Professional Documents
Culture Documents
24 hr.
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW 2
Reviewer
Disclaimer
The compilers shall not be liable for the user’s passing (or failing) the course
2
What Constitutional law is about?
• It is the balancing of state power against the individual’s rights and deals with the Limitation of Political Power.
• There exists an internal conflict between 1) Police Power, Eminent Domain and Taxation against 2) the Rights of Individual to Life, Liberty and Property.
A. Hierarchy of Rights
• It is an erroneous impression that the Constitution gives the same degree and quality of protection that it gives to life and liberty.
• This is not to say, however, that the right to property is not a basic right. Property has an intimate relation with life and
liberty (ex. for the poor, regard property the same way as life and liberty).
• Property is more closely regulated not in order to oppress the owner but in order to impress upon him the social character of
what he holds; Thus it is that property must also enjoy the protection of the due process clause.
3
• This right against unreasonable search and seizure is PERSONAL and may be INVOKED ONLY BY THE PERSON ENTITLED TO IT.
• Simply put, unreasonable searches and seizures are constitutionally prohibited and the evidence from the search is generally
inadmissible, except when the accused did not raise its inadmissibility because it was the fruits of an illegal seizure. This
omission is considered a waiver of the protection granted by Art. III sec. 3(2) (see Hizon vs. CA).
• So what is an unreasonable search and seizure? As a general rule, whenever there is an arrest o search and seizure, if there is
NO validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest, the search and seizure is unreasonable. (exception: warrantless search
and seizure, which will be tackled later on.)
• When does a search warrant or an arrest warrant become validly issued? A validly issued warrant presupposes the existence
of PROBABLE CAUSE. (which is also one of the requirements for the narrowly drawn instances for warrantless search
and seizure)
• What then is probable cause? Probable cause must be defined in relation to the action it justifies. Probable cause for an
arrest or for the issuance of an arrest warrant would mean such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent person to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. Probable
cause for a search would mean 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. In either case, what is required is probable cause and not proof beyond doubt.
• What are the elements of probable cause?
• Reasonable ground of suspicion
• Such suspicion is supported by facts and circumstances strong enough to warrant a cautious man in believing accused to be
committing the offense or to be guilty of the offense.
6
• According to Rule 126, Sec. 5 RROC (2001), judges must personally examine in the form of searching questions and
answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them
and attach to the record their sworn statements, together with the affidavits submitted.
PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION
Section 2 ”… and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
• Failure to fulfill this constitutional requirement may result in an erroneous or arbitrary enforcement of the warrant. (ex.
police searching you or your house using a general warrant)
• General Rule 1: Person to be seized should be identified by name
Exception: If there is some descriptio personae that will enable the accused to be identified by the officer. (ex. may paa sa noo ang suspek!)
• General Rule 2: Place to be searched should be particularly described, which includes the exact address
Exception: A description of the place is deemed sufficient if the officer with the warrant can with reasonable effort, ascertain
and identify the place to be search. [ex. ang gingerbread house ng witch (yung kumidnap kay Hansel at Gretel) sa loob ng
gubat ]
Obiter: Only the articles particularly described in the search warrant can be seized, and no other property can be taken unless
the law allows it. But not all illegally seized objects shall be returned to its owner.
• Under Rule 126, Sec. 3 RROC (2001), a search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of PERSONAL PROPERTY:
1. Subject of the offense
7
ARRESTS
• While an arrest is a seizure, not all seizures are arrests. An arrest “is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may
be bound to answer for the commission of an offense” [Rule 113, sec.1 RROC 2001]
• Warrants of arrest must satisfy the same requirements imposed on search warrants. Hence, what has been said about
probable cause, its determination, the examination of complainant and particularity of description in the discussion of search
warrants can with equal truth be said of arrest warrants.
• As with search warrants, there are exceptions to the warrant
requirement to arrests: EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT
REQUIREMENT: (Rule 113, sec. 5 RROC 2001)
1. When, in the presence of a peace officer or a private person, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing or is attempting to commit an offense; [a.k.a. IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO RULE]
2. 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; and
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another
0
8
• A common application of the in flagrante delicto rule is the buy-bust operations to enforce the Dangerous Drugs Act; It is
also applied, albeit controversially, to continuing crimes like rebellion. In continuing crimes, the offender is assumed to still
be committing the offense, even if he is fornicating. Thus, he could be arrested for rebellion while in the act of fornication.
• A person may waive his right to be arrested by warrantless arrest PROVIDED that he enters a plea without having
challenged the validity of the arrest (assuming of course he knew he had that right and actually intended to relinquish it).
• Note, too that in the prosecution of peace officers for illegal detention or arrest the defense of good faith is frequently used by
peace officers and liberally applied by the courts.
Section 3. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.
Section 3(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
• This exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally obtained evidence and is applicable to evidence under sections 2 and 3(1).
The inadmissibility of the evidence, however, does not mean that it must be returned where it came from.(ex contraband).
4. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Section 4 No law shall be passed abridging the 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.
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
Section 18.(1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations.
Freedom of expression consists of cognate rights to insure free and effective communication of ideas to enhance intelligent
political decision- making in society. It is available insofar as it is exercised in the discussion of public matters (Besides, it’s
difficult to externally control private thoughts). It is important to safeguard such freedom because sovereignty, which supposedly
resides in the people, would be all for naught if the people would be denied their right to participate in public matters.
9
The freedom of expression is not limited to ideas which is acceptable to the majority, or to the powers-that-be, for this freedom is
meant to invite fomenting and discussing of different ideas in the public arena.
Modes of expression : 1) Verbal& Written Language 2) Symbols
Elements:
1)Freedom from prior restraint/censorship
• Prohibits the unlawful curtailment of the of the flow of ideas
• Prohibits censor from applying it own subjective standards in determining what’s good or not
• There need no be a total suppression; even the restriction of circulation is an unconstitutional restraint
2)Freedom from subsequent punishment
• This freedom is included and as important like the first, for it would be absurd that one can be allowed to express yet be held
liable for such expression; however, it is subject to certain limitations as discussed below.
1.Subject to POLICE POWER and can be regulated to protect public interest
2.Does not include ideas offensive to public order or decency, or reputation of persons
To be able to know whether or not an expression is protected or not, certain tests have been developed by the courts:
Access to public info is essential in the exercise of freedom of expression, for every citizen has a right to know what is happening
in his/her country and his/her gov’t so that he/she can express her views intelligently. It can be limited if the info being sought
would endanger national interest or security (ex. The plan of attack against Abu Sayyaf)
As enunciated in the Tanda v. Tuvera case, a law will only be effective upon publication in the Official Gazette, or alternatively
in 2 newspapers of general circulation.
8. FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION
Section 8. The right of the people, including those employed in the public and private sectors, to form unions, associations, or
societies for purposes not contrary to law shall not be abridged.
