OFFENSE IS NULL
168 | P a g e
AND VOID AND THE CASE CAN BE REINSTATED!!
[Garcia Plunder Case] GARCIA WAS CHARGED WITH PLUNDER .. HE PLEADED

GUILTY TO A LESSER OFFENSE OF BRIBERY WITH THE CONSENT OF THE
PROSECUTORS OMB WHICH IS BAILABLE.. (PROBABLY WITH THEIR
CONNIVANCE).. THE PROBLEM IS ALL ELEMENTS OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY
ARE PRESENT.. THIS IS A CASE OF PLEA OF GUILTY FOR A LESSER
OFFENSE
VALID COMPLAINT
FILED BEFORE A COMPETENT COURT
VALIDLY ARRAIGNED
VALIDLY TERMINATED BY CONVICTION
Iyvler v. Modesto-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 94 (2010)
Due to a vehicular accident, Iyvler was charged before the Metropolitan Trial
Court with two separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Slight Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No. 82367) for injuries sustained by
Evangeline L. Ponce; and (2) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
and Damage to Property (Criminal Case No. 82366) for the death of Ponce’s
husband Nestor C. Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle. He
pleaded guilty to the charge in Criminal Case No. 82367 and was meted out
the penalty of public censure. Invoking this conviction, accused moved to
quash the Information in Criminal Case No. 82366 for placing him in
jeopardy of second punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence. Should the information be quashed? [As judge:]
A. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the same offense as the first
B. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the same act as the first.. THERE
IS ONLY ONE OFFENSE THERE.. THOUGH THE SAME RESULTS TO 2 OR
MORE EFFECTS.. EMPHASIS SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE OR NEGLIGENCE AND NOT ON THE RESULTS OF THE SAME
C. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a different offense
D. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a different act
2nd Type of Jeopardy: For the same act
NOTE THAT THE REQUISITES FOR DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME ACT IS
169 | P a g e
SIMILAR TO THAT “SAME OFFENSE” EXCEPT THE NO 3 REQUISITES.. KNOW

THE DISTINCTION
Distinction between same act/same offense
1. As to basis of charge: ordinance and statute
IN THE FORMER, THE BASIS IS THE ORDINANCE AND THE STATUTE WHILE
THE LATTER IS BASED ON THE STATUTE EITHER UNDER THE REVISED PENAL
CODE AND SPECIAL LAWS
2. As to point of analysis: the act in time and space [How many acts did accused
perform]
THE FORMER, YOU LOOK AT THE ACT IN TIME AND SPACE BY DETERMINING
HOW MANY ACTS DID THE ACCUSED PERFORM AND IF FOUND TO BE
INVOLVED WITH ONLY 1 ACT, THE FORMER MUST APPLY.. WHILE IN THE
LATTER, YOU LOOK AT THE ELEMENTS OF THE 2 OFFENSES, ONE OF THE
ELEMENT IS ONLY MISSING IN THE OTHER OFFENSE..
Cases:
1.P. v. Saley – Illegal recruitment and estafa- THE COURT HELD THAT
ILLEGAL RECRUITMENT AND ESTAFA AS NOT CONSTITUTING DOUBLE
JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE FOR THE REASON THAT THE
ELEMENTS OF ONE IS CLEARLY DISTINCT TO THE OTHER..
2. Merencillo v. P. – Direct bribery [Art. 210, RPC] and Anti-Graft [directly

requesting a gift] THE ELEMENTS OF THESE CRIMES ARE DISTINCT FROM
EACH THAT THE ACCUSED HEREOF CAN BE CONVICTED ON THE
RESPECTIVE CASES EVEN FOR THE SAME ACT WITHOUT PLACING THE
ACCUSED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY!! EVEN FOR THE SAME ACT THEY CAN
BE CONVICTED ON THESE SEPARATE OFFENSE BECAUSE THEY ARE
UNDER PUNISHABLE UNDER THE STATUTES
3. Diaz v. DLPC – Theft of electricity [under Art. 308 of RPC] and unauthorized
installation of electrical connection [under RA 7832] THE ELEMENTS OF
BOTH OFFENSES ARE REALLY DIFFERENT .. SO EACH CASE MAY BE
PURSUED EVEN FOR THE SAME ACT WITHOUT VIOLATING DOUBLE
JEOPARDY.. THEY DO NOT CONSTITUTE DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE
SAME OFFENSE
Bar Questions:
170 | P a g e
1993, No. 13: A pajero driven by A sideswiped a motorcycle driven by B causing

