Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bernas Reviewer PDF
Bernas Reviewer PDF
24 hr.
CONSTITUTIONAL
LAW 2
Reviewer
Disclaimer
The compilers shall not be liable for the users passing (or failing) the course
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
2. JURISDICTION
In actions in personam, the court acquires jurisdiction over the defendant by its voluntary appearance or through service of summons
upon him/her.
In actions in rem or quasi in rem, the jurisdiction of the court is derived from the power it may exercise over property.
It refers to:
1. Authority of the court to entertain a particular kind of action or to administer a particular kind of relief
2. Power of the court over the parties
3. Power of the court over properties that is subject of the litigation.
3. HEARING
Notice to a party is essential to enable it to adduce its own evidence and to meet and refute the evidence submitted by the other party.
A judicial decision without a hearing is null and void ab initio and may be attacked directly or collaterally
However, due process is not violated where is a person is not heard because he has not chosen to be heard.
One may be heard through pleadings; A full-blown trial is not necessary
4
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
EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT
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
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.
Exclusionary rule
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, its 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 whats 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.
Limitations of Freedom of Expression
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:
2 Aspects:
1) Freedom to Believe (or Disbelieve)- However absurd ones belief is, even if it is deemed by society as heretical or hostile it cannot be punished as long as it
remains in the realm of thought.
2) Freedom to Act on Ones Belief As soon as one externalizes his belief, his/her freedom becomes the subject of States inherent police power if it the
exercise of police power is inimical or beneficial to society (ex. Prevention of a cults mass suicide)
6. LIBERTY OF ABODE AND TRAVEL
Section 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.
The purpose of this right is to further emphasize individual liberty as safeguarded in the general terms of the due process clause. This right includes the right
to choose ones residence, leave it whenever he/she pleases , and travel where he wants.
This right, as in all rights have limitations; This is limited by a lawful order of the court and can be impaired in the interest of public safety, security, health as
provided by law.
Obiter: The Marcos v. Manglapus Case is unique & is not a precedent for normalcases, kung baga pan-diktador lang.
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
govt 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, govt 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 govt buying private property to be used publicly), it is primarily lodged in the national legislature. But can
be validly delegated and exercised to other govt 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 persons 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 courts 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
interrogations 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 suspects 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 counsels 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 ones 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 convicts suffering, penalty is still valid .
15
It prohibits the prosecution again of any person for a crime which he has been previously acquitted or convicted.
Requisites:
Valid complaint
conmplaint filed before competent court
Complaint to which defendant had pleaded
Of which he had been previously acquitted or convicted or otherwise terminated without his consent
Crimes covered
Doctrine of supervening event-accused may be prosecuted for another offense if a subsequent development changes the character of the 1st indictment which
he may have been charged or convicted.
Doctrine of inseparable offense-when one offense is inseparable from another and proceeds from the same act, they cannot be subject of separate
prosecutions. However, it is possible for 1 act to give rise to several crimes, in which case separate prosecutions for each crime may be filed, provided that
the elements of the several crimes are not identical.
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
Natural-born Citizen
1. Those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth without having to perform any act to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship
2. Those who elect Philippine citizenship in accordance with paragraph (3), Section 1 of Consti
A natural born citizen who loses his citizenship by renunciation or any other mode recognized by law would no longer be considered a
natural born Filipino even if he reacquires citizenship
Loss of Citizenship
Commonwealth Act No. 63
applies to both natural-born and naturalized citizens
citizenship is lost by naturalization in a foreign country, by express renunciation of citizenship, by oath of allegiance to a foreign country, by rendering
service in the armed forces of a foreign country and by being a deserter of the armed forces
Commonwealth Act
applies to naturalized citizens only
a certificate of naturalization may be cancelled when found to have been fraudulently or illegally obtained, or by permanent residence in the country of
origin within 5 years from naturalization, or when the petition is found to have been made on an invalid declaration of intent, or upon failure to comply
with the requirements for the education of minor children, or if the person allows himself to be a dummy for aliens.