RIGHT TO ASSOCIATION
• It is deemed embraced in the freedom of expression because a lawful association or organization can be used as a vehicle to
express views that affect the public, which can be more effectively disseminated by an organization.
• Art. 3 Sec 8 guarantees private and public employees the right to form unions so long as it is lawful. However in the SSS
vs. SSSEA, gov’t employees were not allowed to strike.
9. EMINENT DOMAIN
Section 9. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
Also known as the power of expropriation (that is gov’t buying private property to be used publicly), it is primarily lodged in
the national legislature. But can be validly delegated and exercised to other gov’t entities (President, local legislative bodies,
certain public corporations, like NAPOCOR) even private companies serving essential public needs or operates public utilities
(PLDT or Bayantel)
Eminent Domain is different from destruction from necessity in that the latter: 1) property may be taken by private
individuals; 2) no need to convert taken property to public use; 3) there is no requirement for just compensation
Questions of necessity or wisdom of the exercise of the power of expropriation are essentially political and not usually subject
to judicial review. But when these questions are decided by a delegate of the national legislature (ex. Local city council), the
Supreme Court has assumed the power to inquire into it, whether the delegated authority has been correctly or properly exercised,
by looking into the wisdom or necessity of the expropriation.
All real and personal, tangible and intangible properties can be subject to expropriation except money and choses in action
(Choses in action- personal right not reduced into possession but recoverable by a suit at law ex. Right to demand & recover a
debt) . Property already devoted to public use is still subject to expropriation, as long as it is done by Congress or under a specific
grant of authority to the delegate. It should be observed that the to-be expropriated property must be by its nature and condition
wholesome, as it is intended for public use. This differs from property taken under police power, because the property destroyed,
or sought to be destroyed is noxious to the general welfare.
Just compensation-a full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the private owner by the expropriator. The property
taken is assessed as to the time of the taking , which usually coincides with the commencement of the expropriation proceedings.
Only the judiciary has the right to ascertain whether or not the compenastion was just (see EPZA vs. Dulay)
12
Although a debtor cannot be imprisoned for the failure to pay his debt, he can still be punished in a criminal case if he contracted his debt through fraud.
In suc case, the act he is being penalized is the fraud employed to secure the debt not in the default of payment.
The concept includes slavery (absolute power of one over the other in their civil relation) and peonage (condition of enforced
servitude in which one is compelled to labor in liquidation of some debt against his will.).
Exceptions: 1) Punishment for a crime where one is duly convicted;
2)Compulsory Military Training
It is the prerogative writ of liberty employed to test the validity of a person’s detention. The petition for habeas corpus must be
acted upon immediately. It is the privilege itself, and not the writ, which may be suspended.
It is available when he is subject to: 1) physical or moral restraint; 2) sentenced to a longer penalty than that is subsequently
meted out to another for the same offense; 3) questions court’s jurisdiction; 4) unlawful denial of bail.
Procedure: As soon as application is filed and the court finds it in the proper form, the issuance of the writ follows. It is only
when the person in custody is being held for a crime mentioned in the proclamation suspending the privilege of the writ and in a
place where it is effective such petition is denied. In the absence of invasion or rebellion, when public safety requires it, privilege
of the writ cannot be suspended.
The President has the power to suspend the privilege of the writ and the SC has the power to annul such suspension if not based on the 2 grounds (Art7, Sec.
18).
A. COLD NEUTRALITY
Accused must be tried in an impartial and competent court in accordance with the rules on criminal procedure; His/her
constitutional rights must be observed at all applicable times. The basic ingredient is that the trial be conducted in accordance
with the rudiments of fair play.
B. AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
Section 17.No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself.
2 Fold Purpose:
14
1) Humanitarian – to prevent the State, using its coercive power, from extracting from the suspect testimony which would
“furnish the missing evidence necessary for his conviction.”
2) Practical-Suspect would usually be under the compulsion to commit perjury to protect himself.
This rule is mandatory and applicable in all other government proceedings. It can also be claimed by any witness to whom an incriminating question is
addressed. If it is the accused himself/herself, s/he can refuse at the outset to take the stand as a prosecution witness, on the
reasonable presumption that interrogation’s purpose is to incriminate him.
The right is limited to a prohibition against compulsory testimonial self-incrimination, and thus excludes urine, hair and
blood samples, even ocular inspection of the suspect’s body on the proviso that force and torture was not used.
This right can be validly waived if the waiver is certain, unequivocal and made by the accused willingly, intelligently and
understood the consequences of his action.
C. RIGHT TO COUNSEL
The right to competent and independent counsel, prefereably choice of accused can be waived so long as it is written and
upon counsel’s presence and advice of the consequences of his action. Such right attaches upon the start of the investigation,
when officer asks questions that elicit information, confession or admissions of the accused thus has begun to focus on a
particular suspect.
(please read RA 7438 and the 2001 Rules on Criminal Procedure)
D. RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF ACCUSATION
This necessarily includes the prohibition of changing crime charged in the information without court approval. The
information filed must necessarily include the specific crime committed and the acts/evidences which tends to show the one’s
guilt.
E. RIGHT TO BAIL
Section 13. All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong,
shall, before conviction, be bailable by sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law. The right
to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be
required.
It cannot be impaired even with the suspension of the privilege of the writ.
F. CRUEL PUNISHMENTS
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.
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.
Mere fines and imprisonment are not violative unless the penalty is barbarous or shocking to the senses or conscience and such
cruelty is inherent in the penalty. But where an unforeseeable event adds to convict’s suffering, penalty is still valid .
15
16. CITIZENSHIP
ARTICLE IV
Citizenship
Section 1. The following are citizens of the Philippines :
Those who are citizens of the Philippines at the time of the adoption of this Constitution;
Those whose fathers or mothers are citizens of the Philippines;
Those born before January 17, 1973, of Filipino mothers, who elect Philippine citizenship upon
reaching the age of majority; and Those who are naturalized in accordance with law.
Section 2. Natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to
acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section
1 hereof shall be deemed natural-born citizens.
Section 3. Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Section 4. Citizens of the Philippines who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by their act or omission they are
deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Section 5. Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
Citizenship
16
Reacquisition of Citizenship
Commonwealth Act No. 63
provides that a Filipino woman loses her Philippine citizenship upon her marriage to a foreigner if, by virtue of the laws in
force in her husband’s country, she acquires his nationality.
Repealed by 1973 Constitution → the fact alone of marriage to an alien cannot strip a Filipino woman of her Philippine
citizenship. Only acts and omissions, which Congress may prescribe, constitute explicit or implicit renunciation of
citizenship.
If foreign woman, marries a Filipino, she is does not need to go through the ordinary naturalization procedure and is
considered ipso facto naturalized as long as she possess none of the disqualification written in the immigration law.