damage to the motorcycle and injuries to B. The fiscal filed 2 informations
against A, to wit (a) reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property
with physical injuries under Art. 365, RPC and (2) abandonment of one’s
victim under Art. 275 of the RPC.
Can A claim double jeopardy in the second charge if he is convicted in the

first?
yes, because A is being charged of the same offense
yes, because he is being charged for the same act
no, because the Fiscal committed grave abuse of discretion
no, because the two offenses are not the same IT IS BECAUSE A IS ACCUSED OF
DIFFERENT OFFENSES PUNISHABLE UNDER THE STATUTES WITH
ELEMENTS SO DISTINCT FROM EACH OTHER!! THERE CAN BE NO
DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSES.
ACCUSED WAS CHARGED WITH CONSENTED ABDUCTION AND GOT

ACQUITTED.. THEN HE WAS CHARGED AGAIN FOR QUALIFIED SEDUCTION.. IS
THERE DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE?
1997, No. 2: The SP of Manila approved ordinance 1000 prohibiting the operation
in the streets within the city limits of taxicab units over 8 years old. The
imposable penalty for violation thereof is a fine of P4,000 or imprisonment
for one year on the operator. While the ordinance was in effect, Congress
enacted RA 500 prohibiting the the operation throughout the country of
taxicab units beyond ten years old. The imposable penalty for violation
thereof is the same as in the ordinance. A, an operator of a taxicab unit in
Manila was charged with violating it. But after arraignment, the case was
dismissed due to failure of witnesses to show up. The prosecutor filed
another information for violation in of RA No. 500. Is there double jeopardy?
yes, because A is being charged of the same offense
yes, because he is being charged for the same act

no, because the two offenses are not the same
1999, No. 7:
171 | P a g e
Consented Abduction & Qualified Seduction
CA QS
1. Virgin/12-18 1. Same
2. Abduction 2. Sexual intercourse
3. Lewd design 3. Abuse of authority
4. Consent of victim
THERE DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE SAME OFFENSE.. THE ELEMENTS OF

BOTH OFFENSES ARE CLEARLY DISTINCT AND DIFFERENT.. HENCE, THE
CRIME OF QUALIFIED SEDUCTION MUST PROCEED !!
2000, No. 15: Charged with libel, Pablo was arraigned on January 3,2000.
Pre-trial was dispensed with and continuous trial was set for March 7, 8 and
9, On the first setting, the prosecution moved for its postponement and
cancellation of other settings because its principal and probably only
witness, the private complainant Francisco, suddenly had to go abroad, to
fulfill a professional commitment. The judge instead dismissed the case for
failure to prosecute (ON THE GROUND OF SPEEDY TRIAL). Would the
reversal of the trial court’s order of dismissal of the case place the accused
in double jeopardy?
no, because the judge committed grave abuse of discretion by not giving the
prosecution fair opportunity to prosecute.. THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE
GRANTED THE MOTION FOR POSTPONEMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME..
INVOCATION OF SPEEDY TRIAL IS PREMATURE..
no, because the dismissal was on motion, and therefore with the consent, of
accused
yes, because the dismissal was based on speedy trial so that the case cannot be
reopened.. HAD THE CASE BEEN DRAGGED FOR LONG PERIOD
WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE
CORRECT ANSWER!!
yes, because the dismissal was without the expressed consent of accused
2001, No. 10
For the death of Joey, Erning was charged with the crime of homicide before the
RTC. He was arraigned. Due to numerous postponements at the instance
of the prosecution, on the ground that its witnesses cannot be found or
located, the criminal case has been pending trial for a period of 7 years.
Upon motion of Erning who invoked his right to speedy trial, the court
172 | P a g e
dismissed the case.