17
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 husbands 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 Employees Association v PBM Property rights occupy a lower position in the hierarchy of rights than human rights. (This doctrine however, should be taken with a grain of
salt. Sir Agabin)
Yu Cong Eng v Trinidad A statute prohibiting the keeping of books of accounts in any language other than English, Spanish or the local dialect
violates due process for impairing a persons right to engage in a lawful profession or calling.
People v Fajardo Aesthetic purposes are not sufficient to justify depriving a person of the right to use his property without just
compensation.
Ynot v IAC A statute prohibiting the transportation of carabaos and carabeef between provinces violates due process for impairing a
persons right to use his property while having no reasonable relation with its avowed purpose supposedly to protect a
valuable beast of burden.
Guido v RPA A law allowing for the expropriation of lands to distribute to the poor may not be unconstitutional on its face but it violates
due process as applied when what is to be distributed is a small parcel of land to benefit a few families. In such a case, the
means will not anymore have a reasonable relation with the purpose of the statute the distribution of landed estates to
facilitate agrarian reform.
Ang Tibay v CIR The cardinal primary rights in administrative proceedings are:
1. right to a hearing, to present ones cause and adduce evidence to defend such cause
2. the decision must have something to back it up
3. evidence must be substantial, which means such relevant facts and circumstances which to 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 the facts and issues of the case and not merely rely
on the decisions of subordinate 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
De Bisschop v Galang Right versus privilege test when an action is based on a right, due process is required; when based on a privilege, due process is not required
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 and opportunity to be heard.
Goldberg v Kelly 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.
Board of Regents v Roth 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 universitys decision not to rehire a professor does not cause any prejudice to the professors status nor to his property interests, which in this case
are only abstract.
Matthews v Eldridge Balancing of interests test -> Due process is flexible and requires for such procedural protections 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 Napolcom The decision in an administrative case must be rendered based on evidence presented at the trial 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.
Philconsa v Jimenez A statute granting retirement benefits to legislators is violative of equal protection for being 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 Hopkins A statute prohibiting the operation of laundry services in buildings made of wood may not be 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 Education The separate but equal doctrine does not apply to educational institutions. Racial segregation in schools is inherently unequal as measured by
intangibles.
People v Vera There exists no difference between a law which denies and a law which permits denial of equal protection. A probation law, which allows unequal
treatment for persons convicted under the same penal code, is unconstitutional.
Eisenstadt v Baird A law which regulates the distribution of contraceptives, limiting it to married couples, is unconstitutional for being overbroad with respect to the
married and discriminatory with respect to the unmarried.
21
Smith Bell v Natividad Aliens enjoy the same rights as citizens. But a law that limits the use of common carriers to 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.
People v Cayat A law that prohibits non-Christian inhabitants from possessing liquor does not violate equal 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
Ceniza v Comelec A law that disqualifies highly urbanized cities from participating in provincial elections is constitutional. A distinction based on the income of a city is
substantial. It is a measure of a citys capability to exist as a separate unit apart from the province to which it belongs.
Ormoc Sugar v Treasurer A distinction should not be limited to existing conditions but to should also apply to future conditions substantially identical with the present.
Nunez v Sandiganbayan The creation of the Sandiganbayan is constitutional. There exists a substantial distinction between 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.
People v Malmstedt An arrest of a person carrying dried marijuana from Sagada, in flagrante does not require a warrant. A search made incidental to such arrest
is equally lawful.
Olmstead v US Tangibles only rule -> The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies only to material things: houses,
persons, papers and effects. When there is no entry, there can be no unlawful search nor seizure.
Katz v US Constitution protects people not places. Whatever a person reserves as private should be considered private whether it be tangible or not.
Terry v Ohio Stop and frisk rule -> A reasonably prudent officer, warranted by circumstances of a given 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.
Manalili v CA The stop and frisk rule is an exception to the general rule against a search without warrant. 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.
Hizon v CA The search of vessels, aircrafts and motor vehicles has been an exception to the 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 Greenwood Trash searches are allowed because of the absence of a reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of the person who discarded the
trash.