Dual Citizenship
Possible under the present Constitution
A condition which arises from the fact that Philippine law cannot control international law and the laws of other countries on citizenship
However, if Philippine citizenship is acquired by naturalization and not by operation of the Constitution, it is well within the
power of Philippine law to require prior renunciation of foreign nationality as a condition
Dual Allegiance
Refers to that unsettled kind of allegiance of persons who are already Filipinos but who, by their acts, may be bound by a
second allegiance to a foreign country.
C2005
ART.III
BILL OF RIGHTS
Sec. 1 No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be
denied the equal protection of the laws.
HIERARCHY OF RIGHTS
PBM Employee’s Property rights occupy a lower position in the hierarchy of rights than human rights. (This
Association v PBM doctrine however, should be taken with a grain of
salt. – Sir Agabin)
Marcos v
Sandiganbayan A decision rendered in violation of procedural due process is void.
Animas v Min. of The elements of procedural due process differ. It depends on the nature of the proceedings
National Defense involved – whether judicial, military, legislative,
administrative, quasi-judicial or regulatory.
Tanada v Tuvera It is unjust to punish a citizen for violation of a law of which he had not notice, not even a
constructive one especially in the case of presidential issuances as opposed to legislative
acts where the people would have been free to watch legislative hearings if they desired.
People v Salas Trial in absentia is allowed provided:
1. the accused has been arraigned
2. the accused has been duly notified of the trial and of subsequent hearings
3. the accused’s failure to appear is unjustified
In a trial in absentia, the accused is said to have waived:
1. right to present evidence in his behalf
2. right to be informed of subsequent hearings
Banco Espanol v Publication is indispensable in proceedings in rem to satisfy the requirements of procedural due process.
Palanca The assumed failure of a clerk of court to notify defendant of the proceedings does not
amount to such an irregularity as to be equal to a denial of due process when constructive
notice has been served.
David v When a decision is rendered in violation of due process, it is as if there had no decision at
Aquilizan all. It may be attacked directly or collaterally and even when the period for appeal has
lapsed.
DBP v Bautista In proceedings in persona where court acquires jurisdiction over the person of an accused,
an accused has to be included in the information to be prejudiced by a decision.
People v Peralta When a person has committed indirect contempt of court, it is required that he be charged
with the offense and a trial be had to determine his guilt; as opposed to when a person is
charged with direct contempt, where the judge may summarily convict him.
Ang Tibay v CIR The cardinal primary rights in administrative proceedings are:
1. right to a hearing, to present one’s cause and adduce evidence to defend such cause
2. the decision must have something to back it up
evidence must be substantial, which means such relevant facts and circumstances which to
3. a reasonable mind would suffice to support a
20
conclusion
4. evidence must be considered by the tribunal
5. decision must be rendered on evidence adduced at the trial or at least attached to the record and disclosed to the parties
6. the administrative official must render judgment based on his independent evaluation of
De Bisschop v the facts and issues of the case and not merely rely on the decisions of subordinate
Galang officials
7. decision must be written so as to allow the parties to the case to identify the issues and the reasons behind the decision
Right versus privilege test – when an action is based on a right, due process is required; when based on a privilege, due process
Goldberg v
is not required
Kelly
A license granted to an alien allowing him to stay in the Philippines is a privilege, not a right. To
revoke it would not require compliance even the minimum requirements of due process – notice
Board of and opportunity to be heard.
Regents v Roth Severe injury test – variation of the “nature of interest test” used in Goldberg
Welfare benefits, although only a privilege, would require a full-blown trial before revocation
because of its import to beneficiaries who are mostly oppressed. Hearings are required but they
need not judicial.
Nature of interest test – when interest is substantial, such as that which partakes of life, liberty
and property, state would have to accord due process To determine whether due process
requirements apply, look not into the weight but into the nature of the interests at stake.
A university’s decision not to rehire a professor does not cause any prejudice to the professor’s
status nor to his property interests, which in this case are only abstract.
Matthews v Balancing of interests test -> Due process is flexible and requires for such procedural protections
Eldridge as the particular situation demands. The revocation of social security benefits does not require
the same processes as the revocation of welfare benefits – it may be revoked absent full-blown
hearings. In arriving at the this conclusion, the court considered several factors:
1. private interest affected by official action
2. risk of an erroneous deprivation
3. fairness and reliability of existing pre-termination procedures + probable value of additional and substitute procedural
safeguards
4. public interest involved
Go v The decision in an administrative case must be rendered based on evidence presented at the trial
Napolcom and disclosed to the parties. The minimum requirements of due process are applicable to
administrative proceedings:
1. notice
2. opportunity to be heard
Agabin v CA Due process in administrative proceedings does not require trial type hearings.
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE
Philconsa v A statute granting retirement benefits to legislators is violative of equal protection for being
Jimenez unduly discriminatory in favor of lawmakers without
raising any substantial distinction that would justify treating them differently from from other
elective officials.
Yick Wo v A statute prohibiting the operation of laundry services in buildings made of wood may not be
Hopkins unconstitutional on its face but may violate equal
protection as applied.
DECS v San Diego The law guarantees equality among equals.
The three-flunk rule in NMAT is constitutional for being based on a substantial distinction
between med students, other students and NMAT flunkers.
Brown v Board of The separate but equal doctrine does not apply to educational institutions. Racial segregation in
Education schools is inherently unequal as measured by
intangibles.
There exists no difference between a law which denies and a law which permits denial of equal
People v Vera protection. A probation law, which allows unequal
treatment for persons convicted under the same penal code, is unconstitutional.
A law which regulates the distribution of contraceptives, limiting it to married couples, is
Eisenstadt v Baird unconstitutional for being overbroad with respect to the
married and discriminatory with respect to the unmarried.
21
Smith Bell v Aliens enjoy the same rights as citizens. But a law that limits the use of common carriers to
Natividad citizens does not violate equal protection. Common
carriers, as matters of public interes,t are proper subjects of regulation. The law, in fact, does not
discriminate against aliens but is instead viewed as
a reasonable means to encourage local ship-building.
A law that prohibits non-Christian inhabitants from possessing liquor does not violate equal
People v Cayat protection. It rests on a distinction that is:
1. substantial
2. germane to the purpose of the law
3. not limited to existing to conditions
4. applies equally to members of the same class
A law that disqualifies highly urbanized cities from participating in provincial elections is
Ceniza v Comelec constitutional. A distinction based on the income of a city is
substantial. It is a measure of a city’s capability to exist as a separate unit apart from the
province to which it belongs.
Ormoc Sugar v A distinction should not be limited to existing conditions but to should also apply to future
Treasurer conditions substantially identical with the present.
Nunez v The creation of the Sandiganbayan is constitutional. There exists a substantial distinction between
Sandiganbayan common criminals and public officers who commit
crimes in relation to their offices.
General provisions in the Constitution, regarding due process and equal protection, should give
way to more specific provisions such as the one
creating the Sandiganbayan.
Sec. 2 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for
any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized.
Sec. 3 (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires
otherwise as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall
be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
An arrest of a person carrying dried marijuana from Sagada, in flagrante does not require a
People v Malmstedt warrant. A search made incidental to such arrest
is equally lawful.