Eventually, the said prosecution witnesses surface and a criminal case for
homicide, involving the same incident was filed anew against Erning. Can
he invoke double jeopardy?
no, because the judge committed grave abuse of discretion by not giving the
prosecution fair opportunity to prosecute
no, because the dismissal was on motion, and therefore with the consent, of
accused
yes, because the dismissal was based on speedy trial so that the case cannot be
reopened.. THE CASE DRAGGED FOR 7 YEARS… A DISMISSAL OF CASE
BASED ON SPEEDY TRIAL CANNOT BE REVIEWED EVEN IF THE SAME
IS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ACCUSED!!
yes, because the dismissal was without the expressed consent of accused
2002, No. 9
A Tamaraw FX driven by Asiong Cascasero, who was drunk, sideswiped a

pedestrian along Edsa in Makati, resulting in physical injuries to the latter.
The public prosecutor filed 2 informations against him for reckless
imprudence resulting in physical injuries under the RPC and the second for
violation of an ordinance in Makati penalizing driving under the influence of
liquor.
After his conviction for reckless imprudence, Cascacero filed a motion to
quash the charge under the ordinance on the ground of double jeopardy. Is
he correct?
yes, because Asiong is being charged of the same offense
yes, because he is being charged for the same act…SO THIS IS FOR THE SAME
ACT PUNISHABLE UNDER THE STATUTE AND ORDINANCE... YOU NEED
TO CONSIDER THE ACT IN TIME AND PLACE.. HOW MANY ACTS DID
THE ACCUSED PERFORMED! HENCE, DOUBLE JEOPARDY FOR THE
SAME ACT..
no, because the two offenses are not the same
2008, No. 7: Assume that upon being arraigned [murder], JC entered a plea of
guilty and was allowed to present evidence to prove mitigating
circumstances of self-defense because the latter was strangling him and
that he voluntarily surrendered to the authorities. Subsequently, the trial
173 | P a g e
court rendered a decision acquitting JC. Would an appeal by the

prosecution from the decision of acquittal violate JC’s right against double
jeopardy? Why or why not? BALISACAN CASE
YES IT CAN BE APPEALED!! ONCE THE ACCUSED PLEADS GUILTY AND HE

PRESENTS EVIDENCE WHICH TENDS TO EXCULPATE HIM, THE JUDGE
SHOULD DISMISS THE CASE AND HAVE THE ACCUSED REARRAIGNED ON
THE VERY REASON THAT THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE ACCUSED
IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE PLEA OF GUILTY.. THE ARRAIGNMENT HERE
IS NULL AND VOID. THERE, THE FIRST JEOPARDY HAS NOT YET
ATTACHED…
A. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the same offense as the first
B. I will dismiss the second case since it is for the same act as the first
C. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a different offense
D. I will not dismiss the second because it is for a different act
Bar Question 2011:
16. There is double jeopardy when the dismissal of the first case is
A. made at the instance of the accused invoking his right to fair trial.
B. made upon motion of the accused without objection from the prosecution.
C. made provisionally without objection from the accused.
D. based on the objection of the accused to the prosecution's motion to

postpone trial. SO THE ACCUSED IS INVOKING SPEEDY TRIAL HERE!!
DOUBLE JEOPARDY SETS IN WHEN THE ACCUSED MOVES FOR THE
DISMISSAL OF THE CASE BASED ON SPEEDY TRIAL
Sec. 22: Ex post Facto law- A criminal law with retroactive effect prejudicial to
the accused.
NOTE THE REQUISITES:
IT MUST BE A CRIMINAL STATUTE
IT IS GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT
IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE ACCUSED
ABSENT ANY OF THESE REQUISITES, A LAW CANNOT BE CONSIDERED EX

POST FACTO LAW!!
174 | P a g e
SITUATIONS OF A EX POST FACTO LAW MEMO!!

1. A law which makes an action done before the passage of the law, which was
innocent when done, criminal. EX. A LAW PUNISHING SMOKING GIVEN
RETROACTIVE EFFECT.. I CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR SMOKING
YESTERDAY UNDER THE SAID LAW… AT TE TIME I SMOKE, IT WAS NOT
STILL PUNISHABLE.. NOW THE ORDINANCE PASSED TODAY PROHIBITING
SMOKING CANNOT PUNISH ME FOR SMOKING YESTERDAY!!
2. A law which aggravates a crime or which makes it greater than when it was
committed. THE PASSAGE OF PLUNDER LAW CANNOT BE GIVEN
RETROACTIVE EFFECT
3. A law which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
the law annexed to the crime when committed. LAW PROVIDING DEATH
PENALTY CANNOT BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT!!
4. A law which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in effect
imposes a penalty, or the deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful.
SITUATIONS OF A EX POST FACTO LAW MEMO!!