Ciraolo v California The test of legitimacy is not whether the individual chooses to conceal an assertedly private activity but whether the governments intrusion
infringes upon the personal and societal values protected by the Constitution.
An area within curtilage does not bar all police observation especially in this case where there wasnt any reasonable expectation of privacy
public navigable airspace which any member of the public who glanced down from a commercial plane would have seen.
Guazon v de Villa 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 San The minimum requirement of warrantless searches is probable cause.
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 Diokno An objection to unreasonable searches and seizures is a purely personal right that might be invoked only by the person 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.
Valmonte v Villa Checkpoints, during abnormal times, conducted within reasonable limits are constitutional 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 fiscals report must be supported by sufficient records.
Soliven v Judge Makasiar A judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. All he is required to do is to personally
evaluate the fiscals report or to require the complainants and their witnesses to submit affidavits in support of the complaint if the fiscals
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.
People v Gesmundo Sec. 7 Rule 126 No search of a house, room, or any other premise shall be made except in the presence of:
1. the lawful occupant thereof or
2. any member of his family or
3. in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and 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
2. when a crime has just be committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it
Warrantless searches applicable in this case:
23
Definitions:
custodial investigation practice of issuing an invitation to a person investigated in connection with an offense without prejudice to the
liabilities that the inviting officer may incur
Sec. 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.
24
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.
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 countrys efforts in times of war.
Abrams v US Clear and probable danger test Man must be held to have intended and to be accountable for 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.
The best test of truth is in the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.
Gitlow v New York 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).
Holmes (dissenting): The difference between expression of opinion and advocacy is the speakers enthusiasm for result.
People v Nabong 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.
Speech may take the form of symbols.
US v Bustos A complaint is considered to be qualified privileged communication if it is:
1. made in good faith
2. without malice
3. regarding the character or conduct of a public official
4. addressed to the proper officer or board
In such a case, the plaintiff carries the burden of proving the speech to be libelous.
Gonzales v Comelec Rational basis test -> Speech may be regulated to prevent the substantive evil of debasement of the electoral process. But the regulation should not
be overbroad as to make its application oppressive.
Mutuc v Comelec 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.
Terminello v City of Chicago 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.
Zaldivar v Sandiganbayan 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
NPC v Comelec A statute prohibiting the sale or donation of mass media print space and air 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
Osmena v Comelec Content-neutral restriction involves regulation as to time, place and manner; 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 Chicago Movies may be regulated through prior restraint. They are primarily used for 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 Tornillo Right to reply provisions are as unconstitutional as a statute which forbids or 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.
NY Times Co. v US Any system or prior restraint comes to court bearing the heavy presumption 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 true because the speech comes from a
corporation rather than an individual.
Roth v US 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 Atty.Gen. of Even when a material is found to possess the requisite prurient appeal and is found to be patently offensive ,it cant 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
2. work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, which sexual conduct must be
specifically defined by the applicable statute or law
3. work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Freedom of communication applies to both source and recipient.
Consumers Council, Inc. Freedom of speech applies even to commercial transactions. Fact that the advertisers interests are purely economic
does not disqualify him from constitutional protection.
Hustler Magazine v Fallwell Alleged slander is not actionable if it could not have reasonably understood as describing actual facts.
To claim damages, plaintiff must prove:
1. false statement of facts
26
2. actual malice (with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether or not it was false)
FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY
Sec. 5 No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free
exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed.
No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights.
West Virginia Board of Education v Barnette Rights may be impaired only to prevent grave and immediate danger.
National unity is not a sufficient justification for compelling Jehovahs 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 cant 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-Pornillos A general regulation of solicitation, which does not involve any religious test nor 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 include
religious corporations in case labor disputes arise which would require government intervention.
Engel v Vitale The non-establishment clause does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion. It is violated by the
enactment of laws, which establish an official religion, whether or not these laws operate directly to coerce non-observing
individuals.
The fact, therefore, that a prayer recited in public schools was denominationally neutral and voluntary is immaterial.
