 Religion - any specific system of belief, worship, conduct, often involving a code

of ethics and philosophy

: a profession of faith to an active power that binds and elevates man to his
creator
: mere belief in karma or destiny is a religion even if there is no belief in an
Almighty creator
 Religious profession & worship - has two aspects:
1. Freedom to believe - freedom is absolute as long as the belief is
confined within the realm of thought “a matter of faith”
: the individual is free to believe (or disbelieve) as he pleases concerning
the hereafter
: he may indulge his own theories about everything in life, however absurd
his theories are, he may do so
: he cannot be required to explain his belief and subsequently be punished
for being unable to do so
: men may believe what they cannot prove
1. Freedom to act on one’s belief - subject to regulation where the belief is
translated into external acts that affect public welfare
: but when he externalizes his beliefs into acts or omissions that affect the
public, his freedom is now subject to the State’s authority → the State may
exercise its police power to prevent religious practices that are inimical to
society
: like all rights provided under Art. III, the freedom of religion includes
limitation - it can be enjoyed only with a proper regard for others’ rights

Approaches & Tests:

1. Test of Reasonableness
2. Benevolent neutrality approach - allow accommodation of morality based on
religion, provided that it does not offend compelling state interests
: the State, in pursuing its secular goals, might adopt laws or actions of general
applicability which inadvertently burden religious exercise = that is why, under
this approach, the State may allow certain breaches in the wall of separation to
uphold religious liberty, which after all is the integral purpose of the religion
clauses
: wall is meant to protect the Church from the State
: the intent of the framers of our Constitution was to adopt this approach in
interpreting the religious clauses in our constitution because of some provisions
such as the tax exemption of church property, salary of religious officers in
government institutions, and optional religious instruction (Estrada v. Escritor)
3. Compelling state interest - exercise of religious freedom is a fundamental right
and that laws burdening it should be subject to strict scrutiny
: a test that would protect the interest of the State in preventing a substantial evil,
whether immediate or delayed
→ steps:
a. Courts often look into the sincerity of the religious belief, but without inquiring into
the truth of the belief since the free exercise clause prohibits inquiring about its
truth.
b. Government has to establish that its purposes are legitimate for the State and
that they are compelling.
c. Government has to establish that the means in which it is achieving its legitimate
objective is the least intrusive means

 Liberty of Abode & Travel - emphasized the liberty of an individual as

safeguarded in general terms by the due process clause
→ rights:
1. Freedom to choose and change one’s place of abode
2. Freedom to travel within the country and outside
 The right to travel refers to the right of a person to go where he
pleases without interference from anyone
 In Mirasol v. DPWH, the manner of using the tollway, can be validly
limited by regulation (eg. imposition of bans)
→ limitations:
1. Upon lawful order of the court
2. In the interest of national security, public safety or public health, as may
be provided by law
: right to travel may be curtailed when a court issues a hold departure
order against an individual addressed to the Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation.
: administrative authorities, such as passport-officers, may likewise curtail
such right in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health,
as may be provided by law

 Right of access to information - access to public documents has been

recognized as a self-executory constitutional right
: guarantees the right of the people to demand information
→ Sec. 28, Art. II: Subject to reasonable conditions prescribed by law, the State
adopts and implements a policy of full public disclosure of all its transactions
involving public interest. (Sec. 7 must be viewed in relation to this section)
: promote transparency in policy-making and in the operations of the government
as well as provide the people sufficient information to exercise effectively other
constitutional rights
 Right of association embraced in freedom of expression because organization
can be used as a vehicle for the expression of views that have a bearing on the
public welfare
→ for purposes not contrary to law: built-in limitation of the right; societies
may be formed under this provision for lawful purposes only
: legislature may not arbitrarily declare any purpose as unlawful even if it is not
inimical to the public
 Non-impairment clause - protect the integrity of valid contractual agreements
against unwarranted interference by the State
contract: any lawful agreement or property or property rights, whether real,
personal, tangible or intangible (private persons are parties)
→ law: statutes enacted by the national legislature, executive orders, and admin
regulations promulgated under a valid delegation of power, and municipal
ordinances by local legislative bodies
→ obligation: vinculum juris; the juridical tie that binds the parties to each other
→ impairment: diminishes the efficacy of the contract; if by subsequent
enactment of a law, the terms of the contract have become prejudicial to either of
the parties, then there is an impairment
1. Original rights & obligations are changed
2. Change is prejudicial to the person in contract
3. Law has been retroactively applied
: law must retroact so as to affect the existing contracts concluded before
its enactment (an ex post facto law)
→ limitations: protection granted by the impairment clause is not absolute for
there are instances when contracts may be valid at the time of its execution but
may be rendered inoperative by a supervening legislation
: all contracts and rights are subject to the State’s police power

Criminal Due Process - accused be tried by an impartial and competent court in

accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and with proper observance of
all the rights accorded him under the Consti and applicable statutes

 Custodial Investigation - begins when there is no longer a general inquiry into

an unsolved crime and the investigation has started to focus on a particular
person as a suspect
: presupposes that the suspect has been taken into police custody and the police
has carried out the process of interrogations that lends itself to eliciting
incriminating statements

applicability of rights:
1. Criminal proceedings
2. Traffic stop for a violation of traffic rules and the violator has been held in
custody
3. When confessions/admissions are elicited before a brgy chairman/tanod
(P. v. Gil)
→ non-applicability of rights:
1. In administrative proceedings
2. In amicable settlements - this is a contract between parties and not an
extrajudicial confession/admission
3. Government investigations (eg. fact-finding commissions, NBI)
4. Confession or admission made to a private individual, mayor as confidante
(P. v. Andan) - these are spontaneously made
5. Re-enactment of a crime (P. v. Suarez)
 6. Police line-up/Mugshots
 Miranda Rights - in Miranda v. Arizona, the rights of a person facing custodial
investigation are as follows:
1. Right to be informed that he has the right to remain silent;
2. After being informed, he he must be told that anything he says can and
will be used against him in court;
3. Right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer with him during
interrogation;
4. If indigent, a lawyer shall be appointed to represent him;
5. Even if he consents to answer questions w/o counsel, the moment he
asks for a lawyer, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present;
6. If the protections/warnings are not demonstrated during trial, the evidence
obtained as a result of the interrogation can be used against him.
: originally, these are the rights provided under the case of Miranda v.
Arizona, however, the 1986 ConComm decided to include other rights as
they deemed necessary (refer to S12, A3)