1. A law which makes an action done before the passage of the law, which was
innocent when done, criminal. EX. A LAW PUNISHING SMOKING GIVEN
RETROACTIVE EFFECT.. I CANNOT BE PROSECUTED FOR SMOKING
YESTERDAY UNDER THE SAID LAW… AT TE TIME I SMOKE, IT WAS NOT
STILL PUNISHABLE.. NOW THE ORDINANCE PASSED TODAY PROHIBITING
SMOKING CANNOT PUNISH ME FOR SMOKING YESTERDAY!!
2. A law which aggravates a crime or which makes it greater than when it was
committed. THE PASSAGE OF PLUNDER LAW CANNOT BE GIVEN
RETROACTIVE EFFECT
3. A law which changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment than
the law annexed to the crime when committed. LAW PROVIDING DEATH
PENALTY CANNOT BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT!!
4. A law which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in effect
imposes a penalty, or the deprivation of a right for something which when
done was lawful.
5. A 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 proclamation of amnesty.
175 | P a g e
5. A 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 proclamation of amnesty.
Cases:
1. Bayot v. Sandiganbayan – preventive suspension
He committed a crime now.. Later on the congress passed a law amending the
anti graft law providing that people facing charges under the law shall undergoe
preventive suspension.. It was made applicable to people who committed prior
to ammendment. HELD: PREVENTIVE SUSPENSION IS NOT A PENALTY.
THEREFORE IT CAN BE GIVEN RETROACTIVE APPLICATION..
2. Binay v. Sandiganbayan –changing jurisdiciton
A LAW CHANGING COURTS JURISDICTION OVER THE OFFENSE CAN BE GIVEN

RETROACTIVE EFFECT SINCE IT IS NOT A PENAL LAW!!
3. Katigbak v. Solicitor – forfeiture of wealth
A LAW WAS PASSED PROVIDING PROCEDURE FOR FORFEITURE OF WEALTH..

A FORFIETURE OF WEALTH PROCEEDING WAS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE
KATIGBAK COUPLES.. THE IMPUGNED THE SAME TO BE EXPOST FACTO LAW
IN VIEW OF THE FACT THE SUCH WEALTH WAS STOLEN PRIOR TO THE
EFFECTIVITY OF THE LAW.. HELD: IT IS AN EX POST FACTO LAW!! IT IS A law
which assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, but in effect imposes a
penalty, or the deprivation of a right for something which when done was lawful.
IT IS A LAW WHICH IN EFFECT EVENTUALLY DEPRIVE THEM OF PROPERTY!!
4. P. v. Nitafan –Can a court without motion from the accused dismiss a case on
the ground that the law on which the charge is based in ex post factO?
NO! REMEMBER IN CONSTI 1.. A LAW MAY BE ONLY DECLARED

UNCONSTITTIONAL IF THE REQUISITES OF JUDICIAL INQUIRY ARE PRESENT
IN THAT THERE MUST BE VALID ACTUAL CONTROVERSY, STANDING,ETC.. IF
NOBODY IS RAISING THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY, THE COURT HAS NO
BUSINESS OF DISMISSING IT ON THE GROUND OF IT IS EXPOSTFACTO LAW..
5. Fajardo v. CA. For issuing a bouncing check in 1981, accused was convicted
of violation of BP Blg. 22 on May 26, 1988 by the Regional Trial Court. His
appeal to the Court of Appeals resulted to the affirmance of the conviction
on Feb. 27, 1993. He applied for probation but it was denied because under
the amendment to PD No. 968 which became effective in 1986, one who has
perfected an appeal is not eligible for probation. Accused now contends
that applying a 1986 amendment to a crime committed in 1981 violates the
prohibition against ex post facto laws.
176 | P a g e
a. correct, because the probation law is a penal statute
b. wrong, because the law is not being applied retroactively…. THE LAW WAS
PASSED ON 1986.. HE WAS CONVICTED ON 1993.. SO THERE WAS NO
RETROACTIVE APPLICATION!!
c. wrong, because the law is not unfavorable to accused
d. wrong, because the ex post facto laws have no application to amendments
2005, No. 2: The Philippines and Australia entered into a Treaty of Extradition on
Sept. 10, 1990. It also took effect in 1990.
The Australian government is requesting the Philippine government to extradite