Board of Education v Allen The non-establishment clause does not prevent a state from extending the benefits of state laws to all citizens without regard to
1968 their religious affiliation.
The grant of secular textbooks to all schools, even when it includes parochial schools, is therefore constitutional.
Victoriano v Elizalde Rope Workers Union RA3350 closed-shop agreements shall not cover members of any religious sect which prohibits affiliation of their members with any
1974 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 regulated by the state when it will bring about the
1996 clear and present danger of some substantive evil which Congress has a duty to prevent.
The non-establishment clause also prohibits any act of the state favoring any religion, by protecting it against attack by another
religion.
American Bible Society v City of Manila A flat license tax, payment of which is a condition of the exercise of the constitutional privilege of religion, is unconstitutional.
1957
Everson v Board of Education Public welfare legislation, passed to satisfy a public need (the general education of all children) is constitutional even when it
1947 coincides with the personal desires of certain religions.
Constitution requires the State to be neutral in its relationship with groups of religious believers and non believers. It does not
requires the state to be their adversary.
Wisconsin v Yoder The states interest in universal education has to be balanced against the traditional interest of parents in the religious upbringing of
1972 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.
Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro Civil liberties should be enjoyed only in civilized communities.
28
1919
Villavicencio v Lukban Prostitutes, despite being in a sense lepers, are not chattels but Philippine citizens, protected by the same constitutional
1919 guarantee of freedom of abode. They may not be compelled to change their domicile in the absence of a law allowing such.
Lorenzo v Dir. of Health Laws for the segregation of lepers have been provided the world over and is supported by high scientific authority. Such
1927 segregation is premised on the duty to protect public health.
Manotok v CA Bail posted in a criminal case, is a valid restriction on the right to travel. By its nature, it may serve as a prohibition on an
1986 accused from leaving the jurisdiction of the Philippines where orders of Philippine courts would have no binding force.
Marcos v Manglapus The liberty of abode and the right to travel includes the right to leave, reside and travel within ones country but it does not
1989 include the right to return to ones country.
NOTE: Court warned that this case should not create a precedent because Marcos was a class in himself.
Philippine Association of Service Exporters v Drilon Right to travel may be impaired in the interest of national security, public health or public order, as may be provided by law.
1988 An order temporarily suspending the deployment of overseas workers is 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.
Valmonte v Belmonte The people have a right to access official records but they cant compel custodians of official records to prepare lists, abstracts, summaries
1989 and the like, such not being based on a demandable legal right.
Baldoza v Dimaano Judges cannot prohibit access to judicial records. However, a judge may regulate the manner in which persons desiring to inspect, examine or
1976 copy records in his office, may exercise their rights.
Legaspi v Civil Service Commission Personal interest is not required in asserting the right to information on matters of public concern.
1987 What matters constitute public concern should be determined by the court on a case to case basis.
Chavez v PCGG Public concern (def.) writings coming into the hands of public officers in connection with 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. of Labor The right to self-organization does not include the right to be given legal personality.
1969
People v Ferrer A legislative determination that the CPP is an illegal organization is a justified proscription of the preferred position of freedom of association. Congress
1972 was able to show the existence of a substantive evil: an organized conspiracy to overthrow the Government to establish a totalitarian 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, even without acts committed in pursuance of the conspiracy.
In Re: Edillon Overriding considerations of public interest and welfare justify intrusion into the personal interests and convenience of individual lawyers.
29
1978 A lawyers freedom of association is not violated when he automatically becomes a member of the 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 Alabama Privacy in ones associations is indispensable to the preservation of the freedom of association, especially where a group espouses dissident beliefs.
1958
UPSU v Laguesma The right of association guaranteed in the Constitution is subject to the condition that its exercise should be for purposes not contrary to law.
1998 The Labor Code prohibits managerial employees from joining, assisting or forming any labor 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 Chinese Community A municipal corporation exercises only a general authority granted by the legislature to appropriate private property for public use. In
1919 every case, the court has a duty to 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. Co. v New York There is no taking when the statute permits continued reasonable use of the site as it was used before the regulation and when
1978 statute affords opportunities to enhance the property.