Bail - No person charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion

perpetua or life imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong,
regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. (S7, R114, ROC)

The grant or denial of bail is dependent on WON the evidence of guilt is strong. Even if
an accused is charged with a crime punishable by RP or LI, the prosecution must prove
that the evidence of guilt is strong for the Court to deny an application for bail. (Bail is
still available but only discretionary on the part of the Court)

No bail in extradition XPN to the No Bail Rule in ExP:

Bail may be applied for and granted as an exception only upon a clear and convincing
showing that
1. Once bail is granted, the applicant will not be a flight risk or a danger to
community
2. That there exist special humanitarian and compelling circumstances in the
requesting state when it grants provisional liberty
Bail matter of right

Before and after conviction by the MTC, MetroTC, MCTC, MTC in Cities

Before conviction by the RTC of an offense not punishable by death, RP, or LI

Generally, in offenses punishable by Reclusion Temporal and below, bail is a matter of right.

DISCRETION

1. S5, R114: When the accused is convicted in the RTC of an offense not punishable by death,
RP or LI
→ application for bail may be filed/acted upon by the trial despite filing of notice of appeal
(provided that original record was not transmitted to the appellate court)

→ when there is change in the nature of the offense (Non-B to B) = Appellate court must resolve
application for bail

2. S7, R114: When the accused is charged with an offense punishable by death, RP or LI -
conduct a hearing to determine the guilt of the accused

→ when strong: deny application for bail

S5, R114: Bail when Discretionary
1. When the penalty imposed before the RTC is D, RP, or LI, bail should be denied
because this means that the evidence of guilt is strong.
2. When the accused is convicted in the RTC of an offense not punishable by
death, RP or LI
3. When the accused has been convicted in the RTC of an offense punishable by
an imprisonment exceeding 6Y, bail shall be likewise denied when the following
or other similar circumstances are present:
a. That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has committed
the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;
b. That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;
c. That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional
pardon;
d. That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released on
bail; or
e. That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the pendency
of the appeal.

Duties of a trial judge in a petition for bail in offenses punishable by death, RP or

LI
 Narciso v. Santa Romana-Cruz:
1. Notify the prosec of the bail hearing or require him to submit
recommendation
2. Conduct bail hearing even if prosec refuses to adduce evidence to show
that the guilt of the accused is strong
3. If guilt is not strong, approve the bail, otherwise, the Court must deny it.
 AM No. 12-11-2 SC (Guidelines for Decongesting Jails):
4. Within 48 hours after hearing, Court shall issue an order containing a brief
summary of the evidence and the conclusion on WON the evidence of guilt is
strong

Rights of an accused

Presumption of Innocence
: accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved

: accusation is not synonymous to guilt

: conviction will depend not on the weakness of the defendant’s evidence but on the strength of
the prosecution (XPN: when accused admits the commission of a crime and presents exculpatory
evidence)

: consti presumption of innocence may be overthrown by contrary presumptions based on the

experience human conduct (eg. escape from detention is an indication of guilt)

: consti presumption will not apply as long as there is rational connection between the fact
proved and the fact presumed, and the inference of one fact from proof of another

: presumption of regularity v. presumption of innocence = latter prevails

Right to be heard

: includes the right to present evidence in one’s defense

(just review due process)

Right to counsel

: begins from custodial investigation → accused is on trial confronted by a prosecutor → when

case is appealed

: right to counsel (in crim proceedings) not subject to waiver - this is different from right to
counsel under Sec. 12

: when accused does not hire his counsel, court must provide him with one (duty of the court
does not end in providing a counsel de officio, it must also make sure that the counsel does his
duty to defend the accused)

Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations

→ 3-fold purpose:

To furnish accused w/ description of the charge

To avail himself of his conviction or acquittal for protection against further prosecution for the
same cause

To inform the courts of the facts

(see table below for further discussion)

Right to speedy trial

: speedy trial is defined as one free from vexatious,capricious and oppressive delays and is
intended to relieve the accused of needless anxieties and inconveniences

: inordinate delay warrants the dismissal of the case (tantamount to acquittal = bar against
another prosecution)

: applicable term for criminal proceedings only (right to speedy disposition of cases is for all
other proceedings)

Right to impartial and public trial

: impartial trial (refer to due process topic)

: public trial allows hearings open for observation except in private cases (eg. rape cases, cases
involving minors)

Right to meet witnesses F2F

: right of confrontation allows the accused to know, in fairness, who his accusers are and must be
given a chance to cross-examine them on their charges

Right to have compulsory process

: accused is entitled to the issuance of subpoena for the purpose of compelling attendance of
witnesses and the production of evidence that he may need for his defense

: failure to obey = contempt of court

→ subpoena:

Subpoena ad testificandum - summon potential witnesses to give testimonies

Subpoena Duces Tecum - production of documents/record

Trial in absentia

→ requisites:

The accused must have been arraigned;

That he has been duly notified of the trial;

That his failure to appear is unjustified.

Sufficienc of complaint or information

S7:

Name of the Accused

Name:

Name and surname

Any appellation or nickname the accused has been or is known

Name can’t be ascertained - describe under fictitious name (state that name is unknown)

***If the name of the accused is later on revealed, insert it to the C/I and record.

***mistake in the name is not tantamout to mistake in the identity (must be positively identified
either by direct or circumstantial evidence)

S8:

Designation of the offense given by the statute

Nature of the Offense - determined by the recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the
C/I and not by the caption of the info or provision of the law claimed to be violated

: prosec is not required to be accurate in designating the formal name of the offense (not a fatal
defect so long as every element of the offense is stated)

Designation - name given to the offense by statute

: no designation = refer to sections or subsections of the law punishing it

: aver acts or omissions constituting the offense

: specify qual/agg circumstances of the offense (will not be appreciated by the court unless
alleged in the info)

S9:

Acts or omissions complained of as constituting the offense

Cause of the accusation:

Offense being charged

Acts or omissions constituting the offense

Qualifying and aggravating circumstances

***right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusation against him

S10:

Place where the offense was committed

Place - sufficient when alleged that offense was committed or some of its essential ingredients
occurred at some place within the jurisdiction of the court

: unless, particular place is an essential element

S11:

Approximate date of the commission of the offense

Date - as near as possible to the actual date of commission of the offense

: when precise date is not material element of the offense (cite approximate date only)