its citizen. A, who has committed the indictable offense of Obtaining
Property by Deception in 1985. It is listed as an extraditable offense.
A claims that treaty violates the prohibition against ex post facto law. Decide.
[1996, No. 6][2007/3]
a. correct, because the treaty is penal in nature
b. wrong, because the treaty is not being applied retroactively
c. wrong, because the treaty is not unfavorable to accused
d. wrong, because the ex post fact laws have no application to treaties

NO! THE TREATY IS NOT A CRIMINAL STATUTE!!!
Which of the following would violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws if
given retroactive effect?
A. A law which makes the prescriptive period for a crime longer; IT IS

PREJUICIAL TO THE ACCUSED IF GIVEN RETROACTIVE EFFECT!!
B. A law extending the allowable period of detention of persons under
investigation;
C. A law expanding the territorial jurisdiction of a court;
A law authorizing preventive suspension of public officers accused of crimes.
When Congress enacted Republic Act No. 9346 entitled, “An Act Prohibiting the
Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,” it provided that persons
convicted of offenses punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences
will be reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act, shall not be
177 | P a g e
eligible for parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate
Sentence Law, as amended. Does the provision violate the prohibition
against ex post facto law?
IT IS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE PROHIBITION AGAINST EX POST FACTO LAW

BECAUSE IT IS IN FACT FAVORABLE TO THEM!!
OBSERVATION HOWEVER HAS IT THAT IT MAY CONSTITUTE LIMITATION ON

THE POWER OF THE PLENARY POWER OF PRESIDENT TO GRANT EXECUTIVE
CLEMENCY INCLUDING PAROLE WHICH SOLELY BELONGS TO THE
PRESIDENT.. HOW CAN THEY HAVE THIS!! IT IS A FORM OF RESTRICITON TO
THAT POWER OF THE PRESIDENT
BILL OF ATTAiNDER- a law which inflicts punishment without judicial trial.
BILL OF ATTAINDER IS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE IT IS ACTUALLY A VIOLATION

OF SEPARATION OF POWER!! IT IS THE COURT WHO DETERMINES GUILT NOT
BY CONGRESS BY MEANS OF A LAW!!
A GOOD EXAMPLE IS A LAWYER WAS ACQUITTED FOR TREASON.. SO WHAT

THE CONGRESS DID, IT PASSED A LAW CONVICTING HIM!! BILL OF
ATTAINDER!!
ANOTHER IS WHEN PRESIDENT MARCOS PASSED A LAW PROVIDING THAT

CHARGED WITH OFFENSES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY SHALL BE NOT
ALLOWED TO RUN OR CANNOT RUN FOR PUBLIC OFFICE. HELD: THIS IS A
CLEAR BIL OF ATTAINDER!! AS IT ALREADY CONVICTS PEOPLE CHARGED
ONLY (NOTE NOT YET CONVICTED HERE) OF SAID OFFENSES.
Republic v. RMDC [Mining permit]
THE PRESIDENT WITHDREW THE MINING PERMITS.. IT WAS IMPUGNED FOR

BEING BILL OF ATTAINDER. HELD.. BILL OF ATTAINDER APPLIES ONLY TO
CRIMINAL STATUTES.. WITHDRAWING MINING PERMITS IS NOT A
PUNISHMENT.. NOTE IT IS ONLY A PRIVILEGE GIVEN BY THE
GOVERNMENT WHICH MAY BE WITHDRAWN;.
Bar Question, 1988
WHAT ARE THE LIMITS ON THE POWER OF THE CONGRESS IN PASSING