Tangibles only rule -> The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and
Olmstead v US seizures applies only to material things: “houses,
persons, papers and effects. When there is no entry, there can be no unlawful search nor
seizure.
Constitution protects people not places. Whatever a person reserves as private should be
Katz v US considered private – whether it be tangible or not.
Stop and frisk rule -> A reasonably prudent officer, warranted by circumstances of a given
Terry v Ohio case, in believing that his safety or that of others
is endangered, may make a reasonable search for weapons of a person he believes is
armed and dangerous.
The stop and frisk rule is an exception to the general rule against a search without warrant.
Manalili v CA Its application however, presupposes the
minimum requirement of probable cause.
An accused who fails to raise the issue of the illegality of a search during trial, is considered
to have waived his right against such
unreasonable search and seizure.
The search of vessels, aircrafts and motor vehicles has been an exception to the
Hizon v CA constitutional requirement of a search warrant. These may
be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be
sought and secured which makes securing a warrant
impracticable.
22
California v Trash searches are allowed because of the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy
Greenwood on the part of the person who discarded the trash.
The test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal an assertedly
Ciraolo v private activity but whether the government’s intrusion infringes upon the personal and
California societal values protected by the Constitution.
An area within curtilage does not bar all police observation especially in this case where
there wasn’t any reasonable expectation of privacy – public navigable airspace which any
Guazon v de Villa member of the public who glanced down from a commercial plane would have seen.
Saturation drives are violative of human rights. They do not require individualized
suspicion (that a particular individual has committed a crime) and instead rely on guilt by
association, which is prohibited.
Also, individualized suspicion by itself would not suffice for lack of probable cause. It
should be backed up by suspicious acts committed in the presence of an officer.
Cupp v Murphy It is reasonable for an officer to expect that the arrestee would use any weapon he may
have or to destroy any incriminating evidence in his possession. A search or seizure in
such a case would be justifiable.
People v Chua Ho The minimum requirement of warrantless searches is probable cause.
San A waiver against unreasonable searches must be transmitted in such a language that
would leave no room for doubt that the accused fully understood what he requested.
Stonehill v An objection to unreasonable searches and seizures is a purely personal right that might be invoked only by the person
Diokno prejudiced thereby.
A warrant issued must satisfy the requirement of particularity of description.
Exclusionary rule -> Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible.
People v Marti The Bill of Rights may only be invoked against the State. Evidence obtained by a private
person, acting in a private capacity, without intervention of the state authorities is valid.
People v CFI Except in cases of search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under
the customs law may effect a search without warrant to enforce such customs laws.
Burgos v Chief of Staff A general warrant, which does not describe particular objects to be seized, is invalid.
Checkpoints, during abnormal times, conducted within reasonable limits are constitutional
Valmonte v Villa as long as they are limited to visual searches;
unless there exists probable cause to conduct full searches (i.e., suspicious behavior).
Ho v People A fiscal’s report must be supported by sufficient records.
Soliven v Judge A judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses he may
Makasiar produce. All he is required to do is to personally
evaluate the fiscal’s report or to require the complainants and their witnesses to submit
affidavits in support of the complaint if the fiscal’s
report is inadequate.
PICOP v Asuncion Applicants for the issuance of a search warrant and their witnesses must testify on facts
personally known to them.
Sec. 7 Rule 126 – No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except
People v Gesmundo in the presence of:
1. the lawful occupant thereof or
2. any member of his family or
in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and
3. discretion residing in the same locality.
Officers are also required to issue receipts for the items seized and to immediately turn
over such items to the court.
Umil v Ramos Subversion is a continuing crime. Warrant is unnecessary when arresting a person guilty
of such because of Sec. 5(a) Rule 113 – When, in his presence, the person to be arrested
has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime.
Padilla v CA Warrantless arrests applicable in this case:
1. in flagrante
when a crime has just be committed and the arresting officer has personal
2. knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it
Warrantless searches applicable in this case:
23
FREEDOM OF SPEECH
Schenk v US Clear and present danger test – when the words used are used under such circumstances and
are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the
substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Abrams v US The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it was done. Those, which
may be said in times of peace, may be considered a hindrance to the country’s efforts in times
of war.
Gitlow v New Clear and probable danger test – Man must be held to have intended and to be accountable for
York the effects which their acts are likely to produce. Holmes (dissenting): The clear and present
danger test applies in times of peace and war, although the power of the state is greater in
times of war because of the dangers that do not exist in other times.
People v Nabong The best test of truth is in the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.
Plain statement versus advocacy of action test – The state punishes advocacy of action, not
mere advocacy of doctrine (academic discussion not inciting to concrete action).
US v Bustos Holmes (dissenting): The difference between expression of opinion and advocacy is the speaker’s enthusiasm for result.
Dangerous tendency rule – The law does not require that there be actual utterances. The state
may punish even those utterances which may endanger public order.
Language used must be understood in its plain and obvious sense.
Gonzales v Speech may take the form of symbols.
Comelec A complaint is considered to be qualified privileged communication if it is:
1. made in good faith
Mutuc v Comelec
2. without malice
Terminello v City 3. regarding the character or conduct of a public official
of Chicago 4. addressed to the proper officer or board
In such a case, the plaintiff carries the burden of proving the speech to be libelous.
Zaldivar v Rational basis test -> Speech may be regulated to prevent the substantive evil of debasement of
Sandiganbayan the electoral process. But the regulation should not be overbroad as to make its application
oppressive.
Freedom of speech must be treated with utmost respect when what may be curtailed is the
dissemination of information to make more meaningful the equally vital right of suffrage.
Speech is often provocative and challenging. Hence, “fighting words” are not sufficient to convict
a person absent a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil not just public
inconvenience, annoyance or unrest.
Balancing of interests test – choosing between two interests as to which deserves greater weight
Preferred freedoms test – modification of balancing test; between two interests, that which
affects liberties gets preferential treatment; had this been used in this case, Zaldivar would have
been acquitted
FREEDOM OF THE PRESS
A statute prohibiting the sale or donation of mass media print space and air
NPC v Comelec time for campaign or political purposes
except to the Comelec held to constitutional because of:
1. limited scope, duration, character of restriction
2. clear and reasonable relation between statute and objective
Content-neutral restriction – involves regulation as to time, place and manner;
Osmena v Comelec requires a different standard of review as
opposed to content-based restrictions
When what is restricted is not the content of political ads but only their
incidents, the application of the clear and
present danger rule is inappropriate.
25
Times Film Corp v City of Movies may be regulated through prior restraint. They are primarily used for
Chicago entertainment, as opposed to newspapers and broadcast media that are
mainly used to disseminate public information which info is necessary in a
democracy.
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v Right to reply provisions are as unconstitutional as a statute which forbids or
Tornillo compels newspapers to publish specified matter.