: what is material is that the occurrence of the offense is established

S12:

Name of the offended party

Natural Person - name and surname of the OP (same to name of the accused)

Juridical Person - state its name or designation which it is known

Property - if name of the OP is unknown, property must be particularly described

 WHC - prerogative writ of liberty to test the validity of a person’s detention (to
relieve a person from unlawful restraint)
: extends to all cases of illegal confinement or detention by which any person is
deprived of liberty, or by which the rightful custody of any person is withheld from
the person entitled thereto (S1, R102, ROC)
 : directed to the person detaining another, commanding him to produce the body
of the prisoner at a designated time and place, with the day and cause of his
caption and detention, to do, to submit to, and receive whatever the court or
judge awarding the writ shall consider in his behalf
: applicable also in cases involving the rightful custody of a minor
→ who may grant:
1. SC - enforceable anywhere in the PH
2. CA/RTC - enforceable only within their territorial juris
→ who may file: as a general rule, only the person illegally deprived of liberty
may file for a petition for a WHC
grounds for suspension:
(1) actual invasion or rebellion and
(2) when the public safety requires it (S18, A2)
: factual basis for suspension of the privilege of the WHC is not a political
question but precisely within the ambit of judicial review - Lansang doctrine
→ limitations of suspension:
(1) time limit of 60 days
(2) review and possible revocation of Congress
(3) review and possible nullification by the SC
→ to whom applicable: suspension is only applicable to those judicially charged
for rebellion or offenses connected to invasion
→ effect: during suspension, person arrested or detained shall be judicially
charged within 3 days, otherwise he is released; does not impair right to bail
→ how to lift:
(1) by the President
(2) revocation by Congress
(3) nullification of SC
(4) operation of law after 60 days

Writ of Amparo

: 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

: special proceeding to establish a status, a right or particular fact

: there must be showing that the disappearance was carried out by or w/ authorization, support, or
acquiescence of the government or a political org

The writ shall cover:

extralegal killings and

enforced disappearances.

Writ of Habeas Data

: 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

In cases of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances, who may file:

(a) Any member of the immediate family of the aggrieved party (the spouse, children and
parents)

(b) Any ascendant, descendant or collateral relative of the aggrieved party within the 4 civil
degree of C/A, in default of those mentioned above

Writ of Kalikasan

: remedy available to a natural or juridical person, entity authorized by law, people’s

organization, non-governmental organization, or any public interest group accredited by or
registered with any government agency, on behalf of persons whose constitutional right to a
balanced and healthful ecology is violated, or threatened with violation by an unlawful act or
omission of a public official or employee, or private individual or entity, involving
environmental damage of such magnitude as to prejudice the life, health or property of
inhabitants in two or more cities or provinces

: a special civil action

→ requisites: (1) actual or threatened violation of the right to a balanced and healthful ecology;
(2) it arises from an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or private
individual or entity; and (3) it will lead to an environmental damage of such magnitude as to
prejudice the life, health or property of inhabitants in 2 or more cit/prov
 Right to Speedy disposition of cases - extends the right to a speedy
disposition of cases to cases "before all judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative
bodies."
: this protection extends to all citizens, including those in the military and covers
the periods before, during and after the trial, affording broader protection than
Section 14(2) which guarantees merely the right to a speedy trial
: relative concept and depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case

4 factors to determine won the right to SDC is violated:

1. Length of delay
2. Reason for the delay
3. Defendant’s assertion of their right
4. Prejudice to the defendan
 1. Determine which party carries burden of proof:
a. Defense - right is invoked within the time periods, defense must prove that the
right was invoked justifiably → prove that the delay is motivated by malice, lack
of evidence & that the defense did not contribute to the delay
b. Prosecution - right is invoked beyond the time periods, prosec must prove that
the right was invoked justifiably → prove that it followed procedures, that delay
was inevitable due to complexity of issues/volume of evidence and that no
prejudice was suffered by the accused
2. Courts must consider the entire context of the case.
→ XPNs:
1. Malicious intent is gauged on the behavior of prosec - no analysis
needed = dismiss case;
2. Waiver of the right to ST or SDC
: when the accused acquiesced to the delay, the constitutional right
can no longer be invoked
1. Right must be timely raised, otherwise, they are deemed waived.
Right against self incri
Scope:
1. Right is available not only in criminal prosecutions but also in all other
government proceedings, including civil actions and administrative or
legislative investigations.
: its application has been held to apply to civil proceedings, to
congressional investigations, to juvenile proceedings, and other statutory
inquirie
2. It may be claimed not only by the person accused of an offense but by any
witness to whom an incriminating question is addressed.
3. As long as the questions raised tend to incriminate, the witness is entitled to the
privilege.
→ XPNs:
1. Question pertains to past criminality;
2. Witness has been previously granted immunity under a validly
enacted statute
4. Only against testimonial compulsion (not all compulsion: eg. physical
examination)
: use of physical or moral compulsion to extort communication from a
person is prohibited, not an exclusion of his body as evidence when it may
be material

To whom available:
1. Right is accorded to every person who gives evidence, whether voluntary or
under compulsion of subpoena, in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding.
2. As to an accused in a criminal case, it is settled that he can refuse outright to
take the stand as a witness. An accused "occupies a different tier of protection
from an ordinary witness. He can’t be compelled to testify/produce evidence in a
crim case which he is the accused.
  Involuntary servitude - condition of one who is compelled by force, coercion, or
imprisonment, and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is paid or not
→ slavery: civil relation in which one man has absolute power over the life,
fortune, and liberty of another
→ peonage: enforced servitude by which the servitor is restrained of his liberty
and compelled to labor in liquidation of some debt/obli, against his will
→ XPNs;
1. Punishment for a crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted.
2. When called upon to defend the State.
3. Posse comitatus - called by police authorities to assist them in
apprehending criminals
4. Return to work order for striking workers in industries affected with public
interest.
5. Unemancipated minors - patria potesta

 Prohibited Punishments - mere severity does not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment; to come under the ban, the punishment must be ‘flagrantly and
plainly oppressive’ ‘wholly disproportionate to the nature of the offense as to
shock the moral sense of the community

Non-imprisonment for debt - “debt” as used in this provision refers to any civil
obligation arising from contracts, express or implied (even debts obtained through fraud)
 Poll tax - Since a tax is not a debt but arises from the obligation of the person to
contribute his share in the maintenance of the government, failure to pay the
same can be validly punished with imprisonment the only XPN is failure to pay
poll tax