CRIMINAL STATUTES?
THE BILL OF RIGHTS IS THE LIMITATION OF THE POWER OF THE

GOVERNMENT!! MEMO BILL OF RIGHTS!! WE ARE TAKING THE BAR.. THIS
IS A GOOD LEARNING FROM DEAN
178 | P a g e
CONGRESS CANNOT PASS A LAW
PROVIDING INHUMANTE TREATMENT
PUNISHING PEOPLE BY REASON OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
EXPOST FACTO LAW
BILL OF ATTAINDER
IMPRISONMENT FOR NON PAYMENT OF DEBT!! AND SO ON!!!
MEMO ALL THE BILL OF RIGHTS PROVISIONS!!!!!
THANK YOU DEAN!!! OUR GREAT PRIVILEGE AND UTMOST GRATITUDE!!!
179 | P a g e

BILL OF RIGHTS-Atty - Enad

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BILL OF RIGHTS-Atty - Enad

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONTITUTIONAL LAW II - BILL OF RIGHTS

We consider the Bill of Rights as Limitations on State Power (intended to limit

Its provisions have no retroactive application. ( even if favorable to the accused,

1. Yrasugue v. PAL [equal protection ] (involved an employee of PAL who was

Petition and assembly

Right to information on matters of public concern

commercial advertisement uses the line: “Nakatikim kana banangkinseanyos?”

All advertising companies in the Philippines have formed an association, the

Yes, because Art. III of the Constitution has no retroactive effect

1992, No. 2: Sheila, an actress, signed a 2-year contract with

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

Not covered as “ property”: while the constitution protects property, the SC

Substantive (content of the law itself)

Due Process and equal protection

Due Process: Procedural vs. Substantive

Procedural due process relates to the mode of procedure which government

Exempted from procedural due process:

Rule-making/quasi-legislative power (quasi judicial and quasi- legislative power:

b. Abatement of nuisance per se (exempt from the requirement of due

Section 1: Procedural Due Process

Due Process in Administrative Proceedings:(as laid down in ANG TIBAY

2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;

3. The decision must have something to support itself;

4. The evidence must be substantial,

5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing or at

least contained on the records and disclosed to the party affected;

1. Doruelo v. MND involved a ship captain who figured in a maritime accident

Bar Questions: Procedural

Which of the following violates procedural due process?

1. A decision rendered by a tribunal based on the transcript of the hearing

ANSWER: D (BASED ON RIVERA V. CSC)

a. Unconstitutional, for failure to comply with notice and hearing

b. Constitutional, since MARINA was exercising a quasi-legislative power

c. Constitutional, for no life, liberty or property is involve so that no due process

d. Constitutional, since once cannot invoke the constitution against MARINA

2010, XIVABC operates an industrial waste processing plant within Laoag

a. Requires the tribunal to consider the evidence presented

b. Allows the losing party to file a motion for reconsideration

c. Requires hearing the parties on oral argument

d. Permits the parties to file memoranda

a. No, it leaves the public uncertain as to what conduct it prohibits.

b. No, since it discriminates between loitering in public places and loitering in

Is the law reasonable or is it an undue interference on life, liberty or property?

For example: violation of substantive due process if a law is passed declaring

POLICE POWER: The power of the government to prescribe regulations to

Test for valid Exercise of Police Power:

1. That the interest of the public generally as distinguished from those of a

1. Lawful subject [it is lawful if related to the exercise of police power](covered

a. Rational relation between method and purpose [Ynot], Laguio] to preserve

1. ERMITA-MALATE Required registration in lobby, inspection and prohibition an

5. MMDA v. Viron Transportation MMDA put up an ordinance --- no private

1987, V: is an ordinance prohibiting barbershop operators from rendering

2003, No. 12 : The Municipal council of the municipality of Guagua,

DOES IT VIOLATE SUBSTANTIVE DEU PROCESS? YES. PILOTAGE IS A

V, 2009 to address the pervasive problem of gambling, Congress is

IF 2, INVALID. MORAL TO GAMBLE ON SUNDAYS BUT IMMORAL ON OTHER

If Congress chooses the second option, would the law be valid?

a. Yes, it would be a valid exercise of police power since Congress aims to

2010,XXI. The SangguniangPanlungsod of Pasay City passed an ordinance

a. No, the ordinance is unduly oppressive of the right to privacy

b. No, the ordinance will not promote any public interest

d. Yes, it is a valid exercise of police power

a. The means employed is not against public policy.