White (concurring): A newspaper is not a public utility subject o reasonable
governmental regulation in matters affecting the exercise of journalistic
judgment.
TBS v FCC Content-neutral regulations will be sustained provided:
1. regulation advances important governmental interests unrelated to suppression of free speech
2. regulation does not substantially burden free speech more than necessary to further those interests
Content-neutral regulations are not invalid simply because there is some
imaginable alternative that might be less burdensome to free speech.
Any system or prior restraint comes to court bearing the heavy presumption
NY Times Co. v US against its constitutionality.
In Re: Request Radio-TV Coverage A public trial is not synonymous with a publicized trial.
In Re: Emil P. Jurado The law prohibits reckless disregard for private reputation, to which even judges have a right.
Journalists are required to exercise bona fide care in ascertaining the truth of a statement they publish.
1st National Bank v Belloti The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the
public does not depend upon the identity of the source.
The indispensability of speech to decision-making in a democracy is not less
Roth v US true because the speech comes from a corporation rather than an individual.
Test of obscenity: whether to the average person, applying contemporary
community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole,
appeals to prurient interest
NY Times Co. v Sullivan Even factual errors are not sufficient to remove the constitutional protection of free of speech.
Actual malice test – knowledge that material is false or with reckless
disregard of whether or not it was false. Falsity alone does not prove actual
malic.
The burden of proof of proving actual malice rests on the plaintiff.
Borjal v CA Doctrine of fair comment – fair commentaries, on matters of public interest,
are qualified privileged and constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or
slander; in the absence of actual malice, the material is not actionable Even a
person who is not a public officer may be involved in a public issue and
thence becomes a public figure.
Vasquez v CA Truth is a valid defense in a defamatory statement made against the acts of
a public official, regardless of whether or not person acted with good
intentions and justifiable motives.
Memoirs of a Women of Pleasure v Even when a material is found to possess the requisite prurient appeal and is
Atty.Gen. of found to be patently offensive ,it can’t be
Massachusetts proscribed unless it is found to be utterly without redeeming social value.
Miller v California Guidelines for trier of facts:
1. Roth test
work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way,
2. which sexual conduct must be
specifically defined by the applicable statute or law
work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or
3. scientific value
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v.
Virginia Citizens Freedom of communication applies to both source and recipient.
Freedom of speech applies even to commercial transactions. Fact that the
Consumers Council, Inc. advertiser’s interests are purely economic
does not disqualify him from constitutional protection.
Alleged slander is not actionable if it could not have reasonably understood as
Hustler Magazine v Fallwell describing actual facts.
To claim damages, plaintiff must prove:
1. false statement of facts
26
West Virginia Board of Rights may be impaired only to prevent grave and immediate danger.
Education v Barnette National unity is not a sufficient justification for compelling Jehovah’s Witnesses to
perform the flag salute against their religious beliefs. Unity may not be obtained
through compulsion.
Ebranilag v Division
Superintendent of Schools There are no threats to public safety when students are exempted from attending
the flag ceremony on the basis of religious beliefs. Therefore, the exemption is valid.
27
Students may be disciplined however, should they disrupt the patriotic exercises and commit breach of peace.
Aglipay v Ruiz The influence of religion on human affairs can’t be denied. The printing of postage
stamps on the occasion of a Catholic celebration, when not religiously motivated, is
not unconstitutional, even when the Catholic Church received incidental propaganda
thereby.
Centeno v Villalon- A general regulation of solicitation, which does not involve any religious test nor
Pornillos obstruct or delay solicitation of religious funds, is constitutional. There exists a
legitimate government interest in regulating solicitation.
Austria v NLRC The state will not interfere with ecclesiastical affairs (involves the relations between
the Church and its members; relate to matters of faith, religious doctrines, worship
and governance of Congregation); but the Labor Code is comprehensive enough to
Engel v Vitale
include religious corporations in case labor disputes arise which would require
government intervention.
The non-establishment clause does not depend upon any showing of direct
Board of Education v
governmental compulsion. It is violated by the enactment of laws, which establish an
Allen
official religion, whether or not these laws operate directly to coerce non-observing
1968
individuals.
The fact, therefore, that a prayer recited in public schools was denominationally neutral and voluntary is immaterial.
The non-establishment clause does not prevent a state from extending the benefits
of state laws to all citizens without regard to their religious affiliation.
The grant of secular textbooks to all schools, even when it includes parochial schools, is therefore constitutional.
Victoriano v Elizalde Rope RA3350 “closed-shop agreements shall not cover members of any religious sect
Workers’ Union 1974 which prohibits affiliation of their members with any labor organization” does not
violate Art. III Sec. 5 because:
1. purpose is secular – upholding the constitutional right of freedom of religion
2. no positive act is required, therefore not a religious test for the exercise of a civil right
3. no privilege granted to INC – merely places them on an equal footing with
members whose religions do not prohibit them from joining
INC v CA Exercise of religious freedom (as opposed to realm of religious belief) can be
1996 regulated by the state when it will bring about the clear and present danger of some
substantive evil which Congress has a duty to prevent.
American Bible Society v The non-establishment clause also prohibits any act of the state favoring any
religion, by protecting it against attack by another religion.
City of Manila 1957
Everson v Board A flat license tax, payment of which is a condition of the exercise of the constitutional privilege of religion, is
of Education 1947 unconstitutional.
P welfare legislation, passed to satisfy a public need (the general education of all
u children) is constitutional even when it coincides with the personal desires of certain
b religions.
l Constitution requires the State to be neutral in its relationship with groups of
i religious believers and non believers. It does not requires the state to be their
c adversary.
Wisconsin v Yoder The state’s interest in universal education has to be balanced against the traditional
1972 interest of parents in the religious upbringing of their children.
Since there is no showing that Amish children would become burderns to society
minus two extra years of compulsory education, the free exercise clause should
prevail over state interests.
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 AND TRAVEL
Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro Civil liberties should be enjoyed only in civilized communities.
28
1919
Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not chattels but Philippine
Villavicencio v Lukban citizens, protected by the same constitutional
guarantee of freedom of abode. They may not be compelled to change their
1919 domicile in the absence of a law allowing such.
Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world over and is
Lorenzo v Dir. of Health supported by high scientific authority. Such
1927 segregation is premised on the duty to protect public health.
Bail posted in a criminal case, is a valid restriction on the right to travel. By its
Manotok v CA nature, it may serve as a prohibition on an
accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines where orders of Philippine
1986 courts would have no binding force.
The liberty of abode and the right to travel includes the right to leave, reside and
Marcos v Manglapus travel within one’s country but it does not
1989 include the right to return to one’s country.
NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a precedent because Marcos
was a class in himself.
Philippine Association of Service Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security, public health
Exporters v Drilon or public order, as may be provided by law.
An order temporarily suspending the deployment of overseas workers is
1988 constitutional for having been issued in the interest
of the safety of OFWs, as provided by the Labor Code.