 Double jeopardy - jeopardy of punishment for the same offense, suggesting

that it presupposes 2 separate criminal prosecution
requisites:
1. Upon valid indictment - there must be a valid C/I or formal charge
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction
: note that one cannot be in danger of being convicted under a defective
information = 1st jeopardy does not attach upon the refiling of info due to a
curable defect
: as to form, see S6, R110 (sufficient C/I)
: when facts do not constitute an offense (ground a) = no double jeopardy
upon the filing of another
2. Before a competent court - the court which rendered judgment must be one
vested with competent jurisdiction
: first jeopardy could not attach if the action was filed in a court of the
place which was not the proper venue for hearing the case
 3. After arraignment - double jeopardy cannot be invoked when the accused
was never arraigned under the 1st info
4. When a valid plea has been entered - accused should have validly pleaded to
the charge; existence of plea
→ People v. Magat:
 Case of rape was revived after 3 months. This is after the accused
pleaded guilty to rape conditioned on the imposition of a lesser
penalty (which the mother and prosec agreed = plea bargaining)
 No full-blown trial was made because a plea of guilty to a lesser
offense was considered. On appeal, the accused contended that
there is double jeopardy.
 The Court held there is no valid plea. The plea of the accused was
conditional. Thus, a plea of not guilty must be entered and he must
be subject to a full-blown trial.
 The judgment rendered by the court based on the supposed plea
bargaining is therefore void. No first jeopardy attached.
5. When the defendant is convicted or acquitted - when an accused has been
convicted or acquitted, or the case against him dismissed or otherwise
terminated without his express consent by a court of competent jurisdiction, upon
a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the
charge, the C, A or D shall be a bar to another prosecution for the offense
charged, or for any attempt to commit the same or frustration thereof, or for any
offense which necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the offense
charged in the former complaint or information (S7, R117)
→ XPNs: However, the conviction of the accused shall not be a bar to
another prosecution for an offense which necessarily includes the offense
charged in the former complaint or information under any of the following
instances:
(a) the graver offense developed due to supervening facts arising from the
same act or omission constituting the former charge;
(b) the facts constituting the graver charge became known or were
discovered only after a plea was entered in the former complaint or
information; or
(c) the plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of
the prosecutor and of the offended party except as provided in section 1
(f) of Rule 116.
 Ex post facto law - one that would make a previous act criminal although it was
not so at the time it was committed; a law that operates retroactively to affect
antecedent acts
: Consti prohibits the retrospectivity of penal laws
→ characteristics:
1. Refer to criminal matters
2. Retroactive in application
3. To the prejudice of the accused
→ kinds:
 1. Every law that makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law
and which was innocent when done and punishes such act
2. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was when
committed
3. Every law that changes punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when committed.
4. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less or
different testimony than the law required at the time of the commission of
the offense, in order to convict the offender.
5. Every law which, assuming to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
effect imposes a penalty or the deprivation of a right for something which
when done was lawful
6. Every law which deprives persons accused of crime of some lawful
protection to which they have become entitled, such as protection of a
former conviction, or acquittal or of a proclamation of amnesty

 Bill of attainder - legislative act that inflicts punishment without trial, its essence
being the substitution of legislative fiat for a judicial determination of guilt
: constitutional ban against bills of attainder serves to implement the principle of
separation of powers by confining legislatures to rule-making and thereby
forestalling legislative usurpation of the judicial function

I.

Daniel was charged with the crime of murder. He was arraigned on May 12, 2020 and in the
said arraignment he pleaded not guilty. Is the contention of Daniel tenable? (5%)

(People v. Mapalao)

NO. Once an accused escapes from prison or confinement or jumps bail or flees to a foreign
country, he loses his standing in court and unless he surrenders or submits to the
jurisdiction of the court he is deemed to have waived any right to seek relief from the
court.

Thus when as in this case he escaped from confinement during the trial on the merits and
after his arraignment, and so the trial in absentia proceeded and the judgment against him
was promulgated in accordance with Section 14(2) Article III of the 1987 Constitution,
nonetheless, as he remained at large, he should not be afforded the right to appeal
therefrom unless he voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction of the court or is otherwise
arrested, within fifteen (15) days from the notice of the judgment against him. While at
large as above stated he cannot seek relief from the Court as he is deemed to have waived
the same and he has no standing in court.
Also, there can be no violation of due process since the accused was given the opportunity
to be heard.

Nor can it be said that an escapee who has been tried in absentia retains his rights to cross-
examine and to present evidence on his behalf. By his failure to appear during the trial
of which he had notice, he virtually waived these rights. This Court has consistently
held that the right of the accused to confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses is a
personal right and may be waived. In the same vein, his right to present evidence on his
behalf, a right given to him for his own benefit and protection, may be waived by him.

(mag) No, the contention of Daniel is not tenable. The testimonies against him should
not be stricken off the record because his contention that he failed his constitutional
right to confront and cross-examine against him has no merit. Paragraph 2 Section
14 of the Bill of Rights provides that “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.” This provision contemplates a trial in
absentia which consist of the following requisites: (1) That the accused has already
been arraigned; (2) That he has been duly notified of the trial; and (3) His failure is
unjustifiable. All of these requisites were satisfied in the present case. First, Daniel
was already arraigned on May 12, 2020 where he pleaded not guilty. Second, he was
duly notified of the trials set on July 12, 2020, August 5, 2020 and September 11,
2020, as evidenced by his signature on the minutes of the proceedings and on the
notice issued by the Court. Third, his absence is unjustifiable because he escaped
from detention on July 30, 2020 and has not been apprehended since then.
accordingly, there was a valid conduct of trial in absentia and the promulgation of
judgment thereat was also valid.

II.