MRR v Velasquez The report of commissioners on the valuation of land for expropriation is not final. The court may increase or decrease the valuation if it
1915 is grossly excessive or grossly insufficient even when there is no showing of fraud or prejudice on the part of the commissioners.
EPZA v Dulay Just compensation is a constitutional right to be protected by the judiciary. As such, the valuation submitted by commissioners is just
1987 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 Just compensation in land expropriation proceedings should be determined in the light of social justice.
1983 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 Administration The Constitutional provision on expropriation should be liberally construed. Whereas it uses lands instead of landed estates, it should
1970 be deemed to include even lands located in urban areas.
Congress is free to follow a system of priorities to determine what lands would be the first to be the subject of expropriation.
City of Baguio v NAWASA The taking of property owned by a municipality in its proprietary character requires just compensation.
1959
Mataas na Lupa v Dimayuga Expropriation does not require information on land size or area. The test is the number of people to be benefited by the expropriation
1984 and the degree of social reform achieved thereby.
Province of Camarines Sur v CA Public use includes public utility and advantage not just use by the general public in its literal sense. The power of eminent domain
1993 is exercised even when the taking of private property is for the development of housing projects and pilot centers etc.
Ansaldo v CA The owner property expropriated should be compensated for what he actually losses. Compensation should be based on the value of
1990 the land at the time of taking, not at the time of the filing of the claim, but with legal interest.
Association of Small Landowners v Adiong Compensation payable only in money applies to traditional exercise of the power of the eminent domain. The Comprehensive Agrarian
30
1989 Reform Program is not traditional but revolutionary, where the mode of compensation need not be in cash.
Adiong v Comelec When the right to property is joined by a liberty interest, the burden of justification on the part of the government that justifies
1992 intrusion must be exceptionally convincing and irrefutable.
CONTRACTS CLAUSE
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.
COLD NEUTRALITY
People v Opida A judge should refrain from examining witnesses and should limit himself to clarificatory questions.
Galman v Sandiganbayan A dictated, coerced, and scripted verdict of acquittal is a void judgment. In legal contemplation, it neither binds nor bars anyone.
Martelino v Alejandrino Publicity does not invalidate a trial in the absence of a clear showing that the judges would not have been able to render impartial judgment.
Marcos v Sandiganbayan A judgment is invalid when the judges behavior did not manifest cold neutrality required of 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
Gutang v People The constitution prohibits testimonial compulsion or the extortion of communication from the accused. It does not prohibit inclusion of an accuseds
2000 body in evidence when it may be material and what is involved is only a mechanical act meant to 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.
Chavez v CA An accused, unlike an ordinary witnesses, may not only refuse to answer incriminating questions 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 Summers On a proper showing and upon order by the court, an ocular inspection of the body of an accused 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.
1929 An order requiring a fiscal to take dictation in his own handwriting to compare with specimens is 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 California Officers cant extract by force what is in an accuseds mind. They also cant extract by force what is in his stomach.
1952
RIGHT TO COUNSEL
Escobedo v Illinois The right to counsel attaches from the time the investigation moves from a general investigation to one which has begun to focus on the guilt or
1964` innocence of the accused.
It applies even during interrogation, where legal advice is most critical.
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.
NOTE RA7438 which requires assistance of counsel [de parte] even at the early stage of arrest.
Miranda v State of Arizona In-custody interrogations contain inherently compelling pressures. Statements obtained during such interrogations, without observing the proper
1966 procedural safeguards, are inadmissible in evidence.
Procedural safeguards and guidelines:
1. prior to any questioning, accused must be informed that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says may be used as evidence
against him
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
3. if the accused is alone and indicates that he does not wish to be interrogated, there can be no interrogation
4. warning does not depend on the background of the accused nor on his request. It must be accompanied by a meaningful explanation.