Sec. 7 The right of the people to information on matters of public concern shall
be recognized. Access to official records, and to documents, and papers
pertaining to official acts, transactions, or decisions, as well as to government
research data used as basis for policy development, shall be afforded the
citizen, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.
ACCESS TO PUBLIC INFORMATION
The people have a right to access official records but they can’t compel custodians of official
Valmonte v Belmonte records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries
1989 and the like, such not being based on a demandable legal right.
Judges cannot prohibit access to judicial records. However, a judge may regulate the manner
Baldoza v Dimaano in which persons desiring to inspect, examine or
1976 copy records in his office, may exercise their rights.
Legaspi v Civil Service Personal interest is not required in asserting the right to information on matters of public
Commission concern.
What matters constitute “public concern” should be determined by the court on a case to
1987 case basis.
Public concern (def.) – writings coming into the hands of public officers in connection with
Chavez v PCGG their official functions
1998 Ill-gotten wealth is, by its nature, a matter of public concern.
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.
FREEDOM OF ASSOCATION
PAFLU v Sec.
The right to self-organization does not include the right to be given legal personality.
of Labor 1969
A legislative determination that the CPP is an illegal organization is a justified proscription of the
People v preferred position of freedom of association. Congress was able to show the existence of a
Ferrer substantive evil: an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government to establish a totalitarian
1972 regime dominated by alien power.
Dennis v US Act declaring the CP an illegal organization is constitutional for being passed in response to a clear
and present danger: conspiracy that was ready to make the attempt to overthrow the government,
In Re: Edillon even without acts committed in pursuance of the conspiracy.
Overriding considerations of public interest and welfare justify intrusion into the personal interests and convenience of individual
lawyers.
29
A lawyer’s freedom of association is not violated when he automatically becomes a member of the
1978 IBP upon admission to the Bar. He is already a member
of an unorganized group of lawyers, the integration of the bar just provides for official and national
organization.
NAACP v Privacy in one’s associations is indispensable to the preservation of the freedom of association,
Alabama especially where a group espouses dissident beliefs.
1958
UPSU v The right of association guaranteed in the Constitution is subject to the condition that its exercise
Laguesma should be “for purposes not contrary to law”.
The Labor Code prohibits managerial employees from joining, assisting or forming any labor
1998 organization. As such, supervisors are banned from
organizing with rank and file employees. They may however, form separate labor organizations of
their own, in accordance with RA6715.
Sec. 9 Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
EMINENT DOMAIN
City of Manila v A municipal corporation exercises only a general authority granted by the legislature to
Chinese Community “appropriate private property for public use”. In every case, the court has a duty to
1919 ensure that a municipal corporation exercises the rights conferred to it in compliance
with imposed conditions:
1. that law exists for the exercise of eminent domain
2. that authority is exercised in accordance with such law
On the other hand, the legislature possesses general power to exercise the right of
eminent domain, which it may confer upon a municipal corporation. In such a case, the
necessity of conferring is beyond judicial review.
Penn Central Trans. There is no “taking” when the statute permits continued reasonable use of the site as it
Co. v New York 1978 was used before the regulation and when statute affords opportunities to enhance the
MRR v Velasquez property.
1915 The report of commissioners on the valuation of land for expropriation is not final. The
EPZA v Dulay court may increase or decrease the valuation if it is grossly excessive or grossly
1987 insufficient even when there is no showing of fraud or prejudice on the part of the
commissioners.
“Just compensation” is a constitutional right to be protected by the judiciary. As such,
the valuation submitted by commissioners is just a guiding principle in determing what
is just compensation. Other factors to be considered are:
1. condition of the property
2. surroundings
3. improvements and capabilities
NHA v Reyes 1983
“Just compensation” in land expropriation proceedings should be determined in the light of social justice.
PD42 – Judge can only choose between the value of the property according to tax
declarations or as declared by owner or administrator, whichever is lower.
JM Tuason v Land Tenure The Constitutional provision on expropriation should be liberally construed. Whereas it
Administration 1970 uses “lands” instead of “landed estates”, it should be deemed to include even lands
located in urban areas.
City of Baguio v Congress is free to follow a system of priorities to determine what lands would be the first to be the subject of
NAWASA 1959 expropriation.
Mataas na Lupa v
Dimayuga 1984 The taking of property owned by a municipality in its proprietary character requires just compensation.
Province of Expropriation does not require information on land size or area. The test is the number
Camarines Sur v CA of people to be benefited by the expropriation and the degree of social reform
1993 achieved thereby.
Ansaldo v CA “Public use” includes public utility and advantage not just “use by the general public” in
1990 its literal sense. The power of eminent domain is exercised even when the taking of
private property is for the development of housing projects and pilot centers etc.
Association of Small
Landowners v Adiong The owner property expropriated should be compensated for what he actually losses.
Compensation should be based on the value of the land at the time of taking, not at
the time of the filing of the claim, but with legal interest.
Compensation payable only in money applies to traditional exercise of the power of the eminent domain. The
Comprehensive Agrarian
30
Reform Program is not traditional but revolutionary, where the mode of compensation
1989 need not be in cash.
When the right to property is joined by a liberty interest, the burden of justification on
Adiong v Comelec the part of the government that justifies
1992 intrusion must be exceptionally convincing and irrefutable.
Stone v Mississippi
1879
Manila Trading v Reyes
1935
Rutter v Esteban
1953
Ilusoria v CAR
1966
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.
Sec. 12 (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These
rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel.
(2)No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation, or any other means
which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Secret detention places,
solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of detention are prohibited.
(3)Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Sec. 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence
against him.
(4)The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this
section as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or
similar practices, and their families.
Sec. 13 All persons, except those charged with offenses punishable by reclusion
perpetua when evidence of guilt is strong, shall before conviction, be bailable by
sufficient sureties, or be released on recognizance as may be provided by law.
The right to bail shall not be impaired even when the privilege of the writ of
habeas corpus is suspended. Excessive bail shall not be required.
Sec. 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.
Sec. 16 All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies.
A judge should refrain from examining witnesses and should limit himself to clarificatory
People v Opida questions.
Galman v A dictated, coerced, and scripted verdict of acquittal is a void judgment. In legal contemplation, it
Sandiganbayan neither binds nor bars anyone.
Martelino v Publicity does not invalidate a trial in the absence of a clear showing that the judges would not
Alejandrino have been able to render impartial judgment.
Marcos v A judgment is invalid when the judges’ behavior did not manifest cold neutrality required of
Sandiganbayan officers of court: discussed case at lunch, not all members
were present, a non-member was with group, discussed case outside proper venue.
32
AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION
The constitution prohibits testimonial compulsion or the extortion of communication from the
Gutang v People accused. It does not prohibit inclusion of an accused’s
body in evidence when it may be material and what is involved is only a mechanical act meant to
2000 ascertain physical attributes determinable by simple
observation.
Urine samples voluntarily given by the accused are admissible in evidence and do not violate the
constitutional prohibition against self-incrimination.