Engr. Santos is the District Engineer of the DPWH, assigned in the 1 Engineering
st

District of the Province of Bulacan. Will the action filed by Engr. Santos prosper? (5%)

(Roque v. Ombudsman)
YES. The inordinate delay of more than 7 years by the Ombudsman in resolving the
criminal complaints against petitioner is violative of his constitutionally guaranteed
right to due process and a speedy disposition of the cases against him, thus
warranting the dismissal of said criminal cases

The long delay in the termination of the preliminary investigation by the Ombudsman in
the instant case is violative of the constitutional right of the accused to due process.
Substantial adherence to the requirements of the law governing the conduct of preliminary
investigation, including substantial compliance with the time limitation prescribed by the
law for the resolution of the case by the prosecutor, is part of the procedural due process
constitutionally guaranteed by the fundamental law. Not only under the broad umbrella of
the due process clause, but under the constitutional guarantee of speedy disposition of cases
as embodied in Section 16 of the Bill of Rights (both in the 1973 and the 1987 Constitutions),
the inordinate delay is violative of the petitioners constitutional rights. A delay of close to 7
years cannot be deemed reasonable or justifiable in the light of the circumstances obtaining
in the case at bar.

III.

For the double murder of a businessman and his driver, JOHN DELA CRUZ (JOHN),
was arrested by agents of the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group (CIDG). While in
detention, JOHN DELA CRUZ verbally admitted Did JOHN receive effective counselling from
ATTY. Madrid during his custodial investigation? Explain your answer. (5%)

ALT. ANSWER
(People v. Bandula)
No. The right to counsel attaches upon the start of an investigation (ie. custodial
investigation). At such a point or stage, the person being interrogated must be assisted by
counsel to avoid the pernicious practice of extorting false or coerced admissions or
confessions from the lips of the person undergoing interrogation for the commission of the
offense. Hence, if there is no counsel at the start of the custodial investigation, any
statement elicited from the accused is inadmissible in evidence against him.

Furthermore, the Constitution also requires that counsel be independent. Obviously, he

cannot be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a
municipal attorney whose interest is admittedly adverse to the accused. As a legal
officer of the CIDG, he provides legal assistance and support to the law enforcement agency
in the maintenance of peace and order.

(mag) No, John did not receive effective counselling from Atty. Madrid during his custodial
investigation. In the case of People vs. Lucero, the Supreme Court stated that when the
Constitution requires the right to counsel, it did not mean any kind of counsel but an
effective and vigilant counsel. it is apparent that John did not receive any effective
counselling from Atty. Madrid especially at a crucial point when the interrogation was just
beginning where the latter left him to attend to a personal matter. In custodial
investigation, the right to counsel attaches from the moment the investigation starts or in
other words, when the investigating officer starts to ask questions to elicit information and
confessions or admissions from the accused. The extrajudicial statement of John that Atty.
Madrid had signed was executed by the former in her absence. Atty. Madrid should not
have signed the same outright without validating its contents from John.

b. Is JOHN’s extra-judicial confession admissible in evidence against him? Explain your

answer. (5%)
(mag) No. In the same case, People vs. Lucero, the Court held that any confession made
without the presence of a counsel during the custodial investigation is deemed
 inadmissible in evidence in court. In this case, it is apparent that when John was taken
with his statements, his counsel, Atty. Madrid, was not around. Therefore, his
extrajudicial confession/statement cannot be used as evidence against him during his
trial.

IV.

Charged by Juan with Libel, Maria was arraigned on January 29, 2021 and the Pre-
Trial Conference on her case was likewise conducted and terminated on the same day.
Would the grant of the motion for postponement have violated the accused’s right to
speedy trial? (5%)

ALT. ANSWER
(People v. Leviste)
NO. The right of an accused to speedy trial is not violated by the mere postponement of
scheduled hearings of the case. Unjustified postponements which prolong the trial for an
unreasonable length of time are what offend the right of the accused to speedy trial. The
right to speedy trial allows reasonable continuance so as not to deprive the prosecution its
day in court. In the case at bench, the postponement of the hearing was the very first one
ever requested by the private prosecutor. And it was for a valid reason: its principal and
probably only prosecution witness, private complainant Juan, suddenly had to go abroad to
fulfil a professional commitment.

b. Would the reversal of the trial court’s assailed dismissal of the case place the
accused in double jeopardy? (3%)

NO. The defense of double jeopardy will be available to the accused where the dismissal of
the prosecution against him, even if with express consent of the accused, was based on
denial of his right to speedy trial, because these dismissals are in the nature of acquittal. As
such they cannot be appealed and will bar another prosecution of the defendant for the
same offense. In People v. Leviste, the Supreme Court held that an acquittal would bar
further prosecution of the accused for the same offense. These cases are not applicable to
this instance considering that the right of the private respondents to speedy trial has not
been violated by the State. For this reason, the accused cannot invoke his right against
double jeopardy.

c. What are the requisites of double jeopardy? (4%)

The requisites of double jeopardy are as follows: (Com-Fi-A-P-A-W-E-C)

1. Valid Complaint or Information;
2. Filed before a competent court;
3. The Arraignment of the accused;
4. To which he had Pleaded; and
 5. Defendant was previously Acquitted or Convicted, or the case was dismissed or
otherwise terminated Without his Express Consent.

V.

Ruben Padilla was charged with the crime of carnapping. He was arraigned on May
2, 2021 and pre-trial conference was conducted on the same day. A. If you were the Judge,
how will you rule on the objection? Explain your answer. (5%)
(Chavez v. CA)
Objection sustained. The privilege against self-incrimination is based on the constitutional
injunction that "No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself" (Sec. 1, No.
18, Art. III, Phil. Constitution), fully echoed in Section 1, Rule 115, Rules of Court where, in
all criminal prosecutions, the defendant shall be entitled: "(e) To be exempt from being a
witness against himself." In Chavez v. CA, the Court upheld the rule positively intends to
avoid and prohibit the certainly inhuman procedure of compelling a person "to furnish the
missing evidence necessary for his conviction." This rule may apply even to a co-defendant
in a joint trial.
b. Would your answer in question (a) be the same if in the given facts Ruben
Padilla is just an ordinary witness? (5%)

NO. In Chavez v. CA, the Court explained an accused, as a prosecution witness, occupies a
different tier of protection from an ordinary witness. Whereas an ordinary witness may be
compelled to take the witness stand and claim the privilege as each question requiring an
incriminating answer is shot at him (Gonzales v. Secretary of Labor, 94 Phil. 325), an
accused may altogether refuse to take the witness stand and refuse to answer any and all
questions (Cabal v. Kapunan, L-19052, Dec. 29, 1962). For, in reality, the purpose of calling
an accused as a witness for the People would be to incriminate him (Navarro, Criminal
Procedure, 1960 ed., p. 302). This rule may apply even to a co-defendant in a joint trial.

VI.