5. waiver of the rights must be knowingly and intelligently given
6. these rights do not distinguish between exculpatory and inculpatory statements
People v Logronio Miranda rights apply to suspects under custodial investigation by the police. Oral statements made by a person, while he was yet a suspect, are
1992 admissible in evidence although he has not been warned of his rights.
People v Espiritu Requisites for admissibility of extra-judicial confessions:
1999 1. voluntarily made
2. with the assistance of a competent and independent counsel
Counsel for the accused need not be retained by the accused himself. The lawyer may be:
1. engaged by anyone acting on behalf of the person under investigation
33
2. appointed by the court upon petition by person under investigation or someone acting on his behalf
People v Continente A mere enumeration to the accused of his custodial rights does not satisfy the requirement required by law. There has to be the transmission of
2000 meaningful information as to the nature of the investigation with warnings and advice to the accused. Effective communication and a full
understanding of ones rights are required.
People v Hatton The presence of counsel is indispensable in a post-indictment line-up. But while the accusatory process in a line-up has not yet set in, the right to
1992 counsel does not attach.
NOTE: Line-up in this case was invalidated however, because it was filled with suggestive influences.
People v Obrero An independent counsel cant be a special counsel, public or private prosecutor, municipal attorney or counsel of the police whose interest is
2000 admittedly adverse to the accused.
People v Sevilla Statements acquired during a custodial investigation, without the assistance of counsel, are invalid even when third degree methods are not
2000 employed.
Uncounselled extra-judicial confessions are likewise inadmissible when made without a waiver of the right to an attorney.
RIGHT TO BAIL
De la Camara v Enage The constitution prohibits the imposition of excessive bail. The amount of bail is not a penalty but a mere guarantee that accused will not flee.
Bravo v Borja To determine whether or not an offense is bailable, one should inquire into the penalty prescribed by law and not the penalty actually imposed after
all aggravating and mitigating circumstances have been applied.
Herras Teehankee v Rovira Persons detained without having been charged with any offense, also enjoy the right to bail subject to a hearing to determine whether or not
evidence of guilt is strong.
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.
Lansang v Garcia The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended in cases of invasion or rebellion when the public safety requires it.
Garcia Padilla v Enrile The suspension of the privilege of the writ suspends a persons right to bail even after charges have 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 Enrile The writ of habeas corpus is available as long as a person has been deprived of complete freedom such as when his freedom of movement, liberty of
abode etc. are curtailed, despite being technically free from physical confinement.
Ilusorio v Bildner The purpose of the writ is to inquire into all manner of involuntary restraint. It may not issue to compel a husband to live with his wife.
In re: Garcia Habeas corpus is not a writ of error. Mere errors of fact or law must be corrected on appeal in the 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 Pompeya An Act providing for the method by which the people of the town may be called upon to render assistance for the protection of the public and the
preservation of peace and good order is 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 Williams No indebtedness warrants a suspension of the right to be free from compulsory service, and no state 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
People v Echagaray Cruel, unjust, excessive or unusual punishment involves more than the mere extinguishment of 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. of Justice An order by the court temporarily suspending the execution of its judgment does not encroach upon the executive power of clemency.
1999
Weems v US The prohibition against cruel punishments likewise applies to bails and fines.
1910 Theory of proportional punishment > to determine whether a punishment is excessive, standards in other jurisdictions should be taken into account
Furman v Georgia The death penalty, although not unconstitutional per se, may be unconstitutional if it discriminates against a defendant by reason of his race,
1972 religion, wealth, social position or class and if it is imposed under a procedure that gives room for 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)
Gregg v Georgia Following the courts ruling in Furman, the Georgia legislature adopted the bifurcated scheme, consisting of the guilt, pre-sentencing and automatic
1976 review stages, in the imposition of the death penalty. Because of these revised procedural safeguards against discrimination, Georgias statute was
upheld and the death penalty was declared constitutional.
Louisiana v Resweber Cruelty prohibited by the constitution is cruelty inherent in the method of punishment, not the 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 convicts sentence, does not make the subsequent execution cruel
and excessive. The constitution cant prevent.