An accused, unlike an ordinary witnesses, may not only refuse to answer incriminating questions
Chavez v CA but may also refuse to take the witness stand
1968 altogether.
The waiver of the constitutional right against self-incrimination must be certain and unequivocal.
Villaflor v On a proper showing and upon order by the court, an ocular inspection of the body of an accused
Summers is permissible provided torture or force is not used.
1920
Beltran v Samson
& Jose The privilege is not limited to testimonies, but extends to all giving or furnishing of evidence.
An order requiring a fiscal to take dictation in his own handwriting to compare with specimens is
1929 unconstitutional. It requires not just a mechanical but
a positive act and compels the accused to create evidence which would otherwise not be in
existence.
Rochin v Officers can’t extract by force what is in an accused’s mind. They also can’t extract by force what
California is in his stomach.
1952
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
People v Logronio 1992
Escobedo v People v Espiritu
Illinois 1999
1964`
Miranda v State
of Arizona 1966
me the investigation moves from a general investigation to one which has begun to focus on the
T guilt or innocence of the accused.
h It applies even during interrogation, where legal advice is most critical.
e It would exalt form over substance to say that the right to counsel would depend on whether or
not the authorities had already secured a formal indictment.
r NOTE RA7438 which requires assistance of counsel [de parte] even at the early stage of arrest.
i In-custody interrogations contain inherently compelling pressures. Statements obtained during such interrogations, without
g observing the proper
h procedural safeguards, are inadmissible in evidence.
t Procedural safeguards and guidelines:
1. prior to any questioning, accused must be informed that he has the right to remain silent,
t that anything he says may be used as evidence against him…
o 2. at any stage during the investigation, if the accused indicates that he wishes to consult an
attorney before answering, the interrogation must be stopped
c 3. if the accused is alone and indicates that he does not wish to be interrogated, there can be no interrogation
o 4. warning does not depend on the background of the accused nor on his request. It must be accompanied by a meaningful
u explanation.
n 5. waiver of the rights must be knowingly and intelligently given
s 6. these rights do not distinguish between exculpatory and inculpatory statements
e Miranda rights apply to suspects under custodial investigation by the police. Oral statements
l made by a person, while he was yet a suspect, are admissible in evidence although he has not
been warned of his rights.
a Requisites for admissibility of extra-judicial confessions:
t
1. voluntarily made
t
2. with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel
a Counsel for the accused need not be retained by the accused himself. The lawyer may be:
c
1. engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the person under investigation
h
e
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
t
i
33
2. appointed by the court upon petition by person under investigation or someone acting on his behalf
People v A mere enumeration to the accused of his custodial rights does not satisfy the requirement
Continente required by law. There has to be the transmission of meaningful information as to the nature of
2000 the investigation with warnings and advice to the accused. Effective communication and a full
understanding of one’s rights are required.
People v
Hatton The presence of counsel is indispensable in a post-indictment line-up. But while the accusatory
1992 process in a line-up has not yet set in, the right to counsel does not attach.
NOTE: Line-up in this case was invalidated however, because it was filled with suggestive influences.
People v An independent counsel can’t be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, municipal
Obrero attorney or counsel of the police whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused.
2000 Statements acquired during a custodial investigation, without the assistance of counsel, are
People v invalid even when third degree methods are not employed.
Sevilla Uncounselled extra-judicial confessions are likewise inadmissible when made without a waiver of the right to an attorney.
2000
RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF ACCUSATION
Webb v De An accused has the right to move for production or inspection of material evidence in the possession
Leon of the prosecution.
People v When time is not an essential element in the crime charged, an information that does not specify a
Bugayong precise date does not violate the right to be informed of
accusation.
Pecho v An accused may be convicted of a crime, which although not the one charged, is necessarily included
People in the latter.
People v When an accused is charged under one paragraph of a statute, he may no be convicted of an offense
Pailano under a different paragraph without violating his right
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him.
RIGHT TO BAIL
De la Camara v The constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive bail. The amount of bail is not a penalty
Enage but a mere guarantee that accused will not flee.
To determine whether or not an offense is bailable, one should inquire into the penalty
Bravo v Borja prescribed by law and not the penalty actually imposed after
all aggravating and mitigating circumstances have been applied.
Herras Persons detained without having been charged with any offense, also enjoy the right to bail
Teehankee v subject to a hearing to determine whether or not evidence of guilt is strong.
Rovira
Sec. 15 The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, shall not suspended except in
cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Lansang v The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in cases of invasion or rebellion when
Garcia the public safety requires it.
Garcia Padilla v The suspension of the privilege of the writ suspends a person’s right to bail even after charges have
Enrile been filed in courts against him.
Aquino v Enrile The declaration of martial law automatically suspends the privilege of the writ.
NOTE: This ruling does not hold anymore in view of the explicit constitutional provision that the
declaration of martial law does not automatically suspend
the privilege of the writ.
34
Moncupa v The writ of habeas corpus is available as long as a person has been deprived of complete freedom
Enrile such as when his freedom of movement, liberty of
abode etc. are curtailed, despite being technically free from physical confinement.
Ilusorio v The purpose of the writ is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint. It may not issue to
Bildner compel a husband to live with his wife.
Habeas corpus is not a writ of error. Mere errors of fact or law must be corrected on appeal in the
In re: Garcia form and manner prescribed by law and not by habeas
corpus. A person already convicted by final judgment may not avail himself of the privilege of the
writ.
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.
INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
US v An Act providing for the method by which the people of the town may be called upon to render
Pompey assistance for the protection of the public and the preservation of peace and good order is
a constitutional. It was enacted in the exercise of the police power of the state and does not violate the
constitutional prohibition on involuntary servitude.
Pollock v No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from compulsory service, and no state
Williams can make the quitting of work any component of a crime, or make criminal sanctions available for
holding unwilling persons to labor.
Sec. 19 (1) Excessive fines shall not be imposed, nor curel, degrading or
inhuman punishment inflicted. Neither shall the 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.
CRUEL PUNISHMENTS
“Cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment” involves more than the mere extinguishment of
People v Echagaray life. For punishment to be cruel, it has to be
1997 inhuman or barbarous, involving torture or a lingering death.
The death penalty is not excessive per se. What is prohibited is discretionary death penalty
where arbitrariness, prejudice and discrimination pervade
its imposition.
Echegaray v Sec. An order by the court temporarily suspending the execution of its judgment does not encroach
of Justice upon the executive power of clemency.
1999
Weems v US The prohibition against cruel punishments likewise applies to bails and fines.
Theory of proportional punishment –> to determine whether a punishment is excessive,
1910 standards in other jurisdictions should be taken into account
The death penalty, although not unconstitutional per se, may be unconstitutional if it
Furman v Georgia discriminates against a defendant by reason of his race,
religion, wealth, social position or class and if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for
1972 the play of such prejudices.