Accused X was charged with the crime of Murder, which is punishable by reclusion
perpetua.
a. Is Judge “A” correct in granting the petition for bail filed by accused “X”? Explain
your answer. (5%)

No. In Cortes vs. Judge Catral, the Court asserted that when the accused is charged with an
offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life imprisonment, the judge is
mandated to conduct a hearing, whether summary or otherwise in the discretion of the
court, to determine the existence of strong evidence of guilt or lack of it against the
accused. In another case, Taborite vs. Sollesta, the Court held that before a Judge may
grant an application for bail, the prosecutor must be given reasonable notice of hearing or
he must be asked to submit his recommendation. In this case, it appears that no prosecutor
was present for lack of notice and only the accused, his counsel, and the arresting officers
were present during the hearing for the petition for bail. There was no opportunity on the
part of the prosecution to show that the evidence of guilt against the accused is strong.
granting bail in non-bailable offenses without hearing is gross ignorance of the law.
therefore, judge A is not correct in granting the petition for bail filed by accused X.

b. Would your answer to question (a) be the same if accused “X” is charged with an
offense not punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or death? (5%)

ALT. ANSWER
(San Miguel v. Maceda)
No. When bail is a matter of right. the same cannot be denied. It has been ruled that when
bail is a matter of right, the existence of a high degree of probability that the defendant will
abscond confers upon the court no greater discretion than to increase the bond to such an
amount as would reasonably tend to assure the presence of the defendant when wanted. It
must be stressed though that whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, reasonable
notice of hearing is required to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be
asked for his recommendation because in fixing the amount of bail.

(mag) Yes. On all other offenses not punishable by reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or
death, bail is a matter of right. In the same case of Cortes vs. Judge Catral, the Court averred
that whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, reasonable notice of hearing is required
to be given to the prosecutor or fiscal or at least he must be asked for his recommendation
because in fixing the amount of bail, the judge is required to take into account a number of
factors such as the applicant’s character and reputation, forfeiture of other bonds or
whether he is a fugitive from justice. The prosecution must be given an opportunity to be
heard. Again, in this case, it appears that no prosecutor was present for lack of notice and
only the accused, his counsel, and the arresting officers were present during the hearing for
the petition for bail.

VII.
(Repeat from MTE)
One Saturday morning, Patrolman David proceeded with other police officers to
Barangay Guinhawa, Malolos, Bulacan and, per instruction of their Chief of Police, put up a
check point at the junction of the roads, one going to Plaridel, Bulacan and the other to
Malolos Poblacion. Was there a valid warrantless search? Explain your answer. (5%)
YES. There are instances when a search or seizure may be validly made even
without warrant. One of these include consented searches. As earlier ruled by
the SC in People v. Fernandez, when one voluntarily submits to a search or
consent to have it made of his person or premises, he is precluded from later
complaining. ‘The right to be secure from unreasonable search may, like
every right, be waived and such waiver may be made either expressly or
impliedly. In this case, Jojo expressly consented to the request of the police
officers who were conducting checkpoint to inspect his vehicle and a
travelling bag that the latter saw which was partially covered by the rim of the
spare tire. Jojo was considered to have consented to be searched. Warrantless
searches and seizures at police checkpoints have also been acknowledged as
justified on the basis of the right of the State to protect itself.
b. Rule on the admissibility of the confiscated plastic packets. Cite your reasons.
(5%)
In People v. Omaweng, Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that since in the course of
the valid search for (20) packages of drugs were found, it behooved the
officers to seize the same; no warrant was necessary for such seizure.

VIII.

BRIEFLY BUT CLEARLY DEFINE THE FOLLOWING:

1. EX-POST FACTO LAW is any law that makes an action, done before the passage of
the law, which was innocent when done, criminal, and punishes such action. Ex post
facto laws, unless they are favorable to the defendant, are prohibited. ; (2%)
2. BILL OF ATTAINDER is generally understood as a legislative act which inflicts
punishment on individuals or members of a particular group without a judicial
trial.; (2%)
3. BAIL is the security required by the court and given by the accused to ensure that
the accused appear before the proper court at the scheduled time and place to
answer the charges brought against him.; (2%)
4. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS is a speedy and effectual remedy to relieve persons from
unlawful restraint. It secures to a prisoner the right to have the cause of his
detention examined and determined by a court of justice and to have it ascertained
whether he is held under lawful authority.; (2%)

5. ARREST is the act of taking a person into the custody of the law in order that he may
be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. (2%)

IX.

ENUMERATION:

1. Enumerate the duties of the Judge in case an application for bail is filed. (4%)
Case Reference: Cortes v. Judge Catral
 1. In all cases whether bail is a matter of right or discretion, notify the prosecutor of
the hearing of the application for bail or require him to submit his recommendation
(Section 18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended);
2. Where bail is a matter of discretion, conduct a hearing of the application for bail
regardless of whether or not the prosecution refuses to present evidence to show
that the guilt of the accused is strong for the purpose of enabling the court to
exercise its sound discretion (Sections 7 and 8, id.);
3. Decide whether the guilt of the accused is strong based on the summary of
evidence of the prosecution;
4. If the guilt of the accused is not strong, discharge the accused upon the approval
of the bail bond (Section 19, id); otherwise, the petition should be denied.

2. Enumerate the Constitutional Requirements of a valid search warrant. (4%)

ACRONYM: P-J-E-P
a. It must be issued upon determination of Probable cause.
b. The probable cause must be determined by the Judge himself and not the applicant
or any other person.
c. In the determination of probable cause, the judge must Examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses that the latter may produce.
d. The warrant issued must Particularly describe the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.

3. Enumerate the two-fold aspect of the right to religious profession and worship.
(2%)
a. Right to believe, which is absolute.
b. Right to act to one’s belief, which is subject to regulation.

4. Enumerate the requisites of a trial in absentia (3%)

ACRONYM: A-N-U
a. The accused has already been Arraigned;
b. He has been duly Notified of the trial; and
c. His failure to appear is Unjustifiable.

X.

The Office of the Court Administrator issued OCA Circular No. 49-2003 dated May
20, 2003.

