Shit to memorize

Right to security of person is: [Secretary of National Defense v Manalo].

[1] freedom from fear;

[2] guarantee of bodily and psychological integrity, and

[3] guarantee of protection of one‘s rights by the government

Requisites of SDP from Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro:

o There must be a Law prescribed in harmony with the general powers of the legislature

o The law must be Reasonable in its operation

o It must be enforced according to the regular Methods of procedure prescribed

o It must be Applicable alike to all the citizens of the state or to all of a class.

Procedural Due Process in JUDICIAL Proceedings

(1) There!must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to hear and determine the
matter before it

(2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant or over property
which is the subject of the proceeding

(3) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard and

(4)! Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing.”

Requirements of PDP in academic disciplinary proceedings [Guzman v NU]

1. Informed in writing of the nature and cause of accusation

2. Right to answer charges with assistance of counsel if desired

3. Informed of evidence against them

4. Right to adduce evidence on their behalf

5. Evidence submitted must be duly considered

Requirements of PDP in Labor Matters: 2 notice requirement [Perez v Philippine
Telegraph and Telephone Company]

1. Written notice specifying ground for termination

2. Giving the employee reasonable opportunity to explain

3. Another written notice indicating that upon the consideration of all circumstances, ground has
been established to justify the employer‘s decision.

Requisites of Eminent Domain [Manapat v CA]

[1] The property taken must be private property;

[2] There must be genuine necessity to take the private property;

[3] The taking must be for public use;

[4] There must be payment of just compensation;

[5] The taking must comply with due process of law

Taking of Private Property: [Forform]

[1] The expropriator must enter a private property

[2] The entrance into private property must be for more than a momentary period;

[3] The entry into the property should be under warrant or color of legal authority;

[4] The property must be devoted to a public purpose or otherwise informally, appropriately or
injuriously affected;

[5] The utilization of the property for public use must be in such a way as to oust the owner and
deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment of the property.

Guiding factors in determination of just compensation [Agpalo Commentary]:

(1) The reasonable market value of a property, which is what it should bring when offered for
sale by one who desires but is not obliged to sell

(2) The value of the property sought to be expropriated.

Expropriation Proceedings

2 Stages of Expropriation Proceedings:

1. Determination of the Validity of the Expropriation

2. Determination of Just Compensation

Delegation to Local Government:

(1) An ordinance is enacted by the local gov‘t legislative body authorizing the chief executive, on
behalf of the local gov‘t unit, to exercise the power of eminent domain;

(2) The power is exercised for public purpose or welfare or for the benefit of the poor and
landless;

(3) There is payment of just compensation; and

(4) A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner of the property sought to be
expropriate and the offer was not accepted.

Requisites for a Reasonable Classification: People v. Cayat

[1] The classification must rest on substantial distinctions which make real differeces

[2] It must be germane to the purposes of law

[3] It must apply equally to all members of the class; and

[4] It must not be limited to existing conditions only.

Requisites for a valid search warrant [Nala v. Barroso Jr.]

1. Existence of probable cause;

2. Personal determination of probable cause by a judge;

3. Personal determination after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce;

4. Complainant and witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and

5. Particular description of the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Valid warrantless searches [People v. Aruta]

1. Search incidental to lawful arrest;

2. Seizure of evidence in plainview;

3. Search of a moving vehicle;

4. Consented search;

5. Customs search;

6. Stop-and-frisk; and

7. Exigent and emergency circumstances

Additiona valid warrantless searches [Nachura(outline]

1. Search of vessels and aircrafts (including fishing vessels) [people v. belen Macarios]

2. Inspectionof buildings and other premises for enforcement of fire, sanitary and building
regulations.

3. Checkpoints (visual search; however a body search may be conducted once probable cause
is established by the visual search) [Valmonte v. De Villa]

Plainview Doctrine

Requisites [People v. Aruta]

1. Prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest, in which the police are legally
present in the pursuit of their official duties;

2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had a right to be where they were;

3. Evidence must be immediately apparent; and

4. Evidence was seized without further search.

Consented Search

Requisites for a valid waiver of the constitutional right [Manalili v. CA]

1. Right to be waived exists;

2. Person waiving it has actual knowledge of said right; and

3. Person has an actual intention to waive said right.

Test for validity of a stop-and-frisk search:

1. There must be specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences,
reasonably warrant the intrusion.

2. The officer must identify himself and make reasonable inquiries

3. The ―frisk is permitted to search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where
he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless
of probable cause for a crime.

4. The scope of the search is limited to the outer surface of the subject‘s clothing.

According to Valmonte v. De Villa, routine checkpoints are valid if:

1. Vehicle is neither searched, nor its occupants subjected to a body search; and

2. Inspection is merely limited to a visual search of the vehicle.

Search Incidental to lawful Arrest

Requisites:

1. There must be a lawful arrest

2. The search must be limited in Scope

Requisites for a Valid Arrest Warrant

1. Existence of probable cause;

2. Personal determination of probable cause by a judge;

3. Complainant and witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and

4. Particular description of the person/s to be arrested and of the crime/s

Valid Warrantless Arrests by a Private Person or a Police Officer [Sec. 5, Rule 113, ROC]
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense, [or in flagrante delicto arrest];

2. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it, [or hot pursuit arrest]; and

Requisites [People v. Mengote]

a) Offense has just been committed; and

b) Arresting officer had probable cause to believe the accused committed the offense
based on personal knowledge.

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, (or arrest of escaped
prisoners).

The general rule is that an encroachment on the right to privacy is invalid when:

(1) There is a reasonable expectation of privacy,

(2) If there is no compelling state interest.

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

The reasonableness of a person‘s expectation of privacy depends on a two-part test

[Ople v Torres]:

a) Whether by his conduct, the citizen has displayed an expectation of privacy (Subjective
Expectation)

b) Whether this expectation of privacy is deemed reasonable by society (Objective Expectatoin)

Valid Intrusions by Virtue of Art. III, Sec. 3:

􀁸 Lawful order of the court

􀁸 When public safety or order requires otherwise prescribed as law

Test of a valid ordinance; substantive requirements:

(1) must not contravene the Const. or any statute;

(2) must not be unfair or oppressive;

(3) must not be partial or discriminatory;

(4) must not prohibit but may regulate trade;

(5) must be general and consistent with public policy;

(6) must not be unreasonable.