US SC decision regarding the constitutionality of the death penalty: 4 justices (not
unconstitutional per se but may be unconstitutional in its
application) – 2 justices (unconstitutional per se) – 3 justices (unconstitutional as applied, no
need to decide whether it is unconstitutional per se)
Following the court’s ruling in Furman, the Georgia legislature adopted the bifurcated scheme,
Gregg v Georgia consisting of the guilt, pre-sentencing and automatic
review stages, in the imposition of the death penalty. Because of these revised procedural
1976 safeguards against discrimination, Georgia’s statute was
upheld and the death penalty was declared constitutional.
Louisiana v Cruelty prohibited by the constitution is cruelty inherent in the method of punishment, not the
Resweber necessary suffering involved in any method employed
1947 to extinguish life humanely.
35
The fact that an unforeseeable accident prevented the prompt consummation of a convict’s
sentence, does not make the subsequent execution cruel and excessive. The constitution can’t
People v
prevent.
Dionisio
1968 It takes more than being harsh, excessive, out or proportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the constitution.
The penalty, to be cruel, must be flagrantly and plainly oppressive or wholly disproportionate to
the nature of the offense so as to shock the moral sense of the community.
People v Ching
Kuan In imposing fines, the wealth of the culprit must be taken into account.
1942
Lozano v BP20 (Bouncing Checks Law) is not unconstitutional for violating the constitutional prohibition on non-
Martinez imprisonment for debt.
It punishes not the failure to pay the cheque but the act of making a worthless cheque, which is an
1986 offense against public order. Cheque are not mere
contracts but are commercial instruments which form part of the banking system. They are not
entirely free from the regulatory power of the state.
Ganaway v The Phil. Constitutional prohibition contains no exception (not even fraud on the part of the debtor) to
Quillen non-imprisonment for debt.
1922
Serafin v An information which merely recites the failure to pay a simple indebtedness does not charge estafa
Lindayag and is purely civil in aspects. No one may be arrested
1975 and detained under such an information.
Ajeno v The prohibition in the constitution applies to debts arising from a contractual obligation (ex-contractu)
Inserto and not to debts arising from a crime (ex-delicto).
NOTE however, RA5465 which allows subsidiary imprisonment only in cases of non-payment of fine,
1976 not to non-payment of civil indemnity.
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.
AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY
The constitutional provision is not a prohibition against twice being punished but against twice
Kepner v US being put in jeopardy for the same offense.
A defendant, whether convicted or acquitted, has already been put in jeopardy during the first
1904 trial. The state, even in appellate proceedings, can’t
seek reversal of his acquittal without his consent.
Additional element test -> There is no double jeopardy when either of two offenses, although
People v Quijada based on the same act, requires an additional fact
1996 which the other does not.
People v Obsania Requisites for double jeopardy to attach:
1968 1. valid complaint or information
2. before a competent court with jurisdiction
3. defendant has pleaded to the charge
defendant was acquitted, convicted or the case against him was dismissed without his
4. express consent
- dismissal was based on the merits or amounts to an acquittal
When a defendant moves for the dismissal of the case against him, double jeopardy does not
attach because of the absence of the 4th requisite.
Doctrine of supervening event -> If after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes on which
People v Adil defendant may be held liable, resulting in altering
the character of the crime and giving rise to a new and distinct offence, the accused can’t be
1977 said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new
36
offen
se.
A single act may offend against two or more entirely distinct & unrelated provisions of law. If
Perez v CA one provision requires proof of an additional fact or
element which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction or dismissal under one does not
1988 bar prosecution under the other.
People v Relova When offenses charged are penalized:
1987 1. by different sections of the same statute
2. by different statutes
…focus is on identity of offenses. If offenses are the same, double jeopardy attaches.
When
:
1. one of the offenses is charged under a statute
2. the other under a municipal ordinance
…focus is on the identity of the acts. If offenses charged are based on the same act, there is
double jeopardy.
Same offense means:
1. similarity of technical elements
2. one offense amounts to an attempt or frustration of the other
3. one offense is necessarily included in the other
People v City Court If a fact (which changes the character of the offense) was in existence at the time of the 1 st
of Manila prosecution, such fact may not be considered a
1983 supervening event so as to allow a 2nd prosecution.
Republic v Prohibition in the Constitution applies to criminal or penal matters, not to laws concerning civil
Fernandez matters.
Revenue acts have traditionally had a retroactive application. To declare increase in taxes as
1956 unconstitutional, the retroactive application must be both
harsh and oppressive.
US v Gomez &
Coronel A law, although dealing only with procedural matters, can’t be applied if prejudicial to the accused.
A law allowing the fiscal to prosecute adultery absent a complaint from the offended spouse cannot
1908 be applied to a case involving n act committed at a
time when adultery can only be prosecuted by the offended husband.
Decisions of the courts, administrative rulings on court decisions (i.e., those issued by the Sec. of
Co v CA Justice) and anything which partakes of the nature and
1993 effect of penal statutes, are covered by the prospectivity principle.
The Anti-Subversion Act outlawing the CPP is not a bill of attainder for “applying to named
People v Ferrer individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group”. The
use of the word “CPP” is only for definitional purposes and does not purport refer to only one
1974 communist/subversive organization.
ART. IV
CITIZENSHIP
Sec. 3 Philippine citizenship may be lost or reacquired in the manner provided by law.
Sec. 4 Citizens of the Philippine who marry aliens shall retain their citizenship, unless by
their act or omission they are deemed, under the law, to have renounced it.
Sec. 5 Dual allegiance of citizens is inimical to the national interest and shall be dealt with by law.
CITIZENSHIP
Moya Lim Yao v An alien woman may be deemed a citizen of the Philippines by virtue of her
Commissioner of marriage to a Filipino citizen if she possesses none of the disqualifications
Immigration 1971 enumerated in the Philippine Naturalization Law. She is then deemed a Filipino
without having to submit to naturalization proceedings and may settle the matter of
her naturalization by filing a petition for the cancellation of her alien certificate of
Tan Chong v
registration.
Secretary of Labor
1947 The Philippine jurisdiction applies the principle of jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood) not jus soli (citizenship by
Villahermosa v birth).
Commisioner of A minor child born of a Filipino mother before Jan.17,1973 does not automatically
Immigration 1948 become a Filipino citizen upon his mother’s repatriation. One cannot reacquire what
one did not lose in the first place. Thus to become a Filipino, he must elect Filipino
In Re: Florencio Mallare citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
1974
An illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and a Chinese father, acquires his mother’s citizenship and is likewise a
Labo Jr. v Comelec Filipino.
1989 The election of Philippine citizenship may be proven by positive acts such as the exercise of the right of suffrage.
Philippine citizenship may be lost through:
1. naturalization in a foreign country
2. express renunciation of citizenship
3. subscribing to an oath of allegiance
to a foreign country Philippine citizenship
may be reacquired by:
1. direct act of Congress
2. naturalization
3. repatriation
38