With the Supreme Court’s inherent power of administrative supervision over

the lower courts in mind, what legal advice will you give Ramon? (5%)
(OCA v. Judge Macarine)
The legal advice that I will give Ramon is that, indeed, the right to travel is
guaranteed by the Constitution but the exercise of such right is not absolute. What
Ramon has cited was correct. However, as in the case of OAS-OCA vs. Judge Macarine,
the Supreme Court ruled that such provision by no means be construed as limiting
the Court’s inherent power of administrative supervision over lower courts. The
assailed Circular does not restrict but merely regulates, by providing guidelines to
be complied by judges and court personnel, before they can go on leave to travel
abroad. Being a process server of the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City, Ramon is
bound to abide by the administrative rules and regulations as provided by the
Supreme Court.

XI.

Accused was charged before the Regional Trial Court of Angeles City with the crime
of Homicide, a bailable offense. Is a condition in an application for bail that accused be
first arraigned before he could be granted bail valid? (5%)

(mag) No. The grant of bail should not be conditioned upon prior arraignment of the
accused. Such a condition imposed by the judge was declared unconstitutional
because it violates the two important rights of the accused: (1) The right to be put on
trial except upon a valid complaint or information sufficient to charge him in court;
and (2) Right to bail. Under existing law and jurisprudence, the rule is that a person
deprived of his liberty by virtue of his arrest or voluntary surrender may apply for
bail as soon as he is deprived of his liberty, even before a complaint or information is
filed against him.

(flor) See case of Lavides v. CA: In cases where bail is authorized, bail should be granted
before arraignment; otherwise, the accused will be precluded from filing a motion to quash
(done before arraignment) - this situation definitely infringes the constitutional right of the
accused to be put on trial except upon a valid complaint or information sufficient to charge
him with a crime and his right to bail.

XII.

What do you understand by Criminal Due Process?(5%)

(ALT. ANSWER)
Sec. 14(1) of the Bill of Rights speaks of due process limited to criminal actions and
only to their procedural requirement. Criminal due process requires that the
accused be tried by an impartial and competent court, in accordance to procedure
prescribed by law and with proper observance of all the rights accorded him under
the Constitution and applicable statutes. To illustrate, denial from him of the right of
preliminary investigation, as required by law, will constitute a denial of due process.
(example only)

Criminal Due process is the process in which the accused is given his constitutional rights
in prosecution of his case before a competent, impartial court with a jurisdiction. In
criminal due process, the accused has given his rights to remain silent, to be heard by
himself and the counsel, to face the witnesses face to face, to have a compulsory process in
securing the attendance of witnesses and the pieces of evidence on his behalf.

FROM COMBINED MTE REVIEWER

I.

Agustin posted bail on 2012. On 2013, due to non-attendance in court hearing, he was
arrested again but this time on a different crime of robbery and posted bail again. 1.
Can Jose legally post bail again in 2016? Explain. (5%)

ALT. ANSWER
Yes.The argument of the Prosecutor that Agustin may no longer be granted bail on
grounds that he has violated so many law is incorrect. Rule 114 of the Rules of Court
provides for instances where bail shall be denied, including if the penalty imposed is
imprisonment exceeding 6 years and the accused is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist,
habitual delinquent, or has committed an offense aggravated by reiteracion. Agustin has
neither been convicted of any offense to qualify as a habitual offender.

NOT SURE ANSWER

Yes. Jose can still post bail in 2016.

(flor) There is no saying that Jose has been convicted for the previous crimes he has
committed before the trial court. In the case at hand, Jose was charged with the crime
of Alarms and Scandal, which bears an imposable penalty arresto menor. Bail, in this
case, is a matter of right.

(mag) No, Jose cannot legally post bail again in 2016. Under the Rules of Court, an
accused who meted a penalty of imprisonment exceeding six years and is also found to
be a recidivist shall be denied bail. In this case, it is apparent that Jose - HINDI KO NA
PALA SURE KUNG RECIDIVIST SYA KASI WALA NAMAN SA FACTS KUNG MAY
FINAL CONVICTION NA HUEHEHE

2. What are the requisites that must be present before right to bail may not be allowed
by law? (5%)

Bail is not allowed under the following circumstances:

 1. When a person is charged with a capital offense or an offense punishable by RP
or LI, when the evidence of guilt is strong (Consti & ROC)
2. After a judgment of conviction has become final (ROC)
3. AFter the accused has commenced the service of sentence (ROC)

The requisites that must be present before right to bail may not be allowed by law are
provided in Rule 114 of the Rules of Court, as follows:

1. Section 7 - No person, regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution, shall

be admitted to bail if charged with a capital offense, or an offense punishable by
death, reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment, when evidence of guilt is strong.
2. section 5, Paragraph 3 - If the court imposed a penalty of imprisonment
exceeding 6 years, the accused shall be denied bail, or his bail previously
granted shall be cancelled, upon showing by the prosecution, with notice to the
accused, of the following or other similar circumstances:

(a) That he is a recidivist, quasi-recidivist, or habitual delinquent, or has

committed the crime aggravated by the circumstance of reiteration;

(b) That he has previously escaped from legal confinement, evaded sentence, or
violated the conditions of his bail without valid justification;

(c) That he committed the offense while under probation, parole, or conditional
pardon;

(d) That the circumstances of his case indicate the probability of flight if released
on bail; or

(e) That there is undue risk that he may commit another crime during the
pendency of the appeal.

II.

Mr. Josef is charged of rape of an Igorata. The Court issued a valid warrant for his
Arrest.

1. How shall you tell to Mr. Josef his Miranda rights? (5%)

“You have the right to remain silent. Any statement you make may be used against you
in a court of law in the Philippines. You have the right to have a competent and
independent counsel preferably of your own choice. If you cannot afford the services of
a counsel, the government will provide you one. Do you understand these rights?”

It is worthy to note that Mr. Josef should be informed of his rights in a language he can
understand. If Mr. Josef is a non-English speaker, the above-mentioned rights must be
translated in a language or dialect he knows.
2. What are the defenses of Atty. Laggui-Ramel, the counsel of Josef to avoid the
possible arrest ? (5%)

None. There is a valid warrant for the arrest of Josef. Atty. Laggui-Ramel should just file
a petition for bail for the temporary release of Josef or to assail to validity of the arrest
before Josef enters his plea.

III.
Edna was found dead on a grassy uninhabited place in Tanay, Rizal. Autopsy report
revealed that she was raped. Ompoy, the sole eyewitness in the killing, reported the
incident to the police after two (2) days.