People v Dionisio It takes more than being harsh, excessive, out or proportion or severe for a penalty to be obnoxious to the constitution.
1968 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 Martinez BP20 (Bouncing Checks Law) is not unconstitutional for violating the constitutional prohibition on non-imprisonment for debt.
1986 It punishes not the failure to pay the cheque but the act of making a worthless cheque, which is an 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 Quillen The Phil. Constitutional prohibition contains no exception (not even fraud on the part of the debtor) to non-imprisonment for debt.
1922
Serafin v Lindayag An information which merely recites the failure to pay a simple indebtedness does not charge estafa and is purely civil in aspects. No one may be arrested
1975 and detained under such an information.
Ajeno v Inserto The prohibition in the constitution applies to debts arising from a contractual obligation (ex-contractu) and not to debts arising from a crime (ex-delicto).
1976 NOTE however, RA5465 which allows subsidiary imprisonment only in cases of non-payment of fine, 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.
Kepner v US The constitutional provision is not a prohibition against twice being punished but against twice being put in jeopardy for the same offense.
1904 A defendant, whether convicted or acquitted, has already been put in jeopardy during the first trial. The state, even in appellate proceedings, cant
seek reversal of his acquittal without his consent.
People v Quijada Additional element test -> There is no double jeopardy when either of two offenses, although 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
4. defendant was acquitted, convicted or the case against him was dismissed without his 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.
People v Adil Doctrine of supervening event -> If after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes on which defendant may be held liable, resulting in altering
1977 the character of the crime and giving rise to a new and distinct offence, the accused cant be said to be in second jeopardy if indicted for the new
36
offense.
Perez v CA A single act may offend against two or more entirely distinct & unrelated provisions of law. If one provision requires proof of an additional fact or
1988 element which the other does not, an acquittal or conviction or dismissal under one does not 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 of Manila If a fact (which changes the character of the offense) was in existence at the time of the 1st prosecution, such fact may not be considered a
1983 supervening event so as to allow a 2nd prosecution.
Republic v Fernandez Prohibition in the Constitution applies to criminal or penal matters, not to laws concerning civil matters.
1956 Revenue acts have traditionally had a retroactive application. To declare increase in taxes as unconstitutional, the retroactive application must be both
harsh and oppressive.
US v Gomez & Coronel A law, although dealing only with procedural matters, cant be applied if prejudicial to the accused.
1908 A law allowing the fiscal to prosecute adultery absent a complaint from the offended spouse cannot be applied to a case involving n act committed at a
time when adultery can only be prosecuted by the offended husband.
Co v CA Decisions of the courts, administrative rulings on court decisions (i.e., those issued by the Sec. of Justice) and anything which partakes of the nature and
1993 effect of penal statutes, are covered by the prospectivity principle.
People v Ferrer The Anti-Subversion Act outlawing the CPP is not a bill of attainder for applying to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group. The
1974 use of the word CPP is only for definitional purposes and does not purport refer to only one communist/subversive organization.
ART. IV
CITIZENSHIP
Sec. 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.
37
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 Commissioner of Immigration An alien woman may be deemed a citizen of the Philippines by virtue of her marriage to a Filipino citizen if she possesses none of
1971 the disqualifications 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 registration.
Tan Chong v Secretary of Labor The Philippine jurisdiction applies the principle of jus sanguinis (citizenship by blood) not jus soli (citizenship by birth).
1947
Villahermosa v Commisioner of Immigration A minor child born of a Filipino mother before Jan.17,1973 does not automatically become a Filipino citizen upon his mothers
1948 repatriation. One cannot reacquire what one did not lose in the first place. Thus to become a Filipino, he must elect Filipino
citizenship upon reaching the age of majority.
In Re: Florencio Mallare An illegitimate child of a Filipino mother and a Chinese father, acquires his mothers citizenship and is likewise a Filipino.
1974 The election of Philippine citizenship may be proven by positive acts such as the exercise of the right of suffrage.
Labo Jr. v Comelec Philippine citizenship may be lost through:
1989 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