1. What are the rights of a person under custodial investigation for the commission of an
offense? (5%)

S12, AIII, 1987C: (1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense
shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent
and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. If the person cannot afford the
services of counsel, he must be provided with one. These rights cannot be waived
except in writing and in the presence of counsel.

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

(3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Section 17 hereof shall
be inadmissible in evidence.

a. Right to be informed of his rights to remain silent and counsel;

b. Right to be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent, anything he says
can and will be used against him;

c. Right to remain silent;

d. Right to have a competent and independent counsel preferably of his own

choice;

e. Right to be provided with counsel, if the person cannot afford the services of one;

f. No torture, force, violence, threat, intimidation or any other means which vtiaite
the free will shall be used against him;

g. Secret detention places, solitary, incommunicado, or other similar forms of

detention are prohibited; and

h. Confessions or admissions obtained in violation of these rights are inadmissible

as evidence.
2. When are these rights available? (5%)

These rights are available during the commencement of custodial investigation or when
the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to
focus a particular suspect, the suspect is taken into custody, and the police carries out a
process of interrogations that tends itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the
rule begins to operate.

Also, it is worthy to note that as used in this RA 7438, "custodial investigation" shall
include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is investigated in
connection with an offense he is suspected to have committed, without prejudice to the
liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law.

3. Can Dencio and Fredo claim that their identification by Ompoy be excluded in
evidence on the ground that the police line-up was made without the assistance of their
counsel? Explain your answer? (5%)

No. It is well settled in this jurisprudence that an accused is not entitled to the
assistance of a counsel in a police line-up because such is not a usual process of a
custodial investigation. (People v. Escordial) One placed in a police line-up does not
enjoy Sec. 12, Article III of the 1987 Constitution except when there is a move on the
part of the investigators to elicit admissions or confessions. (People v. Frago, People v.
Dimaano)

IV.

The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor-General, instituted a complaint for
expropriation of a piece of lands and mountains in both Occidental and Oriental
Mindoro.

Is this correct? Reasons. (5%)

1st Possible Answer (Traditional Concept of Public Use):

Yes. Petitioners’ contention is correct. The power of the State to forcibly acquire private
property requires the following: (1) the purpose of the taking must be public use and that
(2) just compensation must be given to the private owner.

In the case at bar, the first requisite is wanting. Public use mens public usefulness,
utility, or advantage, or what is productive of general benefit, so that any appropriation
of private property for purposes of great advantage to the community is taken for public
use. Public use implies use of the public.

2nd Possible Answer (Expanded Scope of Public Use):

Places invested with unusual historical interest are a public use for which the power of
eminent domain may be authorized. The NHI may initiate a proceeding for the purpose
of acquiring the piece of lands for the purposes of maintaining and caring for national
historic sites, as well as for developing such. In the case of Manosca v. CA, the term
public use must have been considered in its general concept of meeting a public need
or public exigency. The idea that that public use is strictly limited to clear cases of use
by the public has long been discarded. The concept of public welfare is broad and
inclusive.

V.

1. Distinguish Overbreadth Doctrine from Operative Fact Doctrine. (5%)

Under the overbreadth doctrine, a law that is written in broad language and whose
purpose is to regulate free speech resulting in deterrence of free expression is declared
as void or unconstitutional. The overbreadth doctrine is also a ground that allows for a
facial challenge, an exception to the prohibition against third party standing. A law may
be assailed as unconstitutional due to being overly broad by a party, even if he does not
have a legal standing, provided that he shows a violation of the rights of third parties
before the court.

On the other hand, the operative fact doctrine, a law may be declared unconstitutional
but its effects, which took place prior to the declaration of its nullity, shall be left
undisturbed for the promotion of equity. This doctrine is also applicable to executive
acts declared invalid.

2. What is the difference between the Power of Eminent Domain as exercised by the
Legislature, and Eminent Domain as exercised by Local Government and Public
Utilities. (5%)

The main difference between the power of eminent domain as exercised by the
legislature and local government/public utility is that the former has been vested with
direct authority while the latter acts only as a delegate.

This means that when the Congress exercises its power of eminent domain, the
question as to necessity cannot be inquired into by the Courts because it is a political
question. On the other hand, the Courts may inquire into the exercise of power of
eminent domain of the local government/public utilities, provided that they are vested
with general purpose. This poses a justiciable question which the Courts may resolve.

VI.

A local ordinance mandated that fences should only be one-meter high, or if they are
higher, than they must be 80% see-thru, aside from requiring a 6-meter setback for
parking purposes.
1. Are the requirements within the valid exercise of police power? (5%)
(Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College)
No. As with the State, local governments may be considered as having properly
exercised their police power only if the following requisites are met: (1) the interests of
the public generally, as distinguished from those of a particular class, require its
exercise and (2) the means employed are reasonably necessary for the
accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly oppressive upon individuals. In short,
there must be a concurrence of a lawful subject and lawful method.Lacking a
concurrence of these two requisites, the police power measure shall be struck down as
an arbitrary intrusion into private rights and a violation of the due process clause.

In Fernando v. St. Scholastica’s College, the Supreme Court ruled compelling the
respondents to construct their fence in accordance with the assailed ordinance is, thus,
a clear encroachment on their right to property, which necessarily includes their right to
decide how best to protect their property. It also appears that requiring the exposure of
their property via a see-thru fence is violative of their right to privacy, considering that
the residence of the Benedictine nuns is also located within the property.

2. May the State infringe on private rights solely for the sake of the aesthetic
appearance of the community under the guise of police power? Explain. (5%)

Regarding the beautification purpose of the setback requirement, it has long been
settled that the State may not, under the guise of police power, permanently divest
owners of the beneficial use of their property solely to preserve or enhance the
aesthetic appearance of the community. The Court, thus, finds Section 5 to be
unreasonable and oppressive as it will substantially divest the respondents of the
beneficial use of their property solely for aesthetic purposes. Accordingly, Section 5 of
Ordinance No. 192 is invalid. Similarly, the Court cannot perceive how a see-thru fence
will foster “neighborliness” between members of a community.

3. What is the implication of setback requirement? (5%)

Furthermore, in Fernando v. SSC, the real intent of the setback requirement was to
make the parking space free for use by the public, considering that it would no longer be
for the exclusive use of the respondents as it would also be available for use by the
general public. The Court held the view that the implementation of the setback
requirement would be tantamount to a taking of a total of 3,762.36 square meters of the
respondents’ private property for public use without just compensation, in contravention
to the Constitution.